{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.hirono.senate.gov/news/press-releases/hirono-schatz-colleagues-call-for-protections-for-hawaii-under-north-atlantic-treaty", "Hirono, Schatz, Colleagues Call for Protections for Hawaii Under North Atlantic Treaty", "2024-07-10", "2024", "2024-07", "Democrat", "Senate", "HI", "Mazie K. Hirono", "H001042", "www.hirono.senate.gov", "hirono", "https://www.hirono.senate.gov/news/press-releases", "scraper", "WASHINGTON, DC \u2013 Today, U.S. Senators Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Eric Schmitt (R-MO), along with a bipartisan group of eleven other senators, urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken to take steps to rectify Hawaii\u2019s exclusion from the North Atlantic Treaty as military threats in the Indo-Pacific grow. In their letter to Secretary Blinken, the senators raised concerns about the omission of Hawaii under Article 6 of the Treaty, meaning an armed attack on Hawaii would not be seen as an attack on all NATO countries and therefore not necessitate collective self-defense.\n\n\u201cWhen the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the Senate ratify the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, it was with the understanding that overseas territories would not be covered by Article 6,\u201d the senators wrote. \u201cAt the time, Hawai\u2018i was a U.S. territory and the drafters of the Treaty were reluctant to include all territories of the Treaty Parties under the NATO security umbrella. However, the world has changed significantly since 1949. Not only did Hawai\u2018i become a U.S. state, the importance of the Indo-Pacific to U.S. security has increased tremendously. Although since 1949, NATO\u2019s footprint has expanded from 12 founding members to 32, the alliance has not accounted for the inclusion of Hawai\u2018i as the 50th state of the union. The alliance also has not accounted for the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific \u2013 and the need to deter destabilizing regional conflict \u2013 or the need to be more responsive and respectful toward Hawai\u2018i residents.\u201d\n\nIn order to deter potential future conflict in the Indo-Pacific and protect Hawaii\u2019s residents, as well as U.S. and allied interests, the senators called on the State Department to pursue a range of diplomatic measures to address the issue, including ultimately formally amending the North Atlantic Treaty. Potential short-term measures include clarifying statements from the North Atlantic Council regarding the Treaty language, for which there is precedent.\n\nThe senators continued, \u201cAllies and adversaries alike must understand now, before potential hostilities erupt, that an attack against Hawai\u2018i will be seen as an attack on NATO. Silence on whether NATO allies would come to the defense of Hawai\u2018i undermines our strategy of deterring conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Formally amending the North Atlantic Treaty would be the clearest and most just course of action to rectify this shortcoming.\u201d\n\nIn addition to Senators Hirono, Schatz, and Schmitt, the letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Todd Young (R-IN), Tim Scott (R-SC), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Joni Ernst (R-IA), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ).\n\nThe full text of the letter is available here and below.\n\nDear Secretary Blinken,\n\nWe write to you today about the importance of clarifying that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would consider an armed attack against the State of Hawai\u2018i to be an attack against all NATO countries, because of the significant implications for U.S. national security interests and regional and global stability, as well as the imperative that Hawai\u2018i residents are treated in a respectful and just manner.\n\nHawai\u2018i is not covered by the geographical parameters set out in Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO\u2019s founding document. Article 6 of the Treaty defines the bounds of the protected territory for the purposes of Article 5, which commits all members to collective self-defense. Under Article 6, an armed attack would trigger a response if one were to occur \u201con the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer,\u201d thereby excluding Hawai\u2018i. Although Article 4 allows the United States to \u201cconsult\u201d with NATO allies in the event of an armed attack against Hawai\u2018i, it is an insufficient mechanism to address either of the deep concerns about deterring an adversary\u2019s attack or treating residents as equals to those in the other 49 states.\n\nWhen the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the Senate ratify the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, it was with the understanding that overseas territories would not be covered by Article 6. At the time, Hawai\u2018i was a U.S. territory and the drafters of the Treaty were reluctant to include all territories of the Treaty Parties under the NATO security umbrella. However, the world has changed significantly since 1949. Not only did Hawai\u2018i become a U.S. state, the importance of the Indo-Pacific to U.S. security has increased tremendously. Although since 1949, NATO\u2019s footprint has expanded from 12 founding members to 32, the alliance has not accounted for the inclusion of Hawai\u2018i as the 50th state of the union. The alliance also has not accounted for the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific \u2013 and the need to deter destabilizing regional conflict \u2013 or the need to be more responsive and respectful toward Hawai\u2018i residents.\n\nAs you confirmed during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 2022, any attack on the United States or its territories would \u201calmost certainly, in my judgement, draw allied reaction to include via the consultation procedures that exist under Article 4 of the Treaty.\u201d However, the gravity of the Indo-Pacific threat environment requires that we do more. Admiral Harry Harris Jr., a former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, and a former Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) recently advocated for including Hawai\u2018i as a part of NATO during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, arguing that doing so would help deter future attacks on Hawai\u2018i. Hawai\u2018i is the center of the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, geographically located in the heart of the Pacific Ocean, and home to USINDOPACOM headquarters and critical component commands and defense installations. As Admiral Harris said, Hawai\u2018i is on \u201cthe front line of any attack if we were to suffer an attack from China or North Korea.\u201d\n\nThe fact that Hawai\u2018i is not covered under Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty is not a new concern. Six years after Hawai\u2018i became a state, Senator Daniel Inouye wrote to Secretary of State Dean Rusk asking whether Hawai\u2018i would be covered by Article 6 and was told \u201cthe absence of formal guarantees for Hawai\u2018i under the North Atlantic Treaty is obviously but a technicality.\u201d The rising threats in the Indo-Pacific make clarifying NATO\u2019s role in relation to Hawai\u2018i all the more important today. Admiral John Aquilino, another former USINDOPACOM commander, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that \u201cthe People\u2019s Republic of China, Russia, and the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea are taking unprecedented actions that challenge international norms and advance authoritarianism\u201d and becoming increasingly more aggressive. Allies and adversaries alike must understand now, before potential hostilities erupt, that an attack against Hawai\u2018i will be seen as an attack on NATO. Silence on whether NATO allies would come to the defense of Hawai\u2018i undermines our strategy of deterring conflict in the Indo-Pacific.\n\nFormally amending the North Atlantic Treaty would be the clearest and most just course of action to rectify this shortcoming. There is precedent for amending the Treaty. Aside from the Treaty being effectively amended each time there is a protocol of accession for new alliance members, the Treaty language itself was altered in 1951 by the protocol adding Greece and Turkey. We, of course, recognize it may take time for the Department to navigate the challenges the amendment process may present. However, you may consider interim approaches that help address Hawai\u2018i\u2019s formal exclusion that are more practical in the short-term. There is precedent for the North Atlantic Council to make clarifying statements regarding Treaty language that is no longer accurate or operative. For example, the North Atlantic Council recognizes the literal wording of the Article 6 phrase \u201cthe Algerian departments of France\u201d as being effectively inoperative. In 1963, the French Representative issued a declaration to the Council stating that the President of the French Republic had formally recognized the independence of Algeria on July 3, 1962, and thus \u201cthe Algerian departments of France\u201d no longer existed. The Council subsequently issued the following short press release: \u201cFollowing a statement by the French Representative, the Council notes that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France are concerned, the relevant clauses of the North Atlantic Treaty became inapplicable as of 3 July 1962.\u201d We strongly encourage you to seriously consider a range of diplomatic options that will best protect and promote U.S. and allied interests.\n\nThe scars of the attack on Pearl Harbor are still visible today. We understand the threat that any potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific would pose to Hawai\u2018i and are committed to doing whatever is necessary to protect the state from future aggression.\n\nAccordingly, we request a response to the following questions by September 1:\n\nHas the State Department raised the issue of Hawai\u2018i\u2019s exclusion from Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty with NATO allies?\n\nIf so, what courses of action, if any, have NATO allies considered to legally and formally ensure that an armed attack on Hawai\u2018i would trigger Article 5 obligations?\n\nWhat options, if any, have they considered that would fall short of formal amendment of the North Atlantic Treaty, but still bolster deterrence and treat Hawai\u2018i residents as equal to those in the other 49 states?\n\nHas the State Department sought to amend the North Atlantic Treaty to include Hawai\u2018i?\n\nIf not, what are the Department\u2019s reasons for failing to do so?\n\nIf so, what challenges do you anticipate arising from any formal amendment process?\n\nHas the State Department sought assurances from NATO allies?\n\nIf not, what are the Department\u2019s reasons for failing to do so?\n\nIf so, what assurances have this and previous administrations received from NATO allies that have caused the United States to not seek to alter Article 6 to include Hawai\u2018i, and what form did they take (for example, written or oral commitments to treat an armed attack against Hawai\u2018i as an armed attack against all NATO members)?\n\nWe appreciate your attention to this matter and your ongoing work to protect our nation and deter potentially devastating conflict in the Indo-Pacific.\n\nSincerely,\n\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-04-07T21:24:45Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.hirono.senate.gov/news/press-releases/hirono-schatz-colleagues-call-for-protections-for-hawaii-under-north-atlantic-treaty"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.596562098711729, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}