The North Atlantic Treaty Organization - short NATO - is the largest and most powerful military alliance in the world. At the release of this video, it has 31 member states across North America and Europe. And soon, Sweden will likely join as well as its' 32nd member - provided Turkey and Hungary don't change their mind. The core strength of NATO lies in the wording of its infamous Article 5, which states that "an armed attack against one or more member states shall be considered an attack against them all". But what if sometimes it isn't? What fewer people know is that NATO's Article 5 has geographic limits which leave quite a few territories belonging to NATO-members without its' protection, including an entire US-state! These limits are found in Article 6 of the NATO treaty, which specifies that in order to potentially invoke Article 5, an armed attack on a member state must happen within a specific geographic area. Today, this area includes all member territories in North America and Europe, the entirety of Turkey - including its' Asian part, as well as all Islands belonging to the member states above the so-called "Tropic of Cancer". The treaty vaguely calls this the "North Atlantic Area". Interestingly, these limitations leave out some notable territories belonging to NATO members: Namely, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the United States and the Netherlands, which impacts the security situation of these nations to varying degrees. But why do these limitations even exist in the first place? And could they even be changed? More about that after a quick word from this video sponsor: Conflict of Nations! (Start of Advertisement) A free online PVP strategy game which allows you to choose a real country to lead during World War 3! Forget Article 5, because all you need to do to start your very own world war is a barely working PC or mobile device! With that, you can declare war on your neighbours and forge alliances with up to 128 other players in realtime games that can take weeks to complete! Conflict of Nations allows you to build up your nation's army with tanks, jets and submarines and engage in epic battles, at the end of which you may end up taking over the world. But you will have to create your own strategy to beat all your enemies - and believe me you will have many. And if you do, please don't nuke me - look, I'm even going to help you with world domination: By clicking on the link in the description, you can get 13,000 gold and one month of premium subscription for free as a starting gift, which will also help this channel out. But remember, this offer is only available for 30 days! Thanks to Conflict of Nations for sponsoring this video and now back to NATO (End of Advertisement). When NATO was founded in 1949, it was the intention of most founding members to limit the alliance's scope to better focus on its' main mission: containing the Soviet Union and the spread of Communism in Europe during the Cold War. At that time, several founding members still had colonial possessions and overseas territories across the globe, and the idea of getting dragged into each other's post-colonial conflicts didn't appeal to most of them. And so, article 6 was put in place to define the geographic limits of the alliance. But to also allow for flexibility, the wording of these limitations was kept somewhat vague. Article 6 doesn't define what North America or Europe exactly is. However, it does set a clear Southern border for Island territories with the so-called "Tropic of Cancer", which is the northernmost line of latitude where the sun can directly be above you. As a consequence, these limitations leave a number of member territories without Article 5 protections. So what are these unprotected areas? Most of them are so-called "overseas territories", which are in large part remnants of the colonial history of some NATO members. This of course includes the United Kingdom, which owns quite a few Islands below the Tropic of Cancer. The fact that these territories do not enjoy NATO protections was demonstrated in 1982, when Argentina began an amphibious invasion of the British controlled Falkland Islands, or how the Argentinians call them: Islas Malvinas - something I also made a video about. Although the UK received material and intelligence support from some NATO members, including the United States, NATO as a whole was not involved and the Brits had to fight their war on their own. The Netherlands are also in a very similar position, as they own a few Islands in the Caribbean below the the Tropic of Cancer. As well as France, which has overseas territories scattered around the world and even a large chunk of territory in South America known as French Guiana. According to the wording of article 6, all these territories would not qualify for NATO Article 5 protections. What's interesting about the French case is that article 6 specifically includes protections for an area of France that isn't part of France anymore: the French Departments of Algeria. Back when the NATO treaty was made, Paris treated the Northern part of Algeria as part of France proper instead of a colonial possession, as many ethnic French had settled in the region. And so, France successfully lobbied for the French Departments of Algeria to be included in the NATO treaty. However, the Algerians eventually achieved Independence in 1962 and Northern Algeria stopped being a part of France, which made the section of the treaty obsolete - or did it? Because it may still be relevant for a different member of the alliance: Spain. Unlike the United Kingdom or France, Spain doesn't have Islands which are below the Tropic of Cancer. And so, all of the Spanish Islands - including the further away Canary Islands, are protected by NATO's article 5. But that's not everything Spain owns. It's also in possession of some small territories in North Africa Ceuta, Melilla and Vélez de la Gomera. These territories became part of Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries and are subject to a serious territorial dispute with Morocco. Spain and Morocco have a complicated history which is a story for another time, but what's clear is that Spanish officials take the dispute with Morocco very seriously and see it as a real security threat - and not without reason: In 2002, Morocco briefly occupied an uninhabited Island near Ceuta that is part of the dispute. While this crisis luckily didn't last long and the Moroccans soon withdrew, it did show that the dispute has serious potential for escalation. This is why the question of whether these Spanish territories are protected by NATO's Article 5 is so important to Madrid. But that is questionable to say the least, because they are not in Europe and also not Islands for the most part. And having no Article 5 protection here would be a nightmare for Spain, as it would leave Morocco with the option to try to take these territories by force without NATO interference. This is why some argue that the provisions on the French Departments of Algeria may also cover Spain's North African territories, since in both cases we have a European NATO member with territories in North Africa that are not considered colonies. But this interpretation is shaky at best, which is why Spanish officials have tried to get written guarantees for these territories - with mixed results. In July of 2022, Spain brought up the topic again during the Madrid NATO Summit. Subsequently, a declaration was made which underlined the alliance's commitment to defend every inch of allied territory - but are Spain's North African territories also allied territory? Well, it remains unclear. When NATO's General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg was further pressed on this issue, he reiterated that invoking article 5 is ultimately a political decision that is made by the member states - which again leaves room for interpretation and allows NATO members to argue against invoking article 5 in the case of a Moroccan attack on Spain's North African territories. The United States in particular has a very close relationship with Morocco and is even moving towards recognizing Morocco's sovereignity over the disputed Western Sahara, which very few countries have recognized thus far. A Spanish- Moroccan conflict would therefore present a real dilemma for the US. And it's unclear what would happen in such a scenario. Speaking of the United States, they also have a number of territories outside the geographic limits defined by article 6, including Guam, Puerto Rico and an entire US state: Hawaii. Despite this, you will have a hard time trying to find Hawaiians who are seriously concerned about this. Why? Because the United States is by far the strongest military power within NATO and the world, meaning Washington can easily provide the necessary security without the rest of NATO. But does this mean that, for instance, Kazakhstan could send special forces to invade Hawaii to secure sunny beaches and access to the world's oceans without triggering NATO's article 5? The answer is complicated. Article 5 is the most powerful tool NATO has at its disposal, so much so that using it could completely change the world we live in. Therefore, article 5 is seen as a last resort option reserved for emergencies only, which is why it has been invoked only once in NATO history after... uh, after... the, uh... event. This is why invoking it is, as Stoltenberg said, ultimately a political decision and not an automatic process. And what matters most in the end is the political will within the alliance. That means that even if NATO forces are attacked somewhere in the North Atlantic area, the alliance members could still decide that invoking article 5 is not the best course of action and would instead resort to other measures. That also means that if an attack on NATO members would occur on the blurry edges of the geographic limits of article 6, it's again the political will of NATO that decides. Should Hawaii really be invaded by barely dressed men with majestic moustaches, it's hard to imagine that other NATO members would refuse to invoke article 5 in such a case, if so desired by Washington. The same cannot be said about the other NATO members with edge-case territories, because they simply do not bring the same political weight to the table. Should the Spanish-Moroccan conflict escalate, Spain could present a case for why its North African territories should be protected by article 5 - however, due to the close relationship of some NATO members with Morocco, like the US and Turkey, it would be much more difficult for Madrid to get everyone on board with this. Especially, when considering the fact that a good case can be made for why Spain's territories should not be protected by article 5 as well. All this begs the question: Could the geographic scope defined by NATO's article 6 be changed to ensure the protection of virtually all the territories belonging to NATO members? Well, we know it could be changed, because it happened already. Back in 1952, article 6 was changed for the first and only time to explicitly include all of Turkey's territory with its Asian part when it joined NATO. So, the wording could theoretically be changed again. However, it seems that at the moment there is no political will to do so. Firstly, these boundaries can create convenient justifications for not getting involved in difficult situations. And secondly, NATO is currently focused on opposing Russia in Eastern Europe - and for this purpose, the boundaries set by article 6 are no obstacle, at least for now. Nonetheless, there have been some developments which indicate that eventually NATO may become open to the idea of changing the alliances scope as a whole. While NATO members are currently focused on Eastern Europe, many analysts argue that the geopolitical focus will ultimately shift towards the Asia-Pacific. There, the constantly growing animosity between the United States and China over issues like the South China Sea dispute and the status of Taiwan are becoming more and more serious. And it's unclear what role, if any, NATO will play there. But we may get an idea when we look at the 2023 NATO Summit in Lithuania: Here, high ranking officials from Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea participated in talks to strengthen mutual security cooperations with NATO. While the participation of non-NATO officials at such summits is not that unusual, it is indicative of NATO being at the very least interested in strengthening the security dialogue in these regions and especially with those governments that are to varying degrees involved in building a quasi-alliance under the leadership of the United States to contain China in the Asia-Pacific. And should a new kind of cold war arise between the US and China, it's possible that NATO members may consider changing article 6 and the scope of the treaty as a whole. But for the foreseeable future, such a radical change is very unlikely to occur. Therefore, the geographic limits of NATO will remain for now - so if you live in Hawaii, you should prepare for the inevitable. (Advertisement) Thanks to Conflict of Nations for sponsoring this video and remember to check out the link in the description (End of Advertisement). A big thank you to all my patrons and channel members! Your support is really valuable! Thanks for watching, I'll see you in the next one, bye!