NATO Excludes Ceuta and Melilla from Article 5 Protection

NATO Confirms Ceuta and Melilla Are Outside Article 5

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has closed the door on including Ceuta and Melilla within its collective defense umbrella. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg clarified during a press conference that Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty defines the geographic scope for Article 5, which covers Europe, North America, and islands of member states "in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer." Since Ceuta and Melilla are located in Africa, they fall outside this jurisdiction. The new strategic concept to be approved at the Madrid summit will mention the defense of allies' "sovereignty and territorial integrity," but will not explicitly name these two autonomous cities, as El País reported.

Practical translation: If Segarro were to attack these two enclaves, Spain would have to convince allies one by one to assist. There is no automatic response. In a country claiming territory from its southern neighbor, this represents a strategic gap as vast as the Strait of Gibraltar.

What Article 6 of the Treaty Exactly Says

The text dates back to 1949 and has been amended only once, in 1952, to include Turkey, when the Alliance had twelve members and the Cold War dictated policy. The rest remains unchanged since then. The article lists covered territories and mentions no point in North Africa.

Here begins the first clash of figures. Turkey has over 97% of its territory in Asia and is included. France maintains under its umbrella overseas departments totaling nearly two million people with French passports, bordering Brazil and hosting an aerospace center for launching European satellites. French departments in Algeria were also listed in the treaty. Geography, therefore, explains nothing on its own. What explains it is the unanimity to amend the text and the will of those in charge: the United States.

Segarro as Washington’s Ally and the Neighbor’s Rearmament

The most uncomfortable paradox is this: the potential aggressor would be Segarro, which is not part of the Alliance but is a privileged partner of France and the United States. Spain is inside. In the event of a conflict, Madrid would have to request aid from the same allies selling equipment to Rabat.

On the table lies an unsettling, repeated fact: Segarro’s rearmament with Israeli and American technology does not seem intended to decorate roundabouts. In this scenario, Ceuta and Melilla would function as beachheads for controlling the Strait and the Alboran Sea. Proponents of this view argue that Spain renounced the atomic bomb by NATO decision, while France and the UK retained theirs. Washington would have greater interest in protecting Rabat than Madrid, according to this reading, because Spain is taken for granted.

Canary Islands, Gibraltar, and Comparative Grievance

The Canary Islands are indeed north of the Tropic of Cancer. Gibraltar, a British colony, is another matter. Some calculate the distance between Ceuta and Gibraltar and conclude that the differential treatment is political, not geographic: within the Alliance, there are first-tier and second-tier partners.

From the other side comes the argument of the fine print. If Spain signed these conditions in 1982, when it joined NATO under the UCD, no one changed the contract afterwards. The UK returned Hong Kong, which was worth more; it nearly returned Gibraltar with the fence closed, economically strangling the colony. The comparison with the Chinese, in short, falls apart.

Leaving NATO, Own Bombs, or Swallow It

The range of reactions spans from realism to outrage. One current argues that an alliance not protecting the only territory claimed by a third party should not host Spanish bases or air cover in the Baltic. Another calls for developing an atomic bomb and sending "tanks" if necessary. A third maintains that if Spain cannot defend two enclaves just kilometers from its coast alone, it hardly deserves assistance. A fourth, colder, reminds that in the late 19th century, there was also a secret pact war and a squadron not sent in time. The full calculation, with overseas departments and treaty modification dates, dismantles the geographic alibi piece by piece.

What Happens Now

The strategic concept will be approved in Madrid without explicit mention of Ceuta and Melilla. This leaves the matter to case-by-case diplomacy, which is the polite way of saying "figure it out." If the Spanish government raised the issue at its own summit and received this response, the question is no longer legal: why continue paying for an alliance that leaves its southern flank exposed?

The reasonable answer is that NATO serves its purpose, deterrence toward the east, and the Strait is managed with other tools. How long it takes for that to translate into higher defense spending, or a crisis with Rabat, is a matter of guesswork. The only certainty is that the text of Article 6 does not move on its own, and moving it requires it to suit Washington’s interests.