UK invoked Article Five during Falklands Invasion

What it says on the tin, what if the UK formally declared war on Argentina and invoked Article 5 during the Falklands invasion.

Was this even considered and if it happened would it have been answered with force by NATO?

And if it hadn’t what would have been the consequences vis a vis the Cold War?
 

Philip

Donor
The South Atlantic is not covered by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

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....​
 
The South Atlantic is not covered by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

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....​

That's interesting. So if hypothetically during the Cold War there had been a Soviet attack on Alaska, the NATO alliance was not obligated to respond?
 

Philip

Donor
That's interesting. So if hypothetically during the Cold War there had been a Soviet attack on Alaska, the NATO alliance was not obligated to respond?

Alaska is part of North America. The entirety of North America and Europe are part of the North Atlantic area.
 
Ah ok, missed that, read "North America" as "North Atlantic".

For NATO purposes, where does North America end? US-Mexico border, or are Central America and the Caribbean included?

I assume it ends where American/British sovereignty ends, since I don't believe any members of Latin America are member states.
 
NATO Article 6:
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, on the territory of Turkey 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.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
 
I assume it ends where American/British sovereignty ends, since I don't believe any members of Latin America are member states.

Dutch and French islands as well. But maybe not Belize or the mainland South American possessions? The Canal Zone would be included, I would think. It is a good question.

And does Hawaii count?
 
Dutch and French islands as well. But maybe not Belize or the mainland South American possessions? The Canal Zone would be included, I would think. It is a good question.

And does Hawaii count?

All those places are south of Tropic of Cancer.
Hawaii is in the Pacific, so there are two reasons it does not count.
 
All those places are south of Tropic of Cancer.
Hawaii is in the Pacific, so there are two reasons it does not count.

So a hostile attack on St. Pierre and Miquelon would have counted, but not one on Martinique. I assume any Soviet attacks south of the Tropic of Cancer would have necessitated a more ad hoc response?
 
I suppose could happen The same that happened when Argentina invoked The TIAR( treaty interamerican of mutual assitance), Basically all called The treaty invalid un this case and will strand The diplomatic relations of all The members
 
I think what it eventually come down to is indirect help on home defense. So UK would pull three frigates from the North Sea and send them to the Falklands, Germany and the Netherlands would supply three frigates to take over their oil platform patrols while the British are down South. Help like this has been done a couple of times before and several times since and for ages this was the closest thing the German military came to actual 'moving out'.

This is of course provided the British are comfortable with German warships taking up station jn Scapa Flow. In 1981, they probably still would have said:"Thank you, but no thanks'
 
This is of course provided the British are comfortable with German warships taking up station jn Scapa Flow. In 1981, they probably still would have said:"Thank you, but no thanks'

No they'd have been fine, just some "watch out for the wrecks" jokes.
 
I would assume the UK was reluctant to do anything which suggested they weren't capable of handling the situation themselves as that would be a pretty humiliating admission.
 
Top