I will return, with additional detail, to two stories published in our bulletin during Easter week, whose impact could have partly escaped a few readers
Only Europe as an ensemble… The first piece of information concerns the French attitude towards Space Europe. President Chirac asserts that Europe must 'maintain its autonomy of access' to space. More specifically, Minister Claudie Haigneré announced that France will propose, at the end of May, during the meeting of European ministers responsible for space policy, that the European Space Agency (ESA) moves under the direct control of the European Union (see bulletin of 16 April, page 11). Mrs Haigneré then stated, during a press conference, that 'only Europe as a whole can resist American domination in this sector' and that to do this, Europe must move from the present intergovernmental cooperation to a Community system. This message will be passed onto the European partners, as the EU must move to 'another stage' in its space policy, in order to allow for the restructuring of the 'launcher' sector, the definition of new contracts for Arianespace and the finalisation of the framework agreement between ESA and the EU. Moreover, a true effort towards merger must be made with the industrial partners in view of collectively achieving, as quickly as possible, the necessary revision of the industrial tool.
I would not attribute this change of stance by France to an intellectual shock that suddenly convinced this country's authorities of the Community method's superiority over that of the intergovernmental method; rather it is considerations of efficiency that have been significant, and they are sometimes more solid and long-lasting. The European Commission had provided, in its Green Paper from last 21 January on European space policy, convincing arguments in favour of a rapid and vigorous move, in order to avoid the disappearance of Europe as a front runner in this sector. The Green Paper notably indicates that American space spending represents roughly 80% of total world spending and that the scattering of European efforts (member states, EU and ESA) reduces efficiency. The Commission suggested thought on: the need for independent and reliable European access to space; - the importance of maintaining European scientific excellence (in particular in the fields of astrophysics and solar system exploration); the need for an industrial network of excellence and access to key technologies; the establishment of priorities in order to 'put space more at the service of citizens' (meteorology, global warming, maritime safety, telecommunications), as well as on the crucial renewal of researchers and operators (30% of employees in the space sector will retire in the next ten years). The French initiative adds to these elements an early response, or at least a direction for strategy. In this context, the difficulties that remain within ESA for the definitive launch of the Galileo project are clearly unacceptable, and incompatible with the conclusions of the Brussels Summit. How can the Heads of Government allow themselves to be so foolish?
Europol's loss of direction. The second piece of information to be underlined concerns the negative opinion from the European Parliament towards four initiatives (three from Denmark and one from Greece) aiming to modify the Europol Convention and its statutes (see bulletin of 15 April, page 17). The national plans are possible due to the fact that, in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, the Commission does not have the exclusive right to initiative, but shares it with the member states. By rejecting these ideas, the EP called for Europol to be integrated within the EU structure and to cease existing as an intergovernmental body managed and financed solely by the member states. The co-rapporteur Maurizio Turco noted that the calls by the EP for democratic, jurisdictional and financial control over Europol, which, in its present condition, risks becoming a bureaucratic monster, or a instrument worthy of a police state. I'll add that a member of the European Court of Auditors, Jean-François Bernicot, severely criticised the financial and budgetary management of Europol for which it is impossible to effectively audit the spending (while its budget totalled, in 2002, the respectable figure of EUR 50 million). The French Senator and Convention member, Hubert Haenel, announced that he would continue raising the issue of Europol's problems within the Convention (until now, the message must not have got through) as he deplores the fact that Europol is not submitted to any political control and finds it 'extravagant that nothing, or nearly nothing, is made public'. The administrative council 'functions as a self contained unit and, given the nature of Europol, this seems to me excessively dangerous: Europol has access to confidential information, and is able to conclude agreements, it has a true budget'. This is another issue for the Convention.
(F.R.)