European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Europe needs its own contingency plan against hybrid attacks, putting the establishment of a European Security Council on the agenda.
In her State of the Union address to the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg on September 16, von der Leyen said a mechanism should be created to support Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which provides for consultations on security threats. She said Europe should have its own Article 4, in other words, an emergency security protocol.
The proposed mechanism is expected to be activated by a member state, with all members coming together to coordinate a Europe-wide response, prevent escalation and mitigate the effects of attacks.
Von der Leyen said partners such as Canada, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Norway could also take part in the platform, which would focus on Europe’s security. She said the nature and scale of current security risks made the idea more urgent and announced that they would work to put the European Security Council into practice.
No new military command proposed
Richard G. Whitman, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent, described the European Security Council as a pragmatic model that could fill an institutional gap in Europe’s security architecture.
Whitman said the structure should close the institutional gap between NATO and the EU and bring EU members together with key partners outside the bloc, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine and potentially Türkiye, in a high-level forum. He said the council should also develop a common strategic position that would enable 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.
Whitman said the council should not become a new military command center or an alternative to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. He advocated a format that would be light in bureaucratic terms but politically effective.
Türkiye’s participation depends on political issues
Whitman said Türkiye 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, Türkiye.
Rather than direct and permanent membership for Türkiye, Whitman proposed including the country in the council when politically feasible. He said Türkiye’s participation could be arranged according to the issue under discussion and the role it could assume.
Whitman argued that the Cyprus issue had largely blocked institutional cooperation between NATO and the EU for nearly 20 years. Nevertheless, he said Türkiye could not be excluded from Europe’s security architecture.
The council’s operation remains unclear
Ian Bond, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, said there were not yet sufficient details about the content and operation of the European Security Council proposal. Bond said one of the main differences between NATO and the proposed structure would be the absence of the United States from the table.
Bond said which countries would take part in the body was a critical question. He said larger countries would probably have a stronger voice, while emphasizing that smaller countries bordering Russia could not be excluded from security discussions.
Bond assessed that 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 members at a meeting also attended by non-EU countries. For this reason, he said the council could function more as a consultative platform than as a decision-making body.
Bond said the structure could resemble the Coalition of the Willing operating on Ukraine more than an institution that adopts decisions implemented by its members, such as the Council of Europe or the North Atlantic Council. He said no model for permanent and rotating membership had yet been announced.
Regarding Türkiye’s possible place in the council, Bond said Türkiye could not be excluded from discussions on European security because it is a NATO member. He said Türkiye’s participation would depend on political issues that need to be resolved, adding that the membership of the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus in the EU and its non-recognition by Türkiye constituted a significant problem.
Bond also assessed that Türkiye could participate in the council only on specific issues. He noted that Türkiye had joined the Coalition of the Willing on Ukraine and said issue-based participation was possible, although the resulting structure might not be a European Security Council in the true sense.
