This might have already been asked and answered in other threads…if so, my apologies, just link to them and then a Mod can shut this down if there is nothing new. My question is, why doesn’t France invoke Article 5? Seems to me that this would be a perfect use of the treaty and would bring the rest of NATO into the fight against ISIS (or at least open the door to some level of NATO participation against ISIS). Is there a reason France isn’t doing this (or perhaps a reason France wouldn’t do it)? What are the ramifications of invoking the treaty for this?
I’m unsure how much help NATO could be as a whole in fighting ISIS in Syria, but individual NATO countries could probably assist, even if in training or logistics or other supporting roles.
What would be the benefit of invoking article 5? The big armies of NATO are already involved with the fighting of ISIS. And the PR downside is legitimizing ISIS as a nation.
It would bring in basically all of NATO at some level, would reinforce that the treaty is still viable and basically rally the alliance behind France. I don’t see the downside, to be honest. It doesn’t legitimize ISIS or make it a nation state, merely a group to be attacked. There was talk of the US invoking the treaty after 9/11 after all, which wouldn’t have made AQ a nation state either.
Invoking it for 9/11 (I thought it was invoked, not just talked about) was so we could attack Afghanistan for harboring the terrorists - not for attacking al Queda. Again, the important militaries are already involved. Getting all of NATO involved officially wouldn’t have much added benefit.
I also don’t agree with the negative PR aspect. The only legitimization is they are someone who’s ass we want to kick. And really, what difference does it make if they feel validated? They’ll keep doing what they do regardless.
It could help recruiting if NATO officially declares war on them. I guess big picture it probably makes little difference either way, I can just see why France might be reluctant to make it all official.
I have seen quite a lot of talk of article 5. Does France even have to be the one to invoke it? I think I can hear the drumbeats of war pretty clearly.
Invoking it unsuccessfully, which could occur if many members disagree that it applies to the attack in question or to ISIS as a pseudo-state / terrorist organization, could fray the perceived strength of the treaty. Doesn’t seem worth it to me given that the US is already involved and will carry the bulk of the burden in any case.
I’d imagine keeping it informal would help keep the Russians from worrying about working with us. I don’t know if they’re actually able to drag Assad to the bargaining table in a meaningful way, but they’ve appeared to agree to a peaceful exit for him.
Probably they feel they don’t need to, and that whatever action they think necessary to take might not best be organised under a command system designed for war with another state - which ISIS is not, and no-one should want to give them even the semblance of that status. I’m not even sure how far France went back on de Gaulle’s withdrawal from the unified command system.
The invocation of the North Atlantic Treaty does not legitimize ISIS as a nation-state. Nothing in the Article 5 (or Article 6, which clarifies it) specifies that the attack upon a member of NATO must be by a nation-state. The English text in full:
*Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.*
That’s it. It doesn’t say the attack has to be by a recognized nation-state. It was invoked by NATO members in 2001 though al-Qaida is not a state and the Taliban wasn’t recognized as a government by any of the Allies. Indeed, ISIS is far more of a state than al-Qaida is - it holds territory and acts like a state.
We’re talking about optics not the technical wording of the treaty. The invoking of article 5 over 9/11 was probably a mistake but as I said, it was really invoked to attack Afghanistan, not al Qaida.
Which time? They were one of the founding members so they joined in, IIRC, 1948. They left the alliance in 1966 and rejoined in 2008 or 2009 and are now a full member again.
In related news, France has invoked the mutual defense clause of the European Union. That’s likely more useful, since the NATO members who can most actively fight IS already are.
They were one of the founding members so they joined in, IIRC, 1948. They left the alliance in 1966 and rejoined in 2008 or 2009 and are now a full member again.