Sweden recently became the newest member of NATO, joining 31 nations in the security alliance, excluding the United States of Hawaii due to a quirk of geography and history. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be obligated to rise to Hawaii’s defense if it were attacked by a foreign power, as stated in the Washington Treaty that established NATO in 1949. Article 6 of the treaty limits the geographic scope of collective self-defense to Europe or North America, excluding islands in the North Atlantic or north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Despite not being covered by Article 5 of the NATO treaty, Hawaii’s strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific region has sparked debates about whether its exclusion should be reconsidered, especially in light of potential Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. In a 2022 wargame scenario, China targeted US command and control installations in Hawaii as part of a simulated attack on Taiwan. Some experts argue that including Hawaii under NATO’s umbrella could serve as a deterrent to potential adversaries like China, signaling a united front among allies in defense of US territory.
The historical significance of Hawaii, particularly as the site of the Pearl Harbor attack that drew the US into World War II, adds complexity to the question of its inclusion in NATO. Hawaii’s exclusion raises concerns about whether NATO’s European members have an “escape clause” regarding the defense of US territory in the Indo-Pacific region. Experts also highlight the strategic importance of Guam, another US Pacific island territory, which faces threats from North Korea and could benefit from NATO’s security assurances.
While some analysts argue that the technicality of Hawaii’s exclusion from NATO would not prevent a strong and coordinated response from the US and its allies in case of an attack on the state, others emphasize the importance of deepening ties among democratic nations in the face of potential threats. A coalition of the willing involving regional allies and other partners could be convened to respond to an attack on Hawaii or Guam, with the US maintaining military control over the response and diplomatic flexibility. The unity and commitment among NATO members in addressing security challenges posed by Russia and China indicate a strong foundation for collective defense efforts.
The US State Department has confirmed that Hawaii is not covered by Article 5 of the NATO treaty but suggested that Article 4, calling for consultation in the face of threats to member states’ territorial integrity or security, could apply to situations involving the 50th state. However, the likelihood of an amendment to include Hawaii in the treaty is uncertain, as other members also have territories outside the boundaries set in Article 5. Despite the technical limitations of the treaty, the shared commitment of NATO members to defending democratic values and addressing global security challenges remains a cornerstone of transatlantic cooperation.
