The EU’s little-known way to save Greenland without NATO

BRUSSELS — If Donald Trump uses military force to take over Greenland, Denmark has options beyond NATO.

The core of Denmark’s security rests on the transatlantic alliance — but that’s likely to be of little help in a confrontation with the U.S. as America dominates NATO.

Instead, Denmark could trigger a little-known clause in the EU treaties: Article 42.7, the European Union’s common defense pact.

While some analysts claim it’s actually stronger than NATO’s better-known Article 5 common defense provision, article 42.7 comes with a lot of caveats and unknowns.

POLITICO took at look at five questions on the provision and whether it would make sense for Denmark to trigger it:

1. What does it say?

“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 the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.”

The clause was inserted into the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, aimed at giving EU members protection similar to that afforded by NATO. It does give neutral countries some wiggle room in opting out.

For many analysts, the EU’s mutual assistance clause “is of a more compelling nature” as it states that member countries have “an obligation” to provide “all aid and assistance by all the means in their power.” NATO’s Article 5 includes the phrase “as it deems necessary” which leaves more room for national discretion.

The EU version “is stronger in diplomatic language but the pool of forces is smaller than in the NATO framework,” said Alexander Mattelaer, an associate professor in international security at the Free University Brussels’ School of Governance.

2. Has it ever been used?

Only once.

In 2015, France invoked the article in response to ISIS-led terrorist attacks. It allowed Paris to redeploy some of its troops out of Africa to use them to patrol French streets, while EU countries like Germany sent their soldiers to countries like Mali. 

The request was supported unanimously by other EU defense ministers. Because the EU has no army, Paris had to negotiate with other EU countries for specific military help.

3. How does it work?

It would be up to Denmark to invoke it.

Then, as was the case with France, it would have to be unanimously accepted by all the other member countries.

But any EU response that requires unanimity means Denmark could run into problems if countries like Hungary veto its approval, two EU diplomats said.

“I don’t think Denmark would invoke it without being sure it has unanimity because it would be a great risk,” said Antonio Missiroli, a former NATO assistant secretary-general who also worked at the European Commission. “Surely a country like Hungary would not take sides against the United States?” he added.

There is also some ambiguity over whether it would apply to a crisis in Greenland, which withdrew from the predecessor of the EU in 1985, although it is still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

On Sunday, EU defense chief Andrius Kubilius said 42.7 would “definitely” apply, with the European Commission last year suggesting the same.

Commission spokesperson Anitta Hippe said: “Greenland is part of the territory of kingdom of Denmark and therefore in principle covered by the mutual solidarity clause in art. 42.7.”

4. What happens then?

If Denmark successfully invokes the clause, that would send a “very strong political and legal” message, said Sven Biscop, director general of the Egmont Institute think tank and a European security expert.

The mechanism doesn’t require the EU itself to step in, leaving it up to the bloc’s capitals, and in particular to the country which invoked it, to determine the next steps. Options range from issuing statements in solidarity, to financial assistance and even military support, said one EU diplomat. Missiroli suggested that one of the options for Denmark could be to use this article “to ask another country to mediate.”

While it’s “too early to say” what that response would look like in practice, said one European government official, “we will offer the support that we’d like to have” in a similar scenario.

It could lay also the legal groundwork for proposing economic sanctions, Biscop said.

Sergey Lagodinsky, a German member of the European Parliament and vice president of the Greens’ group, said the legislature should ready a “laundry list of possible countermeasures” if 42.7 is invoked, including kicking U.S. troops out of European bases, banning overflights of U.S. aircraft and restricting market access for American firms.

Invoking the article could involve a limited troop deployment by the EU military committee and military staff — consultative bodies made up of the bloc’s top generals and Brussels-based military representatives, Biscop said.

The probability of the EU going to war with the U.S. is zero, analysts agreed. And even if the bloc wanted to, it only has a “few dozen” military staff in Brussels, a miniature command structure able to direct “at most” 3,000 soldiers and limited experience aside from peacekeeping missions, Biscop said. However, member countries could decide on more substantial military assistance using their own resources.

Meanwhile, the obligations on countries themselves remain undefined, meaning Denmark may face the “political reality” of some EU capitals making few concrete commitments to help.

Because of those ambiguities over how to use the article, last month Kubilius told POLITICO he wants to open a discussion on “institutional defense readiness” this year, which could include revamping Article 42.7 to make it fully operational with a clear procedure and an integrated military command.

5. What would it mean for NATO?

Denmark has warned that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would spell the end of the alliance, although Trump disagrees.

If the U.S. orchestrates a takeover, “it doesn’t necessarily mean … legally at least, the end of NATO, but it would mean politically the hollowing out of NATO’s credibility,” said Fabrice Pothier, CEO of Rasmussen Global, a political consultancy.

That could lead to “some EU members [to] go for more EU solutions, maybe putting more flesh behind 42.7,” he added. 

But that would involve creating a new security architecture for Europe without the U.S., which has been the continent’s crucial guarantor since World War II.

“NATO is in charge of collective defense in the Euro-Atlantic area: it has the defense plans, command and control structures and capability targets,” said a NATO diplomat. “The EU, for its part, brings to the table its financial power, industrial policy and regulatory might.”

Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

This article has been updated.