Europeans have growing doubts that President Trump remains committed to the NATO alliance and the mutual defense it affirms. So they are serious about their anonymous guarantee of collective defense, a topic buried in the governing documents of the European Union.
Long dismissed by most as ineffective and unnecessary given the well-established NATO alliance, Article 42.7 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty obliges member states to provide military, humanitarian and financial assistance to other members in the event of an attack. Intended to complement NATO, it was used only once, when France requested it after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in and around Paris.
But as Mr. With Trump threatening to leave NATO because of member states’ refusal to support the war in Iran, this period is reshaping both the alliance and the European Union, said Camille Grand, a former NATO official who is secretary-general of ASD Europe, a defense industry trade association.
He said the position of the Trump administration “creates the need to protect Europe with a small America.”
As EU leaders met in an informal meeting in Cyprus this week, their agenda included discussion of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. They plan to conduct the exercise next month, where senior strategists dealing with security issues will consider how it might work.
Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister and former defense minister, doubts it will work very well.
“You can’t do a major European defense without a treaty change, and right now that’s not going to happen,” he said. He points out that the European Union cannot finance military operations from its own budget, and that member states are reluctant to commit their troops and money to operations they cannot directly control.
Each nation has its own legal requirements, caveats and rules of engagement, he said, and there are language problems and built-in confusion about who will command any pan-European operation.
“I despair of what has to happen for us to be serious” about defense, said Mr. Sikorski.
NATO’s famous Article 5, which obliges member states to defend themselves collectively, actually only requires consultation on how to respond to an attack. It was used only once again, when it was called upon to help protect the United States after 9/11.
On paper, the EU provision appears strong, as it requires a commitment to help a member state under attack.
But NATO is a single-issue organization, in terms of defense, with a structured decision-making process, a clear hierarchical structure and a superpower – the United States – calling the shots. The European Union, by contrast, is a more complex and ineffective “compromise machine,” said Jan Techau, a former German defense official who analyzes European security for the Eurasia Group, an expert.
When people talk about European security, some see the provision of the EU as “the way to go,” said Mr Techau. “But I don’t think there’s much future for it, because nobody really wants to manage European security through EU structures, which are very complicated.”
The 42.7 tabletop test is intended to show how it might work politically in an emergency, with a working paper to follow.
Before Mr. Trump, no one took the condition of the EU seriously, said Bruno Maçães, the former European secretary of state of Portugal. But since Article 5 of NATO is “not working well,” he said, “42.7 is very important.”
The Europeans are also trying to build on the idea of a “union of the willing,” discussed by sending European troops to Ukraine to monitor any peace settlement. Led by Britain and France, the same model has been used to discuss Europe’s contribution to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open once the conflict is over.
Since Britain is no longer a member of the European Union, some analysts see this emerging alliance as the basis for a strong European pillar within NATO that it can operate without.
For non-NATO states such as Ireland, Austria and Malta, EU provision has added value. But some EU states, particularly those from Central Europe and the Baltics, are concerned that greater negotiations on the EU’s collective defense will give Mr. Trump has an excuse to further reduce his commitment to NATO.
Recent events have increased the urgency of the EU’s defense clause. First was the threat of Mr. Trump’s capture of Greenland, then the strike of Iranian air planes on the British base in Cyprus, a member of the European Union, at the beginning of the Iran war. Italy, Germany and other member states have sent aid, even if the protection clause has not been formally requested.
That’s why European officials decided it would be useful to set out clearly how the measure works.
However, the European Union’s focus on self-defense has created tension between member states and existing institutions, such as NATO, and Mr. Grand, a former NATO official, sees the possibility of further tensions.
“Restructuring can create tension,” he said, while adding that if the players work together, the European blockade will be more effective and reliable.
