Page:The Effects of Finland's Possible NATO Membership - An Assessment.pdf/28

 Greece withdrew from NATO’s integrated military structure from 1974 to 1980, in the aftermath of the invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 by fellow member state Turkey.

Another country, Spain, joined the Treaty and the political organs of NATO in 1982, but did not become a full participant in the command structure until 1999. However, a tight and long-standing bilateral military treaty with the US made this posture acceptable to NATO, while Spain’s geographical location made it an unlikely candidate for an armed attack from the outside. Finland’s geostrategic situation is different.

THE TREATY. The basic Treaty commitment is clear: the parties “unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security” (preamble). These two goals are materialised in the corresponding operative Articles around which the others tend to revolve.

Article 5 states “that an armed attack against one…in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against…all”, adding that assistance to the attacked taken “individually and in concert with the other Parties” can include “the use of armed force”.

The wording is unambiguous in the ‘all for one, one for all’ aspect. It is less clear on the mandatory nature of the assistance proffered: the wording adopted was aimed at avoiding an isolationist reaction in the US Senate during the ratification debate. It can be argued that other treaty commitments are more straightforward, such as the 1954 Brussels Treaty between the Western European states (“…the Parties will…afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power”) or the more recent Lisbon Treaty of European Union, in Article 42.7: “If a Member State is the victim of an armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power”. Finland is naturally bound by this commitment, which sets a distinct precedent vis-à-vis its previous policies of neutrality and non-alignment.

What makes the Washington Treaty’s Article 5 uniquely powerful in comparison to the examples that have been cited is the United States’ membership of 28