After the Iranian drone on Cyprus and Trump’s NATO complaints, Europe can no longer outsource its security. It needs a strong defense strategy, not just lightly amending an article of the EU Treaty.
It only took one drone to open their eyes: Europe is within reach of missiles from almost all harmful regimes worldwide. In this case, an Iranian Shahed drone, these low-cost devices that Tehran provides to Russia, landed in Cyprus, targeting the British airbase at Akrotiri. The drone turned a legal debate into a political emergency. Gathered in Nicosia for an informal summit, European leaders discussed the mutual defense clause in Article 42-7 of the Treaty of the European Union.
This defense clause, which most European leaders would struggle to recall, states that any member state subjected to armed aggression can demand the aid and assistance of its partners “by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” A formula whose generosity is matched only by its ambiguity.
Don’t wait for Trump to abandon NATO
France activated it once, after November 13, 2015, to receive some Belgian planes in Mali and a declaration of Spanish solidarity in return. Cyprus is not an NATO member. It is alone, stuck in the Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey, Lebanon, and the drones of the Islamic Republic. Their panic is perfectly understandable. This legitimate fear should not, however, set the ceiling for European ambition.
The real issue is not whether Article 42.7 can be made “operational” with common plans and exercises – even if useful, even if Cyprus and Lithuania are right to request it. The real issue is that the Western security architecture is crumbling beneath our feet, and Europeans continue to look the other way in hopes the ceiling does not collapse.
Associate London and beyond
NATO works. Article 5 remains a real guarantee. But the American president has introduced a variable that no one anticipated: himself. When Washington questions the fundamental principle of Atlantic solidarity based on the mood of the day, when the reliability of the American umbrella depends on the outcome of an election or a trade negotiation, Europeans can no longer afford to have only one shield. Donald Trump is very dissatisfied with NATO after Europeans refused to engage in the Iranian operation. Underestimating the bitterness of the American president would be a mistake, and it would not be surprising if the Greenland issue resurfaces sharply in the future.
A new defense treaty would make sense to counter the challenges of the transatlantic relationship. Not to replace NATO, whose operational usefulness is indisputable, but to establish a European foundation, more flexible in its composition and more demanding in its commitments. Such a treaty would not be limited to the borders of the Union.
The UK, which has become more pragmatic since the Brexit revealed its limits, is now one of the top military powers on the continent. Leaving them out due to an institutional quarrel would be a strategic absurdity. Norway, Ukraine – whose army has impressed the world with its adaptability – could find their place there.
And then there’s the nuclear issue. Emmanuel Macron proposed extending the coverage of the French deterrence to a few voluntary partners. Eight countries responded affirmatively: Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, and Sweden. A defense treaty would provide the legal and political framework within which this proposal could be expressed without appearing unilateral. It would transform a presidential initiative into a collective commitment.
Article 42-7 is too vague and not preventive
Jean-Dominique Giuliani, President of the Robert Schuman Foundation, has advocated for this path since 2016, when he sought to keep the British tied to the continent after Brexit. His foresight has relevance today that he probably did not anticipate.
Article 42.7 is intergovernmental in nature. But it is too vague to address Europe’s vulnerability. It is also not preventive. Simply reinforcing an existing article is rushing. What is needed is custom tailoring. A new defense treaty among willing Europeans – with or without the reluctant, inside or outside the borders of the Union – would not be a sign of distrust towards NATO. It would be a sign of maturity. And perhaps, finally, proof that Europeans have understood that their security can no longer be outsourced.
