Sweden recently joined NATO, becoming the 32nd member of the security alliance. However, one interesting quirk is that Hawaii is not technically covered by the NATO pact. This means that if a foreign power were to attack Hawaii, NATO would not be obligated to come to its defense. This is due to Hawaii’s geographic location in the Pacific, while NATO’s focus is on the North Atlantic. The Washington Treaty, which established NATO in 1949, specifically limits the geographic scope of the collective self-defense provision to Europe or North America, with some exceptions for island territories in the North Atlantic.
US military bases in Hawaii play a vital role in countering North Korean aggression and potentially supporting the defense of Taiwan. China considers Taiwan its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to reunify the island with the mainland. US policy, outlined in the Taiwan Relations Act, obligates the US to provide weaponry for Taiwan’s defense. Some experts argue that Hawaii’s exclusion from NATO limits deterrence against a potential Chinese strike on the US territory in support of a campaign against Taiwan. Including Hawaii and Guam under the NATO umbrella could provide additional deterrence against potential adversaries.
Historically, Hawaii’s strategic importance has deep significance for the US, particularly due to the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to the country’s involvement in World War II. Some experts argue for Guam, another US Pacific territory, to also be included under NATO’s umbrella due to its strategic significance in the region. In the event of an attack on Hawaii or Guam, the strong ties between the US and its democratic allies are likely to play a more substantial role in decision-making than the technicalities of the NATO treaty. A coalition of the willing involving regional allies could be put together in response to such an attack, allowing the US to retain full military control and diplomatic flexibility.
Analysts believe that in the event of an attack on US sovereign territory in Hawaii or Guam, NATO members would be ready to provide assistance individually or through multilateral venues like the European Union. The recent unity among NATO members in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the alliance’s increased focus on addressing challenges posed by China demonstrate a commitment to collective defense among member countries. While technicalities may limit NATO’s formal obligations in certain scenarios, the strong bonds between the US and its allies are expected to take precedence in any response to an attack on US territories.
