Theoretically yes. This is an issue that has been considered before, though admittedly not with regards to fucking Greenland. Turkiye and Greece have long been enemies as well as members of NATO, and it’s been considered that the invocation of Article 5 by the aggressed-upon party against the aggressing party in case of a serious war would, theoretically, be binding on the other members of NATO.
In practice, NATO is a gentleman’s agreement with no means of enforcement. Everything comes down to political will - NATO is just an organizational structure to facilitate a response. It cannot replace the will (or lack thereof) of national governments.
Additionally, it’s helpful to know the specific language used in Article 5:
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 recognized 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.” (emphasis added)
Article 5 doesn’t actually oblige NATO members to defend anything by force, it obliges NATO members to decide what actions are “deemed necessary” and then to undertake those actions. If a NATO member gets invaded, everyone could – in theory – write a sternly worded letter and call it a day (though I doubt that would be the actual response). As you/others have more or less said, the actual action chosen would largely be the result of political will.
Article 5 doesn’t actually oblige NATO members
I do not share your interpretation (although I know that it has been the popular one recently).
I read it like this:
-
The obligation is out of any question: they “will” assist.
-
The goal of all measures is defined: “restore […] peace and security”.
-
The choice of measures isn’t totally free. It must fit to that goal.
So, yes they can decide whether or not no use force, but they cannot follow random political agendas there.
And not fold paper airplanes instead of real ones :)
Presumably the member states can decide to interpret it however they’d like, but for whatever it’s worth I’m just paraphrasing what political scientist William Spaniel (…who I thought would have had a Wikipedia page by now) has said on the topic of Article 5 (though the context wasn’t the US invading Greenland lol)
-
Ah, but it doesn’t say anything about an unarmed attack!
Please don’t give the US any ideas ;_;
I just think a giant swarm of rednecks spilling over the border trying to punch anything they can is a funny mental image.
And since it’s basically the US and everyone else in equal share, NATO is just dead and irrelevant if they’re the ones breaking it.
The EU, on the other hand, would probably be in like a dirty shirt, having a defence agreement aspect. Maybe Canada too, just because we’d know we’re next.
Even during the recent occupation of Ukraine and the threat upon neighboring countries that are in NATO there was discussion about what-ifs, and how much gray area there is in such events. The core idea of NATO was about deterrence, much like the MAD of nuclear weapon buildup. If someone crosses that line, something has to happen otherwise the whole agreement is called out as meaningless. Article 5 leaves what actions need to happen open ended though, so assistance can be something as simple as persuading the attacker to leave via strong words. Which will absolutely be the first thing tried, as no one wants to escalate to the next level. Well, except the idiots who are attacking.
To your point, I think the political will to defend Greenland will definitely be there from the overwhelming majority of other NATO states.
Will the political will to start an actual shooting war with the US be there?
It’s Greenland. Just principle isn’t going to move anybody. Maybe not even Denmark. There’s other treaties, though.
Yeah. The invocation of Article 5 for Afghanistan showed a mixed response from the various NATO nations in what support they would provide.
In practice, it would be the end of NATO.
Article 5 doesn’t oblige members to take any particular action. It only says that an attack on one is an attack on all, and leaves it to each member to decide what actions, if any, they will take in response.
It says each member will assist the attacked party/parties, as it deems necessary.
My interpretation of the article is that assistance is mandatory. What type of assistance is up to the member to decide
https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_110496.htm?selectedLocale=en
Prayers and likes is assistance right?
Thou shall not, not, probably assist. 🤷🏻♂️
Side note: If this administration does invade, just accept the invite to the group chat our drunken Secretary of Defense sends you.
Probably? I don’t think anyone knows for sure. It’s not like NATO countries have invaded each other before.
USA itself would violate it’s own membership. With such an act it became the enemy of the NATO.
Obligation or not, it would set a frightening precedent of they didn’t.
Yeah, it’s a no win. Either NATO becomes ineffective because it won’t honour it’s agreement or WW3 starts.
It’s not an easy say since Greenland is not a nato member, however it’s an autonomous state of Denmark, which is.
Anyone’s guess, really.
Edit: just as an addition I want to clarify I am trying to help answer the question. I wish peace for the world and especially Greenland.
Greenland is not a nato member
That’s like saying your right arm isn’t a human.
Greenland is simply a part of Denmark, so it is a NATO member.
It’s actually not that easy. Parts of countries can be actually be part or not part of international agreements - Greenland for example is not part of the EU, Denmark as such is. Same goes for a lot,but not all, French oversea territories.
In terms of Greenland this is actually bad for Greenland in hindsight as the EU defence accords are more far reaching as the NATO accords which take precedence, though.
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
I stated that factually. It’s not my opinion.
If that’s not the case in this construct I might be wrong, fair enough.
I am not an expert on this, I just looked up nato members and Greenland is not in there.
But Denmark is deemed legally to protect its autonomy which is a nato country. It’s a strange case…
I know it’s not the best source from what I read on the Wikipedia article Greenland being a Autonomous territory of Denmark is apart of Denmark and therefore a NATO member
On 20 March 2023 Greenland send their own diplomat within Denmark’s group. So not only are they a Denmark Autonomous territory but they also have their own diplomat in NATO.
Whether or not they have to defend, if they don’t, Greece and Erdogan will go to war.
Article 5 is only an obligation to have a meeting if someone calls for a meeting. It is not as strong as propagandized.
Greece and Turkey often have clashes and it is never a NATO issue.
CIA pig vermin NATO chief, Rutte, said it would not be a NATO matter.
Check the article 5 requirement. I don’t see any “unless another NATO country” exceptions.
Probably moot as all the US has to do is increase presence and wait for an “or else” moment, so that they can rely with “or else what?”
Kind of like Czechoslovakia in WW2.
