After the Iranian drone incident in Cyprus and Trump’s remarks about NATO, Europe can no longer outsource its security. It needs a strong defense strategy, not just a revision of an article in the EU Treaty.
It only took one drone to open Europe’s eyes: the continent is vulnerable to missiles from almost every harmful regime globally. Specifically, an Iranian Shahed drone, these inexpensive devices that Tehran supplies to Russia, landed in Cyprus, targeting the British airbase at Akrotiri. This incident 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 EU Treaty.
This defense clause, which most European leaders would struggle to recall from memory, states that any member state facing armed aggression can demand aid and assistance from its partners “by all means at their disposal, 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 a few Belgian planes in Mali and a declaration of Spanish solidarity in return. Cyprus, not a NATO member, finds itself alone in the eastern Mediterranean between Turkey, Lebanon, and drones from the Islamic Republic. Its panic is understandable. However, this legitimate fear should not limit European ambitions.
The real issue is not whether Article 42.7 can be made “operational” with joint plans and exercises – even though it may be useful, even if Cyprus and Lithuania are right to request it. The real issue lies in the crumbling Western security architecture under our feet, as Europeans continue to hope the ceiling does not collapse.
Associating London and beyond
NATO functions. Article 5 remains a real guarantee. But the American president introduced a variable that no one had anticipated: himself. When Washington questions the fundamental principle of Atlantic solidarity based on the mood of the day, and the reliability of the American umbrella depends on the outcome of an election or a trade negotiation, Europeans can no longer rely on just one shield.
A new defense treaty would make sense to address the uncertainties in transatlantic relations. Not to replace NATO, whose operational usefulness is unquestioned, but to establish a European foundation that is more flexible in composition and stricter in commitments. Such a treaty would not be limited to the borders of the Union.
The United Kingdom, now pragmatically engaged after the Brexit limitations, is one of the continent’s top military powers. Excluding them due to institutional disputes would be a strategic absurdity. Norway, Ukraine – whose army astounded the world with its adaptability – could also find a place in this new defense structure.
And then there is the nuclear issue. Emmanuel Macron proposed extending French deterrence to a few willing partners. Eight countries responded positively: Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. A defense treaty would provide the legal and political framework for this proposal to be expressed without appearing unilateral. It would transform a presidential initiative into a collective commitment.
Article 42-7 is too vague and not proactive
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. He was ahead of his time. Today’s circumstances give his proposal a relevance he might not have wished for.
Article 42.7 is intergovernmental in nature. However, it is too vague to address Europe’s vulnerability. It is also not proactive. Strengthening an existing treaty article only addresses the symptoms. What is needed is a tailored approach. A new defense treaty among willing Europeans – with or without the hesitant, within or outside the Union’s borders – would not be a lack of trust in NATO. It would be a sign of maturity. And perhaps finally, evidence that Europeans have realized their security can no longer be outsourced.
