Europe revives Plan B for defense beyond NATO

Europeans are increasingly skeptical that US President Donald Trump is still committed to NATO and the mutual defense it guarantees. That's why they are increasingly discussing their own, little-known collective defense guarantee, a clause hidden in the European Union's founding documents.

Many have long dismissed Article 42.7 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty as inapplicable, or even unnecessary, given the already established system of collective defense through NATO, writes The New York Times. This article obliges member states to provide military, humanitarian and financial assistance to other members in the event of an attack. Conceived as a complement to NATO, it has only been invoked once, when France invoked it after the terrorist attacks in and around Paris in November 2015.

But while Trump has occasionally threatened to withdraw from NATO over member states' refusal to support a war in Iran, this moment is profoundly reshaping both the Alliance and the European Union, said Camille Gran, a former NATO official and secretary general of ASD Europe, a trade association for the defense industry.

He said the Trump administration's shifting stance "creates a need for Europe to defend itself with less reliance on America."

At an informal summit of EU leaders in Cyprus this week, a discussion of the Lisbon Treaty provision was also on the agenda. The Times reports that they plan to hold an exercise next month, during which senior diplomats in charge of security issues will consider how it could work in practice.

Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister and former defense minister, is skeptical that this could work particularly well.

"You can't have a serious European defense without changing the treaties, and that's unachievable at the moment," he said.

He points out that the European Union cannot finance military operations from its budget, and that member states are reluctant to allocate their own troops and money for operations over which they have no direct control.

NATO's Article 5, which commits member states to collective defense, actually requires them only to consult on how to respond to an attack. On paper, the EU provision seems stronger, as it implies an obligation to assist a member state under attack.

Each country has its own legal requirements, reservations and limitations regarding rules of engagement, he said, and there are also language problems and ongoing ambiguity over who exactly would command any pan-European operation.

"I'm desperate when I think about what needs to happen for us to get serious" when it comes to defense, said Sikorski.

NATO's famous Article 5, which commits member states to collective defense, actually requires them only to consult on how to respond to an attack. And it has only been used once, when it was activated to defend the United States after September 11th.

On paper, the EU provision seems stronger, as it implies an obligation to provide assistance to a member state that is attacked.

But NATO is a single-issue organization — defense — with a streamlined decision-making process, a clear hierarchical structure, and a single dominant power, the United States, that takes the lead. The European Union, by contrast, is a much more complex and inefficient “compromise machine,” said Jan Tehau, a former German defense official who analyzes European security for the Eurasia Group consultancy.

When it comes to European security, some see an EU provision as “the right way forward,” Tehau said. “But I don’t think it has much of a future, because nobody really wants European security to be managed through EU structures, which are too complicated.”

The simulation of Article 42.7 aims to work out how the provision could function politically in an emergency situation, which will be followed by a working document, according to the American newspaper.

Before Trump, no one took the EU provision seriously, said Bruno Masaeş, Portugal's former secretary of state for Europe. But since NATO's Article 5 is "less relevant," he said, "Article 42.7 is more relevant."

The Europeans are also trying to develop the idea of ​​a “coalition of the willing,” which has considered deploying European troops to Ukraine to oversee a possible peace deal. Led by Britain and France, the same model has been used in talks about a European contribution to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open after hostilities end.

As Britain is no longer a member of the European Union, some analysts see this newly formed coalition as the basis for a stronger European pillar within NATO, which could also operate outside it.

“For non-NATO countries, such as Ireland, Austria and Malta, the EU provision has added significance. But some EU members, particularly from central Europe and the Baltic states, fear that too much discussion about the EU’s collective defense would give Trump an excuse to further reduce his commitment to NATO,” the Times points out.

Recent events have heightened the urgency of the EU's defense clause. First came Trump's threat to seize Greenland, then the Iranian drone attack on a British base in EU member Cyprus at the start of the Iran war. Italy, Germany and other member states have sent aid, although the defense clause has not been officially activated.

That's why European officials decided it would be useful to clearly explain how the measure works.

However, the Times points out, the strengthening of the European Union's role in the field of defense has caused tensions with member states and existing institutions, such as NATO, and Gran, a former alliance official, sees the possibility of additional disagreements.

“Redirection can cause friction,” he noted, adding that if actors cooperate, European deterrence will be more effective and credible.