It would have had nato membership as a British colony, but not as an independent country. Isn’t it like one of the few EU member countries that’s not part of nato?
If a NATO nation attacks another NATO nation they’re supposed to get kicked out. That’s why back in the 1990s there was so much mumbling about Russia joining NATO. Obviously it was never really considered seriously and then Putin’s “election” put a kibosh on that idea, but there was some suggestion that it might happen, and one of the questions that it raised was how do we handle that possibility. Because if any nation was going to attack any other nation it would be Russia.
It’s a bit pointless to talk about really because if the US actually attacked Canada things would get out of hand almost instantly with other nations taking preemptive steps, so any agreements on process would essentially be irrelevant anyway.
NATO’s Article 5 is consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognises that a state that is the victim of an armed attack has the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence, and may request others to come to its assistance. Within the NATO context, Article 5 translates this right of self-defence into a mutual assistance obligation.
For one, NATO votes on whether Article 5 will be invoked. Secondly, Article 5 does not define what type of response shall be rendered. We could find ourselves in a spot where NATO members send only thoughts and prayers.
“may request others” doesn’t make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”, leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.
What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don’t respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.
That’s Article 51, not 5. If you read the very first thing from the link:
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.
And when they don’t come to Canada’s assistance? When they decide that necessary assistance is to condemn US aggression and send Canada a “get well” card?
Article 5 was written with Russia in mind. The penalty for noncompliance would be a natural consequence that Russia would feel free to pick NATO countries off one at a time. It’s entirely ineffective against a US that literally could fight off the rest of NATO if it had to.
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.
Did you miss where “mutual assistance” is completely undefined. I’ll stick with my original answer. I’m sure NATO will come right to Canada’s assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.
Laws with no penalty clauses aren’t really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can’t be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.
Haven’t you learned by now that rules mean nothing? It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says that nations have to do, what matters is what they will do
Canada is in NATO. NATO countries are obligated to defend Canada if it is attacked.
I really wouldn’t bank in that.
Most nations are also required to prevent or punish genocide when they recognize it. And yet…
US will likely leave the NATO within the next three years.
Cyprus was in NATO.
When?
It would have had nato membership as a British colony, but not as an independent country. Isn’t it like one of the few EU member countries that’s not part of nato?
Before they were invaded.
It actually wasn’t.
Except when it’s been members, maybe?
If a NATO nation attacks another NATO nation they’re supposed to get kicked out. That’s why back in the 1990s there was so much mumbling about Russia joining NATO. Obviously it was never really considered seriously and then Putin’s “election” put a kibosh on that idea, but there was some suggestion that it might happen, and one of the questions that it raised was how do we handle that possibility. Because if any nation was going to attack any other nation it would be Russia.
It’s a bit pointless to talk about really because if the US actually attacked Canada things would get out of hand almost instantly with other nations taking preemptive steps, so any agreements on process would essentially be irrelevant anyway.
how naive can you be?
Article 5 is voluntary. Your statement is not true.
Article 5 isn’t voluntary.
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
For one, NATO votes on whether Article 5 will be invoked. Secondly, Article 5 does not define what type of response shall be rendered. We could find ourselves in a spot where NATO members send only thoughts and prayers.
Thank you for posting primary sources, it’s so rarely done.
“may request others” doesn’t make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”, leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.
What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don’t respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.
That’s Article 51, not 5. If you read the very first thing from the link:
And when they don’t come to Canada’s assistance? When they decide that necessary assistance is to condemn US aggression and send Canada a “get well” card?
Article 5 was written with Russia in mind. The penalty for noncompliance would be a natural consequence that Russia would feel free to pick NATO countries off one at a time. It’s entirely ineffective against a US that literally could fight off the rest of NATO if it had to.
Funny. You seemed to have completely ignored the part where it finishes with “mutual assistance obligation”. Or maybe you just didn’t read far enough.
Care to try again?
Maybe you’ll believe the Center for European Policy Analysis
But, what do they know anyways?
Did you miss where “mutual assistance” is completely undefined. I’ll stick with my original answer. I’m sure NATO will come right to Canada’s assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.
Laws with no penalty clauses aren’t really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can’t be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.
It isn’t voluntary.
Haven’t you learned by now that rules mean nothing? It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says that nations have to do, what matters is what they will do