Debate is underway over how the proposed European Security Council would fill the gap between NATO and the European Union, and whether the United States would take part in the structure. Ian Bond, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, said one of the main differences between the proposed structure and NATO would be the absence of the United States from the table.
The proposal was raised in European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union address to the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg on September 16. Von der Leyen said Europe needed its own security mechanism against hybrid attacks and called for a European protocol to support Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which provides for consultations on security threats.
Von der Leyen said Europe should have its own Article 4, in other words, an emergency security protocol. The planned mechanism is expected to be activated at the request of a member state, with other members coordinating a Europe-wide response, preventing escalation and reducing the impact of attacks.
Von der Leyen said partners such as Canada, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Norway could also take part in the platform focused on European security. She said the nature and scale of current security risks made the idea more urgent and announced that they would work to establish a European Security Council.
The council would not be an alternative to NATO
Richard G. Whitman, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent, described the proposal as a pragmatic model that could fill an institutional gap in Europe’s security architecture. Whitman said the council should bridge the gap between NATO and the EU and bring EU members together with key partners such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine and possibly Turkey in a high-level forum.
According to Whitman, the structure should develop a common strategic position that would allow Europe to act independently when necessary, manage differing threat perceptions across the continent and strengthen coordination between NATO’s European pillar and the EU’s foreign policy. However, Whitman said the council should not become a new military command center or an alternative to NATO’s Article 5, proposing a format that would be light in bureaucratic terms and effective politically.
Turkey’s membership depends on political obstacles
Whitman said Turkey was strategically important to NATO’s southern flank and that EU members should act together with the United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine and, on some issues, Turkey. For Turkey, he proposed inclusion in the council when politically possible rather than direct and permanent membership.
Whitman said Turkey’s participation could be arranged according to the issue under discussion and the role it could undertake, arguing that the Cyprus issue had largely blocked institutional cooperation between NATO and the EU for nearly 20 years. Nevertheless, he said Turkey could not be left outside Europe’s security architecture.
Bond also said Turkey could not be excluded from the debate on European security because it is a NATO member. Bond said the membership of the Republic of Cyprus in the EU and its non-recognition by Turkey constituted a significant political problem, adding that Turkey’s participation in the council would depend on resolving these issues.
Bond also assessed that Turkey could participate in the council only on specific issues. Noting that Turkey had joined the Coalition of the Willing on Ukraine, Bond said issue-based participation was possible, but that it could mean the resulting structure would not truly be a European Security Council.
Membership and decision-making model remain unclear
Bond said there was not yet sufficient detail about the content and functioning of the proposed European Security Council. He said which countries would take part was a critical question, adding that larger countries would probably have a stronger voice, while small countries bordering Russia could not be excluded from security discussions.
Bond said it could be difficult for the council to operate as a decision-making body. He said EU institutions could not abandon the common position agreed in advance by the 27 member states at a meeting also attended by countries that were not EU members. For this reason, he said the structure could function as a consultative platform rather than a decision-making body.
Bond said the council could resemble the Coalition of the Willing operating on Ukraine more than an institution that adopts decisions implemented by its members, like the Council of Europe or the North Atlantic Council. He added that no model for permanent and rotating membership had yet been announced.
