"Two Questions about the NATO Alliance" Topic

To the wise folk of TMP:
My first question asks is there anyway that the NATO alliance could launch military action against a country that is a member of NATO if that country had not attacked another NATO country? Is there a mechanism in the NATO charter to expel a member state so that NATO could then attack it? Suppose, for example, that a NATO member state began to treat a minority population within its borders very badly and quickly escalated to violence against the minority, leading to concerns of imminent genocide. Could NATO attack? Or if a cash strapped and angry NATO member decided to lease out port facilities on the Meditterranean to a potentially hostile non-NATO country in an effort to raise cash for debt relief what could be done? Let us suppose that the negotiations were successfully kept secret and the world, Europe and NATO learn of the deal as potentially hostile naval forces are moving into their new ports. Could NATO intervene militarily to block such a move?
What mechanism(s) does NATO have to use force, if necessary, against alliance members who do not behave in accordance with NATO/European expectations and endanger the alliance?
My second question is can anyone think of examples of when NATO has not come to the aid of member states who were attacked by non-member states? I can only come up with two. The 1982 Falklands War where Britain was attacked by Argentina and the 1961 Goa War in India where Portugal was attacked by Nehru's India. The Turkish vs. Greek Cyprus debacle also comes to mind but as both sides in that dispute were in NATO I do not count that.
The reason that I ask this is that several quiet statements made by NATO members this summer seem to indicate that some NATO members may not support Eastern European states in the event of a clash with Russia. Can NATO compel member states to fight on its behalf?
Thanks for any input you can offer and there is no need to comment on the hypothetical examples. I am only interested in the the powers/limitations of the alliance to discipline it's own members with the ultimate sanction of military action.
Cheers and thanks in advance.
Rod Robertson.

Article V of the NATO treaty obligates members to respond militarily to an attack on any member, but the treat limits that to north of the Tropic of Cancer. Article V was only invoked once: 9/11. NATO cannot coerce a member state to respond, but there can be political and economic consequences outside the NATO framework. Some members are so small, they effectively have no choice. Iceland, for example, could not prevent NATO occupation in the event of a war in 1985 any more than they prevented the British occupation in 1940.

I don't know of any mechanism for internal military enforcement, but there are extensive political and economic measures available.

But in the end, a nation acts in its own best interests. If it believes NATO is no longer the best answer, like France in the 1960s, they will withdrawal.

Yes, I agree … the politics of the current situation has changed since NATO's inception.

But in the end, a nation acts in its own best interests

That is really the bottom line …

Cold Steel:
Thanks for the clarification on the Tropic of Cancer. Two questions arise from that. Nations like the USA and Britain view cyber and economic attacks as threats which require a military response, defacto if not dejure acts of war. If European countries were to sanction a European NATO member state economically, would that be an act of war by NATO standards? Could the sanctioned state claim so and attempt to invoke Article V?
Second, would NATO be able to ignore a call for Article V protection if other European states sent troops into a member state with the explicit mandate to only protect a minority population in a well defined region, and did not threaten the rest of the targeted state?
The mandate of NATO. Has changed since 1989 and it seems to me that protection of lines of trade, supply and communication is a very vague mandate for the alliance these days.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

L4 and Cold Steel:
Given trends in European public opinion, then NATO might not be able to effectively respond to Russian aggression towards Eastern Europe.
link
On a side note, if a non-member state attacked Puerto Rico or Guam, would that mean that NATO was not obligated to aid the USA?
Cheers gents.
Rod Robertson.

That is probably true Rod … but in the end … we'd really have to wait and see. Based on the current political situation at the time. Plus the fact that many of NATO's primary members have seriously downsized their militaries. As well as some of the newer members may not have very large useful forces in any case. And I seriously doubt any one would come to assist the US if Guam or PR were threated. Of course the Aussies might show if Guam was attacked. It is in their neighborhood and they always seem to show up for a good fight !

L4:
I admit that I am confused. In 1962 during the Cuban Missle Crisis NATO planes with Turkish piloted were tasked with protecting American planes armed with nuclear weapons in anticipation of the need of a nuclear attack on the USSR. The Turks were not happy with this but NATO forced the issue. But Cuba lies south of the Tropic of Cancer so how was Kennedy able to trigger NATO action on America's behalf considering the USSR had not attacked anyone at the time?
Is all this just being made up as we go and justified after the fact?
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Is all this just being made up as we go and justified after the fact?

As I said, based on the current political situation at the time. And who ever may want to show up to help based on other reasons, etc. … If the poop hit the fan in Cuba. The USSR would have probably attacked into Western Europe. So that threat or actual attack would be why NATO was formed. To stop the USSR/Warsaw Pact from attack Western Europe. A little like a domino effect … Or a very big game of Risk …

I've played a lot of Twilight Struggle recently, and the NATO card prevents coups and re-alignments in western Europe but does not give any bonuses to doing so outside that region.

On topic, why wouldn't we come?
We showed up for Iraq and Afghanistan which had much less justification than a small country being invaded.

Many do/did show up for things like A'stan. Which it appeared to many in the West as well as other places like Oz. That AQ was a threat. And it may be "politically" "favorable" to show up, help out, and may have the favor returned in the future, etc. …

War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means.

Carl von Clausewitz

"I admit that I am confused."

First time I agree with you!

NATO has several levels of response by member nations. Article V is the highest: full military response under a unified command against an outside aggressor. Article IV, which requires consultation, but does not obligate military force, has been implemented 5 times.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

NATO was formed for a specific purpose and fulfilled that role for 50 years. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the organization thought that mission no longer existed, so politicians began changing NATO's role, more an attempt to find a new mission for a large existing bureaucracy than fulfilling an actual need. 9/11 proved international relations are governed not just by the rule of force, but also the law of unintended consequences. In all of NATO's history, no one dreamed the one time Article V would be invoked was for an attack on the US instead of Europe. When I was in uniform, a lot of us had doubts about the willingness of some members, especially along the southern tier, to keep their promises. Our allies' response with the numbers and quality of troops was very appreciated and somewhat surprising to some of us. Even the French didn't hesitate. Denmark, for example, did not have a vested interest in the Middle East, but they committed a force to Afghanistan that was proportionally as large as the US forces.

NATO is a military command and logistics organization, not a form of international government. It is a organization of countries who joined together voluntarily for self-defense. It is not structured to force its will on member states. To change the mission to internal enforcement would destroy the political support that made it so successful. Ultimately, NATO depends on popular support of its members.

Interesting and enlightening Cold Steel. Thank you. I have read the Wikipedia article and quite a few others but I am still no closer to understanding how NATO would react to a violent humanitarian crisis caused by a member state or a member state acting in concert with a nonmember state in a way which could threaten NATO security. It's perplexing.

Tuscaloosa:
Touché, sir!

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

It shouldn't be perplexing. NATO wasn't designed to do what you are asking. If the situation arises, the national governments have to collectively figure out how to respond and then tell NATO what they want done. NATO doesn't make policy, they execute it. NATO can make recommendations, but that's it until the political leadership decides what to do. Since the scenarios you are describing are outside the treaty, member states would have to decide if they will participate.

Cold Steel:
Let us suppose that for humanitarian reasons or because Europe must act quickly, some European governments elect to move militarily against an offending NATO member state and that same misbehaving member state invokes Article V forcing non-European states like the US, Turkey and Canada to come to its aid. How would NATO react? Would it honour it's Article V obligations as best it could and defend the badly behaving member state or would it stand aside and let the European forces enter the targeted member state? If Europe could not come to a unanimous agreement would this trigger a European wide "civil-war"? If NATO members are obligated to defend other member states, how could any member state intervene, even for the best of reasons, if such intervention triggers a NATO response? That is what puzzles me. How would NATO evaluate which group to support, remembering that inaction is tacit cooperation with the intervening European forces. Whose orders would NATO follow?
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Ultimately, NATO depends on popular support of its members.

And that is the bottom line today… As I said as well as Cold Steel, NATO was formed primarily to stop the USSR/Warsaw Pact from attacking Western Europe. Defend Western Europe … Things have changed a bit …

It's a bit of a read but the following article causes me to wonder if NATO's "new" mission may change the organization's behaviour.
link
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

NATO cannot act outside the command authority of the civilian governments of the alliance. The NATO Council is the civilian authority over NATO and the individual member governments tell their Council representatives how to vote. If the Council doesn't order the military to act, the military doesn't. Even Article V is not automatic; the Council had to approve it after 9/11. NATO is the military arm of the alliance, not some independent entity. The military command structure is in place but dormant. Each member states' militaries are not under NATO command until one of the Articles are invoked and their own head of state orders them under NATO command. Yes, some military forces are stationed in other countries and coordinate training and logistics through the NATO bureaucracy, but they remain under the command of their respective governments. The US forces in Germany were not under NATO command, they were under the command of a US general in a US headquarters. Their presence was covered by a treaty between the US and W. Germany to pre-position the forces in the event NATO action was required. They were not under NATO authority until ordered so by the President following approval of the NATO Council.

In your scenario, the combined heads of state would have to collectively decide how to respond. If there was not enough agreement to act through the NATO Council, the individual nations could still order their military to act, albeit with political complications. Such action would be outside the NATO treaty. The 1986 US air strikes against Libya are an example. Following Libyan-backed terrorist attacks in Europe, the political governments could not agree on a NATO response. Reagan ordered the airstrikes anyway from carriers and USAF forces stationed in Britain. All those forces were earmarked and pre-positioned for NATO if the Soviets attacked, but were still under US command. Britain supported our actions and permitted forces stationed there to act. France, Spain and Italy opposed the strikes and denied us overflight rights. All 3 nations later faced political and economic repercussions, but we could not force them to support us.

Your article demonstrates what I said earlier. NATO was formed with the specific mission of defending against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. With the fall of the SU/WP, NATO is now a civilian/military bureaucracy in search of a mission to justify its continued existence and retention of its political power. There are some good arguments that it is no longer necessary or effective and should be replaced with a new structure. But the only thing harder to kill than a government bureaucracy is an international government bureaucracy.

Cold Steel:
Thanks for sticking around and having the patience to get this through my thick skull. I appreciate it.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Cue:tuscaloosa!

Given most NATO nations are also EU ones, attacks against their own population go directly against the rules of that organisation and would result in massive economic woes pretty quickly.

The most likely culprit is therefore Turkey… but given Turkey has been oppressing a minority for decades I assumes we'll continue to turn a blind eye.

Greece is unlikely to rent out ports to Russia because that would imperil its bail-out from the EU, so it's a non-issue.

There is no evidence that NATO wouldn't stand up to Russia if need be and, given the state of the Russian military, precious little to suggest we wouldn't win.

Russia is a paper tiger.

Worth noting that the militaries of the European members of NATO roughly equate to that of Russia, at 1.2 million apiece.

NATO overtops Russia by the armed force sof Canada, the USA and Turkey…..

Russia also has to guard long, vulnerable frontiers elsewhere. It can't afford to take on NATO.

For a start, if they did, the people keeping Putin in power would lose a fortune in London property and their kids would be in danger as most are at British private schools….

NATO cannot act outside the command authority of the civilian governments of the alliance.

France, Spain and Italy opposed the strikes and denied us overflight rights. All 3 nations later faced political and economic repercussions, but we could not force them to support us.

But the only thing harder to kill than a government bureaucracy is an international government bureaucracy.

All excellent and key points … you hit nails directly on the head Cold Steel …

One might add that the Russians post 1991 have had trouble with things like paying their soldiers regularly.

That might not bode so well for morale.

At time like this, I always think of this clip YouTube link
2.20 seconds in, specifically the comparison of the Falklands versus Hawaii.

I've never been a fan of Thatcher – certainly not as a civilian PM: rather like Churchill you really only want someone like that in charge when there's an international punch-up, not to sort out your health and welfare service. But this film, as well as being one of the best things Streep has ever done, makes an interesting bit of cinema and some very persuasive political points, and this clip shows one of them.

But that's all politics, really, so I'll shut up. "What is NATO for?" That's a very good question. Followed by the equally interesting "what is the UN for" and "what was the League of Nations all about".

A succession of paper tigers, possibly, but – at a distance – perhaps even a paper tiger can be mistaken for the real thing and, if that stops punch-ups developing (or developing further than they already do) then I guess it serves a purpose.

John T