Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Good2Golf]

Have you read the treaty? When you tell me that you have and you still don’t understand the centrality of the United States I’ll explain it for you.

If only we had discussed North Atlantic Treaty, including references specifying, amongst others, Articles 10 and 11, over a month ago…

You forgot to add “In my opinion…” to this paragraph.

Nowhere in the Treaty is mention made either of the USSR, or containing the USSR from expanding.

The Treaty is clear that its purpose is to agree the collective defence of Europe and North America from threats.

Interestingly, a number of Articles reinforce what many NATO member nations said with regards to the U.S. war in Iran, that there was a member duty to inform and consult if Alliance assistance was foreseen or proposed.

The North Atlantic Treaty, April 4, 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

​

Article 1​

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

​

Article 2​

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

​

Article 3​

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

​

Article 4​

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

​

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

​

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, 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;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

​

Article 7​

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

​

Article 8​

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

​

Article 9​

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

​

Article 10​

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

​

Article 11​

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.3

Article 12​

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13​

Article 14​

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.​

 

[Brad Sallows]

Turns out you do in fact need to read the treaty. It cannot operate without the U.S. Ipso facto, a new treaty would be needed. Certainly there could be copying of previous wording, however I think anyone reasonably informed on international relations would expect a rebuild of an eighty year old security architecture without the largest pillar thereof to be a bit more work than that.

To save time, which articles of the treaty do you think cannot easily be adapted?

 

[Good2Golf]

To save time, which articles of the treaty do you think cannot easily be adapted?

A couple of the 14 articles…

 

[Brad Sallows]

A couple of the 14 articles…

Which couple? If all that needs to happen is for some other country to be swapped in for the US as the depository, then the member states and candidate just need to agree on the choice and swap the names in the text. Switzerland? Austria? Someone completely outside the area of interest, like Australia?

If that is done - and I would call that "easily adapted" - what is left that is not easily adapted?

 

[brihard]

To save time, which articles of the treaty do you think cannot easily be adapted?

I’m not concerned with saving you time; I think you actually need to spend some. I save my own by letting the other party put the groundwork in to then engage in good faith. Same offer as I gave QV: when you say you’ve read the whole treaty and still struggle to grasp the central role of the U.S., I’ll explain it to you.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The timing makes the recent blow up of the US trade deal all the more suspect.

Why?
Even Harper has come out, strongly, that it was in our best interest to walk away.
Mulroney and Harper have been the two most pro-US PM’s we ever had and the only one left living has said walking away was the best decision.

 

[Good2Golf]

Which couple? If all that needs to happen is for some other country to be swapped in for the US as the depository, then the member states and candidate just need to agree on the choice and swap the names in the text. Switzerland? Austria? Someone completely outside the area of interest, like Australia?

If that is done - and I would call that "easily adapted" - what is left that is not easily adapted?

Which ones do you think are most relevant to being pivotal to the replacement of the U.S. as the keeper/administrator of the Treaty?

 

[brihard]

Which ones do you think are most relevant to being pivotal to the replacement of the U.S. as the keeper/administrator of the Treaty?

The North Atlantic Treaty has no amending mechanism or formula that would permit alteration of the existing accession or renunciation provisions. There literally isn’t a way to change the North Atlantic Treaty from what it is to something else, and its wording is such the U.S. and the U.S. alone is indispensable to its administration and operation. Any other party could renounce it and it would remain coherent and operable, but not the U.S.. I expect that was a deliberate choice on the part of the U.S. when it was drafted. Something else would need to be negotiated and ratified anew in its place, and the existing treaty left to wither, defunct.

 

[Good2Golf]

The North Atlantic Treaty has no amending mechanism or formula that would permit alteration of the existing accession or renunciation provisions. There literally isn’t a way to change the North Atlantic Treaty from what it is to something else, and its wording is such the U.S. and the U.S. alone is indispensable to its administration and operation. Any other party could renounce it and it would remain coherent and operable, but not the U.S.. I expect that was a deliberate choice on the part of the U.S. when it was drafted. Something else would need to be negotiated and ratified anew in its place, and the existing treaty left to wither, defunct.

You should become a policy/treaty influencer to help those unfortunate souls less able to appreciate the complexities of transnational multi-articular agreements. I’d follow you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’m not concerned with saving you time; I think you actually need to spend some. I save my own by letting the other party put the groundwork in to then engage in good faith. Same offer as I gave QV: when you say you’ve read the whole treaty and still struggle to grasp the central role of the U.S., I’ll explain it to you.

Have you read the treaty? I've gone back and skimmed it. My initial recollection is reinforced: most articles don't mention the US at all, and those that do are chiefly concerned with its function as a depository.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The North Atlantic Treaty has no amending mechanism or formula that would permit alteration of the existing accession or renunciation provisions. There literally isn’t a way to change the North Atlantic Treaty from what it is to something else, and its wording is such the U.S. and the U.S. alone is indispensable to its administration and operation. Any other party could renounce it and it would remain coherent and operable, but not the U.S.. I expect that was a deliberate choice on the part of the U.S. when it was drafted. Something else would need to be negotiated and ratified anew in its place, and the existing treaty left to wither, defunct.

It's a treaty, not a constitution. It doesn't need an amending formula. The non-US members could meet, agree to adopt the provisions of the treaty with the replacement of the US by some other depository state, retain all the other trappings of the organization and start unwinding US involvement, and be done with it. Preserving NATO without upending everything just because of some rules lawyer quibbling isn't some concept that people should have difficulty wrapping their heads around.

[Add: "With regard to security rather than trade, we already have NATO, which could be adapted in whatever respects necessary if the US decided to make a full exit" doesn't mean the original treaty needs to be preserved as an artifact.]

 

[Blackadder1916]

While the North Atlantic Treaty set the foundation for what was called the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", the "organizing" resulted from, among others,

"Ottawa Agreement"

Agreement

The States signatory to the present Agreement,

www.nato.int

and

"Paris Protocol"

Protocol

The parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 4th April, 1949, Considering that international military Headquarters may be established in their territories, by separate arrangement, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and Desiring to define the status of such Headquarters and of...

www.nato.int

 

[brihard]

Have you read the treaty? I've gone back and skimmed it. My initial recollection is reinforced: most articles don't mention the US at all, and those that do are chiefly concerned with its function as a depository.

Of course I have, and long before this discussion. If you aren’t grasping the way those articles make the U.S. central to the function of NATO through its role in the administration of the treaty, I don’t know what to tell you. A NATO that had to deposit any accessions or renunciations with the government of a renounced member would be an absurdity. And a U.S. that withdrew from the treaty would have no treaty obligation or right to accept them.

It's a treaty, not a constitution. It doesn't need an amending formula. The non-US members could meet, agree to adopt the provisions of the treaty with the replacement of the US by some other depository state, retain all the other trappings of the organization and start unwinding US involvement, and be done with it. Preserving NATO without upending everything just because of some rules lawyer quibbling isn't some concept that people should have difficulty wrapping their heads around.

[Add: "With regard to security rather than trade, we already have NATO, which could be adapted in whatever respects necessary if the US decided to make a full exit" doesn't mean the original treaty needs to be preserved as an artifact.]

A treaty without an amending provision can be replaced with another treaty, but not changed in part but otherwise retained in its current operation. What you describe is a replacement treaty, as I said. If you want to imagine all of NATO minus the U.S. simply agreeing to a new NATO that’s otherwise the same, then I respectfully suggest you’re wilfully blind to the defence and security dynamics - including U.S. predominance - that made NATO in its current form attractive in the first place, and are just skipping past and ignoring other tensions within the alliance.

Absolutely European and other allies could negotiate a new defence pact, with or without a mutual defence ‘trigger’ along the lines of article 5. Much infrastructure, policy, and bureaucracy could conceivably pivot to serving this new alliance. But make no mistake, it would have to be reassembled into a new framework, and that would not be quick, easy, or seamless, nor would it be NATO. It would be something new.

Realistically I struggle to imagine all or most of the current NATO partners would, faced with NATO as it stands dissolving, commit themselves to the same sort of obligatory mutual defence that was attractive in 1949 staring across the top of the Iron Curtain at the prospect of nuclear oblivion. Nor can I imagine many current NATO members wanting to enter a new arrangement hamstrung by the sort of unilateral veto with which figures like Orban could hamstring the alliance

NATO continues today in its present form largely out of inertia and because, tensions notwithstanding, it’s still attractive to retain for a host of reasons because it’s already set up and running. But a U.S. renunciation would force the creation of a new arrangement, and in that rebuild of a new security architecture we would see a lot of things done differently.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Turns out you do in fact need to read the treaty. It cannot operate without the U.S. Ipso facto, a new treaty would be needed. Certainly there could be copying of previous wording, however I think anyone reasonably informed on international relations would expect a rebuild of an eighty year old security architecture without the largest pillar thereof to be a bit more work than that.

?? It’s not much of a treaty to read, maybe a page and a half. It’s everything that flows out of the articles that is voluminous.

Which specific section are you refering to?

The sections 10, 11 and 14 where all instruments are registered with the United States Government. They are the lynch pin. The United States intentionally positioned it that way as the basis for control of NATO by them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Of course I have, and long before this discussion. If you aren’t grasping the way those articles make the U.S. central to the function of NATO through its role in the administration of the treaty, I don’t know what to tell you. A NATO that had to deposit any accessions or renunciations with the government of a renounced member would be an absurdity. And a U.S. that withdrew from the treaty would have no treaty obligation or right to accept them.

You seem to be seeing a huge impediment where I see none. I get that the US is written into the treaty as the centre of administrative treaty matters (primarily accession and renunciation). I don't see nations necessarily wringing their hands over how to adapt the existing treaty and simply change who serves as the administrator, or even that it needs to be a single country. Words on papers are not insurmountable obstacles. You change them, and move on.

A treaty without an amending provision can be replaced with another treaty, but not changed in part but otherwise retained in its current operation. What you describe is a replacement treaty, as I said. If you want to imagine all of NATO minus the U.S. simply agreeing to a new NATO that’s otherwise the same, then I respectfully suggest you’re wilfully blind to the defence and security dynamics - including U.S. predominance - that made NATO in its current form attractive in the first place, and are just skipping past and ignoring other tensions within the alliance.

I'm not skipping anything. I posit there's an easy way and there are harder ways to deal with a US exit. If the US says it's out, it's out regardless whether some I's are dotted and T's are crossed. ("No, no; the US didn't really leave because they didn't follow the right process!" rings ridiculous.) The remaining members can always do a headless chicken dance and go marching in 20 or more different directions instead of seeking the path of least resistance and most conservation, if they really want to. Either they're capable and responsible enough to hold their collective security together, or they're not. If they aren't, it suggests they don't deserve it; if the US is the only glue holding them together against external threats like Russia or the resumption of ages-old quarrels among themselves, they're just pathetic. If they're that politically weak, it'd be a mistake to bind Canada any closer to them.

 

[HavokFour]

Another backer of the DSRB is in the works.

This might signal that the similar Multilateral Defence Mechanism (UK, Netherlands, Finland, and Poland) may be dead in the water. So more might be hop on the DSRB train in the coming months, and I'm betting the Netherlands is next.

Britain in talks with Canada about joining defence bank

Carney expected to discuss financing venture, which presently includes eight other countries, with Burnham when they meet in U.K. this week

www.theglobeandmail.com

Archive

The Germans are also being talked to.

Mark Carney wants the U.K. and Germany to join Canada’s new defence bank, says lead negotiator​

Article

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sounds like things may not be going well...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2100965177331999204

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sounds like things may not be going well...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2100965177331999204

Not surprising about the ‘terms were empty’ as those meeting occur next month in October.
aS for the second part, not surprised.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not surprising about the ‘terms were empty’ as those meeting occur next month in October.
aS for the second part, not surprised.

IMHO Our relationship with Europe should start and end with free trade.

#chauvanistnorthamerican #oceansaremoats

 

[Czech_pivo]

IMHO Our relationship with Europe should start and end with free trade.

#chauvanistnorthamerican #oceansaremoats

So no NATO, no JEF?