NATO Area of Responsibility: what about Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and UK dependencies such as the Isle of Man and Cyprus base areas?

by spikebrennan

My superficial understanding of Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty is that the NATO "Area of Responsibility" is defined as including the area of NATO member states in Europe or North America, but in any case north of the Tropic of Cancer.

This would appear to exclude many areas, including:

  • parts of Algeria (but I understand that the entirety of Algeria was nonetheless covered within the "area of responsibility" by a special proviso until Algeria's independence from France)

  • Hawaii (which is south of the Tropic of Cancer)

  • French Guiana, and other French overseas territories (I suppose even if they're legally part of Metropolitan France)

  • Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and other US possessions in the Caribbean

  • Caribbean colonies or dependencies of NATO member states such as the UK, France or Netherlands (is Aruba covered, or not?)

  • Other colonies of NATO member states such as African or Asian colonies before independence, sectors of Antarctica, and assorted islands such as the Falklands, Diego Garcia, Pitcairn Island and what have you. (I am pretty sure that the Falklands are unambiguously not covered by NATO which is part of the reason that the 1982 war happened at all.)

I'm also not clear on whether lands such as Ceuta/Melilla, Gibraltar, Greenland, sovereign UK base areas of Cyprus, and minor outlying isles of the British Isles such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands would be included.

Does anyone have familiarity with the history and intent of Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty who would care to explain what it was intended to cover and not cover, and how cases such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico and French Guiana were intended to be addressed?

The genesis of my asking this question was this TIL comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/eiz0l1/til_that_in_1990_unemployed_nuclear_physicist/ (TL/DR: in 1990, a deluded fool decided to single-handedly "invade" the Channel Island of Sark.) This got me wondering whether a bona fide invasion of Sark actually would be covered as an attack on all NATO member states.

spikebrennan

OP follow up: apparently it is acknowledged that Hawaii isn’t covered:

https://chicagotribune.newspapers.com/clip/27036544/hawaii_lacks_nato_coverage_if_attacked/