By Lili Bayer
BRUSSELS, April 23 (Reuters) – European Union leaders will discuss the bloc’s mutual assistance clause at a summit in Cyprus on Thursday, as U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism of traditional allies raises concerns over his commitment to NATO at a time of growing insecurity.
The clause, contained in the treaty that underpins the EU, obliges countries to come to the aid of a fellow member if it comes under attack. But officials say there are currently no clear rules about how it should work in practice.
Worries about Trump’s criticism of NATO for failing to back the United States’ war with Iran along with his threats earlier this year to seize Greenland from ally Denmark have created greater urgency to more clearly define the EU’s mutual assistance provisions.
“I think Greenland has shown it’s necessary to have that discussion,” said one EU diplomat.
Cyprus, which currently holds the rotating EU Council presidency, is pushing for the bloc to take the pact more seriously after a drone struck a British air base on the island last month during the Iran war.
At the gathering in Cyprus, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas is expected to brief leaders on what kind of assistance can be provided under the clause, an EU official said.
Senior diplomats, meanwhile, are planning to hold scenario-based, table-top exercises in the coming weeks to get a better understanding of how it could work, the EU diplomat said.
“What was missing was having some specific scenarios and options already prepared in case a situation comes when some countries will request assistance,” said Juraj Majcin, policy analyst at the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think tank.
“There will be some thought put into what our union can facilitate, and how can this be streamlined,” he said.
DIVERGING VIEWS ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE
Article 42.7 of the Treaty on the European Union says that “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power.”
The treaty adds that “this shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States” and that action shall be consistent with commitments to NATO.
The clause has been activated only once, by France after terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015 when member states stepped in with contributions to EU and international military missions and operations, freeing up France to redeploy its troops.
Cyprus is particularly keen to flesh out Article 42.7 as it is not a member of NATO and so does not benefit from the alliance’s protection.
Some countries, however, are anxious to steer clear of any action that might suggest they are turning away from NATO and its Article 5 mutual defence pact.
“We should avoid any interpretations saying this is a contingency if NATO explodes and (the) U.S. leaves,” said a second EU diplomat.
NATO STILL SEEN AS EUROPE’S DEFENCE ‘CORNERSTONE’
NATO’s Article 5 specifies that an attack on one of its members is an attack on all, obliging allies to take action they deem necessary to assist the country under attack, including potentially the use of military force.
It has come to be seen as Europe’s ultimate security guarantee, with detailed military structures and plans to defend the continent backed by the might of the United States, a nuclear-armed superpower.
Foreign Minister Baiba Braze of Latvia, which borders Russia – arguably the EU’s main security threat – said in a statement to Reuters that her country “sees NATO as the cornerstone of collective defence.”
“The possible activation and further development of Article 42.7 should go hand in hand with NATO, seeking synergies, and would in no way be regarded as a sign of distrust in NATO or as weakening the Alliance,” she said.
Latvia “believes that maximum flexibility must be preserved” when applying the article, she added, allowing the threatened EU member to “determine the type of assistance required in the event of armed aggression or hybrid threats.”
(Reporting by Lili Bayer and Andrew Gray; Editing by Andrew Gray and Joe Bavier)
Comments