Oslo – Concerns are growing in Norway regarding the future of its security arrangements, particularly in light of potential shifts in the transatlantic alliance and the evolving geopolitical landscape. A Norwegian Member of Parliament is proposing a novel approach to bolster the nation’s defenses, suggesting exploration of a clause within European Union treaties that could offer a form of collective security.
Arild Hermstad, a Member of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) and leader of the Green Party (MDG), is advocating for Norway to engage in dialogue with the EU to determine the feasibility of being covered by Article 42.7 of the EU treaty. This article, often described as the EU’s equivalent to NATO’s Article 5, stipulates that member states are obligated to provide assistance to another member state subjected to armed aggression “by all the means at their disposal.”
The proposal comes amid anxieties about the reliability of NATO, fueled by recent statements and actions from former U.S. President Donald Trump. Hermstad argues that while NATO remains crucial, Norway needs to consider alternative security frameworks. He believes that exploring Article 42.7 could provide a supplementary layer of protection should the credibility of NATO be undermined.
EU’s Collective Protection Clause
Article 42.7 has been invoked only once, following the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015. The clause draws parallels to the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5, referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter regarding the right to self-defense. We see enshrined within the Treaty on European Union (TEU), considered by some as the EU’s “constitutional” framework.
However, a significant hurdle exists: Norway is not a member of the European Union, but maintains close ties through the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement and other bilateral arrangements. This complicates the application of a clause designed for EU member states.
Hermstad acknowledges this challenge but maintains that Norway should still pursue the possibility, citing existing discussions within the EU about potentially expanding the scope of Article 42.7. During a debate on Arctic strategy in the European Parliament in November, the possibility of including Norway was reportedly raised.
“This is the EU’s collective protection clause and it is in many ways the EU’s answer to NATO’s solidarity clause, Article 5,” Hermstad stated. “Getting Norway covered by this clause would be the most realistic alternative to strengthen Norway’s security if confidence in NATO weakens.”
He clarified that Article 42.7 would not replace NATO but could complement it, potentially encompassing areas such as humanitarian aid, surveillance, and police cooperation. He characterized NATO as “purely military,” while describing the EU’s approach as broader “security” concerns.
A Shifting European Security Model
The discussion surrounding Article 42.7 occurs against a backdrop of evolving European security thinking. Andrius Kubilius, the EU Commissioner for Defence, has advocated for building a defense readiness independent of the United States. He has spoken about the potential for a European defence union, a European army, and a security council within the EU framework.
Hermstad believes that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security and strengthen cooperation on defense and security policy. He notes that all EU countries are increasing their military spending and that coordinated efforts are essential for effective resource allocation. He also emphasizes the shared interest of both Norway and the EU in maintaining the United States as an ally, but argues for diversifying security arrangements.
Hermstad directly linked his concerns to the perceived unpredictability of U.S. Leadership, referring to Donald Trump as an “unpredictable narcissist.” He pointed to Trump’s past comments regarding Greenland as evidence of a potentially unreliable ally.
The MP also highlighted the potential for Ukraine to play a significant role in a future European security architecture, should the country achieve peace and eventually join the EU. He suggested that Ukraine could become a key player in a potential European defence union.
While Hermstad intends to pursue this matter through a proposal to the Storting, the feasibility and political implications of Norway seeking coverage under Article 42.7 remain uncertain. The proposal underscores a growing debate within Norway and Europe about the future of security arrangements in a rapidly changing world. The discussion reflects a broader trend of European nations reassessing their reliance on the United States and exploring avenues for greater strategic autonomy.
The situation is further complicated by Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine, which has prompted increased scrutiny of European security models and a renewed focus on collective defense mechanisms. Think tanks are actively analyzing the implications of the conflict and proposing new strategies for European security, including models that account for a potential long-term diminished role for Russia in the European security order.
the emergence of Türkiye as a strategic anchor for Europe, particularly as NATO faces internal challenges, adds another layer of complexity to the geopolitical landscape. This shift could potentially alter the dynamics of security cooperation within Europe and influence Norway’s strategic considerations.
