nato

European leaders are seeking to clarify a little-used mutual defence clause in the European Union treaty as questions grow over Washington’s long-term commitment to NATO during a deepening rift with the United States.

NATO, founded in 1949, is a military alliance of North American and European countries built on the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. But years of tension between Washington under President Donald Trump and its European allies have pushed European governments to place greater emphasis on their own defence capabilities.

The shift has come as Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members over their defence spending. He has also questioned the value of the alliance and clashed with European leaders over Ukraine and Iran while threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The latest tensions escalated after the US and Israel began their war on Iran when Trump accused allies of failing to support Washington and dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger”.

Media reports have said that the Pentagon has also prepared a memo examining options to punish allies viewed as insufficiently supportive during the Iran war. Those options reportedly include exploring the suspension of Spain, which has been particularly critical of the war, from NATO and reviewing the US position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands. NATO has no formal mechanism to expel a member, but the episode has cast doubt over the alliance’s unity and revived questions about Europe defending itself without Washington.

At the heart of Europe’s bid to look for alternative security arrangements beyond NATO is Article 42.7 of the European Union’s founding treaty.

What is Article 42.7?

Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union is the bloc’s mutual defence clause. It says that if an EU member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states are obliged to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power in line with the United Nations Charter.

By comparison, Article 5 in NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is supported by common planning and joint exercises and is underpinned by the military weight of the US.

Unlike NATO’s Article 5, however, the EU clause is not backed by an integrated military command structure, standing defence plans or a permanent force able to respond automatically and the US has no obligation to intervene.

That means it is often seen as less credible as a military guarantee in practice although it remains an important political commitment.

Who is calling for Europe to turn to Article 42.7?

Cyprus, which is an EU member but not a NATO member, has been especially eager to strengthen the clause after a drone struck a British airbase on the island during the Iran war last month. While such an incident may not have been enough to invoke NATO’s Article 5, it could raise questions about Article 42.7, particularly at a time of growing strain between the US and Europe.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said leaders had agreed it was time to define how the provision would work in practice if it were triggered.

“We agreed last night that the [European] Commission will prepare a blueprint on how we respond in case a member state triggers Article 42.7,” he said on Friday at an EU summit.

French President Emmanuel Macron has also stressed that the clause should be treated as a binding commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. “On Article 42, paragraph 7, it’s not just words,” he said during a weekend visit to Greece. “For us, it is clear, and there is no room for interpretation or ambiguity.”

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, said the bloc was drawing up a “handbook” for the use of the clause.

And EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Europe must step up its defence efforts after Trump has “shaken the transatlantic relationship to its foundation”.

“Let me be clear: We want strong transatlantic ties. The US will remain Europe’s partner and ally. But Europe needs to adapt to the new realities. Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity,” she said at a defence conference in Brussels.

“This shift has been ongoing for a while. It is structural, not temporary. It means that Europe must step up. No great power in history has outsourced its survival and survived.”

Has the article ever been invoked?

The clause has been used only once before when France invoked it after the 2015 Paris attacks claimed by ISIL (ISIS), in which 130 people were killed and hundreds wounded.

The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II. After Article 47.2 was invoked, other EU states shared intelligence aimed at helping French authorities unravel the conspiracy that led to the attacks.

NATO’s Article 5 has also been invoked just once – after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

But NATO’s help to the US wasn’t limited to intelligence sharing. Allies contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the US-led war in Afghanistan. The operations lasted two decades, and more than 46,000 Afghan civilians were killed alongside 2,461 US personnel and about 1,160 non-US coalition soldiers, according to Brown University’s Cost of War project.

Can countries be kicked out or leave NATO?

Europe’s debate over its defence comes amid a string of disputes inside NATO. The reports that US officials have considered punitive measures against allies have revived questions over the alliance’s future cohesion.

Pablo Calderon Martinez, head of politics and international relations at Northeastern University London and a specialist in European affairs, told Al Jazeera that Spain cannot legally be removed from NATO.

“There is no legal mechanism to remove a member. There is, however, a mechanism through which a member can withdraw itself from the organisation,” he said.

He added that some countries have long fallen short of NATO commitments but that does not provide grounds for expulsion. A more likely scenario, he said, would be the US choosing to leave.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat and founder of Independent Diplomat, a nonprofit diplomatic advisory group, said the deeper issue is whether Europe and Washington still share common values.

“It is abundantly clear that we do not. Trump is anti-democratic. He tried to subvert democracy, challenged the 2020 election result and whipped up a violent crowd to storm the Capitol,” Ross said.

“What more evidence do we need that the values of Europe are not shared in Washington?”

Is Europe preparing for a future without the US?

European countries have pledged to sharply increase their defence budgets with many aiming to spend 5 percent of their gross domestic products each year on their militaries.

Trump cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval, but doubts over Washington’s commitment have already unsettled many European capitals.

That has created new urgency around strengthening Europe’s own defence capabilities and building a more credible European pillar inside, or alongside, NATO.

Ross said Europe’s major powers should begin planning seriously for greater self-reliance.

“The Europeans themselves, particularly the most powerful countries – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – need to be talking about how to defend themselves without the US,” he said.

Britain’s King Charles III has used a speech in front of the United States Congress to pledge NATO unity and call for support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

The address on Tuesday came during the royal’s four-day visit to the US, with the US-Israel war with Iran, US President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO, and trade tensions between the longtime allies looming large.

But Charles avoided any reference to specific frictions during his speech at the US Capitol, instead striking a light tone in his joke-heavy opening.

He praised what he called the shared history and values of the two countries, quipping at one point that Washington, DC was “a tale of two Georges”, the first US President George Washington and his ancestor, the UK’s King George.

He assured lawmakers, to laughs, he was not in the US “as part of some cunning rearguard action” in a delayed continuation of the Revolutionary War.

“I am here on this great occasion in the life of our nations to express the highest regard and friendship of the British people to the people of the United States,” the sovereign said to repeated standing ovations.

But amid broad themes of unity, more pointed messages lurked.

Charles did not directly address the US-Israel war with Iran or Trump’s outspoken criticism of NATO allies who have rejected joining Washington’s war efforts.

Instead, he praised support for NATO and the alliance’s invocation of its Article 5 collective defence treaty in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

“We answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security,” he said.

He then turned to funding for Ukraine, an increasingly pointed issue in the Republican-controlled US Congress.

“Today, Mr Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” he said, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In one instance, Charles hailed the “$430 billion in annual trade that continues to grow, the $1.7 trillion in mutual investment that fuels that innovation”.

Last week, Trump threatened to impose a “big tariff” on the UK if it did not drop a digital services tax on US tech companies.

At another point, Charles pointed to global environmental concerns.

“We ignore, at our peril, the fact that these natural systems, in other words, nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Trump has called climate change a “con job” and withdrew from the landmark Paris Agreement climate accords during his first and second terms. His administration has since pursued deregulation of fossil fuels and pivoted away from green energy, an approach embraced by many members of the president’s Republican party.

Other messages appeared to gently reference political trends in the US, where critics have accused Trump of using the Department of Justice for political retribution and of overturning long-standing norms of presidential authority.

Charles described the “common ideals” of the US and UK: “The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary, resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice”.

He also drew a throughline between the Magna Carta, the 13th-century document that established that the British king was subject to law, and constitutional and legal precedent in the US, calling it “the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances”.

The address came shortly before Trump was set to host Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, for an official state dinner.

The pair were then set to visit New York and Virginia, before an official farewell ceremony at the White House on Thursday.

Divisions are widening within NATO.

US President Donald Trump is furious after a refusal by European member states to join the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Reports say he’s considering measures against the United Kingdom and Spain.

So, how serious is the rift for the future of the military alliance?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Carne Ross – Former British diplomat and founder of the nonprofit advisory group, independent diplomat

Eli Bremer – Retired major in the US Air Force and a Republican strategist

Pablo Calderon Martinez – Head of politics and international relations at Northeastern University London and a specialist in European affairs

NICOSIA, Cyprus — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on Friday refused to be drawn into a dispute with the United States over reports that the Pentagon is weighing whether to punish members of NATO that fail to support American operations in the Iran war.

Among those in the firing line is Spain, which has refused to allow U.S. forces involved in the war to use bases on its territory or airspace. Spain says that U.S.-Israeli actions in the Iran war contravenes international law.

France and the U.K. also refuse to give U.S. forces free rein to use their territory for the bombing campaign.

The Pentagon is reported to be mulling whether to suspend Spain from NATO, according to an unidentified U.S. official referring to a U.S. Defense Department email, and quoted by the Reuters news agency. The Associated Press hasn’t seen the email or had confirmation of its content. It has asked the Pentagon for comment, but received no immediate response.

“Well, we do not work with emails,” Sánchez told reporters at a European Union summit in Cyprus. “We work with official documents and positions taken, in this case, by the government of the United States.”

“The position of the government of Spain is clear: absolute collaboration with the allies, but always within the framework of international legality,” he said.

The Trump administration has routinely floated plans or ideas that are neither acted upon nor become policy.

The email also suggested reassessing U.S. support for the United Kingdom’s claim to the Falkland Islands, near Argentina, which are also known as Islas Malvinas.

Dave Pares, a spokesman for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said the U.K. position on the islands is “longstanding and it’s unchanged: Sovereignty rests with the U.K., and the islanders’ right to self-determination is paramount.”

Pares noted “the Falkland Islands have previously voted overwhelmingly in favor of remaining a U.K. overseas territory.”

NATO staying out of the war

NATO operates by consensus, and all 32 member countries must agree for it to act.

The trans-Atlantic alliance’s founding treaty has no mechanism for suspending or ejecting any of the members, although nations may leave of their own accord one year after notifying the other allies. As an organization, NATO has no direct role in the Iran war except to defend its own territory.

Asked for comment, NATO headquarters said: “NATO’s Founding Treaty does not foresee any provision for suspension of NATO membership, or expulsion.”

President Trump has been angered by what he sees as the failure of some NATO members to back American actions in the Iran war and to help police the Strait of Hormuz, a major trade route. He has questioned the purpose of U.S. membership in the military organization.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas appeared perplexed by the U.S. criticism, given that the United Kingdom and France are leading an effort to help secure trade in the strait once the war is over.

“When we have had contacts with the American counterparts, then actually their asks for us have been exactly what we are able to offer after the cessation of hostilities,” she said. “Demining, escorting of ships, all of this that we have been discussing.”

But the United States has “long-standing arrangements and agreements with European allies on overflight, on basing” that should be respected, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said, in implicit criticism of some allies like Spain, but also France.

While Spain restricted U.S. military activity related to the Iran war, U.S. warplanes have flown over other NATO allies’ airspace and used U.S. bases in other NATO countries for war-related operations.

Trump has even threatened to cut trade with Spain over its refusal to allow the use of its bases and airspace. More broadly, Spain has also disappointed its allies by failing to commit to spend as much as they plan to do on defense.

Security without the U.S.

As the reality sinks in that the U.S. commitment to NATO and Europe’s security under Trump has waned, the EU leaders debated how best to use European laws to come to each other’s aid should one of them come under attack.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides, whose country holds the bloc’s presidency until July, said that the leaders had tasked the European Commission to “prepare a blueprint on how we respond” should a member seek help under Article 42.7 of the EU treaties.

It’s only ever been used once, by France after the Paris terror attacks in 2015.

EU envoys and ministers are set next month to conduct “table-top exercises” to game out how the treaty article might be used, drawing on the bloc’s military capacities, but also other assets not available to NATO, like trade, border and visa policies.

Hadjicostis and Cook write for the Associated Press. Cook reported from Brussels. Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report.

April 24 (UPI) — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez on Friday dismissed an alleged leak from the U.S. Department of Defense suggesting that Spain could face being suspended from NATO in retaliation for not supporting the United States in its war with Iran.

Arriving in Cyprus for a meeting of European Union leaders, Sanchez said he was not worried and that Spain was fully compliant with its treaty commitments to the collective defense pact.

“No worries. The Spanish government’s position is clear: absolute cooperation with our allies, but always within the framework of international law,” was his response to questions regarding a leaked Pentagon email setting out potential actions that could be taken against NATO allies who failed to adequately support the war or were otherwise seen as uncooperative.

However, Sanchez refused to be drawn directly on the alleged contents of the internal U.S. government communication leaked by a U.S. official to Reuters, which broke the story on Friday.

He said the Spanish government could talk about relevant official U.S. documents and policy positions but “does not comment on emails.”

An outspoken critic of the U.S. military offensive against Iran, Spain was highlighted as the prime candidate for being ejected from NATO, but the United Kingdom was also earmarked for retribution with a proposal pitching a rethink of Washington’s support for British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

In 1982, Britain fought and won a 74-day war with Argentina over the South Atlantic territory after its forces overran and seized islands.

President Donald Trump was incensed by Sanchez’s refusal to permit U.S. military aircraft to use U.S.-Spanish airbases or Spain’s airspace to launch strikes on Iran, culminating in him threatening to sever bilateral trade.

Britain initially denied permission for U.S. warplanes to use its airbases but relented two days or so after the start of the war on Feb. 28, allowing aircraft engaged in “defensive” missions to fly out of RAF bases in Britain and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The Pentagon, which the Trump administration moved to rename to the Department of War, appeared to justify taking some type of punitive action.

Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said NATO allies “were not there for us” regardless of “everything” the United States had done for them.

“The War Department will ensure that the president has credible options to ensure that our allies are no longer a paper tiger and instead do their part. We have no further comment on any internal deliberations to that effect,” she added.

Calling NATO “a source of strength,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who was also attending the EU summit, called for unity.

“We must work to strengthen Nato’s European pillar… which must clearly complement the American one,” she said.

Berlin dismissed the idea Spain’s position within NATO was under any threat.

“Spain is a member of NATO. And I see no reason why that should change,” a German government spokesman said at a regular news briefing on Friday.

The 1949 treaty under which NATO was formed by the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Iceland as a response to the Cold War contains no process or means for the expulsion or suspension of a member country.

Former NATO spokesperson and senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, Oana Lungescu, also dismissed the idea Spain could be suspended.

“It’s hard to know how seriously we should take such emails beyond ideological trolling,” she said.