Should Hawaii be added to NATO?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html

Because in a quirk of geography and history, Hawaii is not technically covered by the NATO pact.

If a foreign power attacked Hawaii – say the US Navy’s base at Pearl Harbor or the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command northwest of Honolulu – the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be obligated to rise to the Aloha State’s defense.

“It’s the weirdest thing,” says David Santoro, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, who added that even most Hawaii residents have no idea their state is technically adrift of the alliance.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Of course, both to ensure that our state is fully protected under all our alliances AND to trigger the "Liberate Hawaii" freakshows.

What a weird little quirk of history.

[Electric Circus]

Joe Biden's comments about Japan last week were a diplomatic faux pas, for sure, but this escalation is getting ridiculous.

[Dr. MB]

Hawai'i should be an independent country

[Battista Minola 1616]

Are Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa covered?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Are Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa covered?

They are not, and neither are the US Virgin Islands.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/10/nato-isnt-defending-guam-but-others-are/

[Battista Minola 1616]

Are Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa covered?

They are not, and neither are the US Virgin Islands.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/10/nato-isnt-defending-guam-but-others-are/

The latter is more surprising since they are in a branch of the Atlantic.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Are Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa covered?

They are not, and neither are the US Virgin Islands.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/10/nato-isnt-defending-guam-but-others-are/

The latter is more surprising since they are in a branch of the Atlantic.

It surprised me too. Apparently the treaty only covered land and territories north of the Tropic of Cancer. I'm unclear whether that also excludes Puerto Rico.

[Del Tachi]

No, as Germany or Belgium should be under no obligation to defend Pacific islands on the other side of the world. And as a practical matter, they can't.  This is not a "quirk" of geography or history.  The U.S. likewise wanted no defense obligations for France or England's still-large colonial empires when NATO was founded in 1949. NATO notably didn't come to the aid of the UK when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina in 1982.

[Blue3]

Honestly, even if not an official obligation, NATO members would almost 100% still respond as if mainland US was attacked.

And the Pearl Harbor analogies would be everywhere.

[dead0man]

yeah, the US is not going to need to go looking for allies if "someone" attacks Hawaii

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I struggle to envision a scenario in which Hawaii gets attacked that doesn't result in escalation to another full-scale land invasion with the same allies, so it doesn't need to be.

[President Johnson]

Hawaii actually should be covered because it's part of the United States, a NATO member. Whether the US would need assitance from NATO partners in that specific and purely hypothetical scenario is another question.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Are Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa covered?

"Should Americans be willing to die for Guamanians?"

[Santander]

You might as well add Australia to NATO at that point. There is a reason why the US maintains multiple important alliances in the Pacific.

[TDAS04]

Yeah. So should the Philippines.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is why the falklands war did not trigger a nato war on argentina

[HisGrace]

I would imagine the reason for this is that when NATO was created it was 100% about the USSR so them attacking Hawaii wasn't really relevant. Of course today you might have to think about China doing it at some point. So seems like a good call. Don't think overseas territories are necessary to add.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hawai'i should be an independent country

The initial annexation was immoral and illegal, but that ship has sailed. This is not a place that is going to benefit from being a small Pacific island nation among others rather than part of the United States.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Hawai'i should be an independent country

The initial annexation was immoral and illegal, but that ship has sailed. This is not a place that is going to benefit from being a small Pacific island nation among others rather than part of the United States.

Yeah, there's a reason support for independence in the state hovers roughly around the 5% mark in polls.

[Middle-aged Europe]

No, because Hawaii is a freak state, just like Alaska.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hawaii wasn't singled out. It seems French Guiana isn't covered by Article 5 either despite being a French department.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

From the article in the OP, by the way:

A US State Department spokesperson confirmed that Hawaii is not covered by Article 5, but said Article 4, which says members will consult when “the territorial integrity, political independence or security” of any member is threatened, should cover any situation that could affect the 50th state.