PRESS RELEASE

5 November 1997

US Has ‘Get Out’ Interpretation of NATO Treaty

Daniel Plesch will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today that the US is allowing itself a loophole in its NATO security guarantee while telling the East Europeans that they will always be protected.

President Clinton explained the Article V commitment of the NATO Treaty clearly in a letter to members of the Senate: "Article V states that members will consider an attack against one to be an attack against all. It does not define what actions would constitute 'an attack' or prejudge what alliance decisions might be made in such circumstances. Member states acting in accordance with established constitutional processes, are required to exercise individual and collective judgment over this question."

Contrast this equivocation with Secretary Albright in Prague last July 17th. "Above all, it [NATO membership] means you will always be able to rely on us and we will always rely on you…If there is a threat to the peace and security of this country, we will be bound by a solemn commitment to defeat it together. For this reason, we can be confident such a threat is far less likely to arise."

The weakness of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty has always been understood by officials in Europe. It is contrasted with the clearer language of the West European Union which states that; "If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power." (Article V of WEU Treaty.)

The confrontation with the Soviet Union ensured that no one, except the French, raised this matter in public. In any case it was assumed that war would rapidly go nuclear in which case documents would irrelevant.

Extending these commitments today is a very different matter. Mr. Plesch noted that: "It is reckless of the Administration to talk of guarantees in Eastern Europe but of loopholes when talking to the Congress. The Hungarian people are soon to be asked to vote on whether they want a security guarantee from NATO. No one has shown them the small print."

Bosnia is a critical case. The US was and is reluctant to commit troops. We are lead to believe that this reluctance would not exist were Bosnia or any other country to be in NATO. "The answer given by President Clinton to Senator Hutchison indicates in the clearest possible way that the NATO Treaty does indeed contain an escape clause permitting another Munich or another Sarajevo." -- said Plesch

Back to European Security Home Page