A taste for bad-mouthing Europe. And now it's Galileo's turn! We're all well aware of the taste for bad-mouthing Europe and its achievements. It's one of our dear citizens' favourite past times and we're not going to take it way from them. Nonetheless, the Galileo project is considered by all to be an initiative that provides the EU with a taste and breadth for a great adventure. It creates a feeling of again being committed to an avant-guard project, of making an important contribution and re-establishing ambition and confidence. In addition to this are the practical advantages of security for all, as well as the prospect of never again having to depend on an American military instrument for civilian use. It represents a tangible and colossal European industrial policy, according to the “public and private partnership” that has been studied and pursued, and is built on the lines of the Lisbon Strategy. And yet, Galileo is under attack on two fronts: on the one side, it is being criticised over its impossible legal status over military use of the system and on the other, doubts are being sewn over its economic significance and profitability.
The essentially civilian reasons for the Galileo project are obvious. Firstly, the European Commission promoted the initiative and led each phase. This succeeded and the European Commission convinced (a very laborious project) all the other Member States to support the project. The Commission's right of initiative does not cover (and it is logical) the military domain. Secondly, a certain number of Member States won't necessarily want to participate in a military project. Thirdly, it is definitely the civilian area where Galieo will exercise most of its activities and where we will see most of the benefits. What is false, is that any military use will be excluded from the project. This is what Jean-Pol Poncelet believes, the former Belgian defence minister, who is currently (but not for much longer) director of external relations at the European Space Agency (see our bulletin of 11 February pp 15/16). He thinks that Europe is being “scuppered” by the veto and pressure exerted by the USA and by choosing a “civilian programme, with trade ambitions in the service of this much-maligned Europe of merchants”. We can see that what ever it does, Europe can't win. If it deals with military issues, it is seen as being bellicose, and performing a role that does not belong to it; if it remains precoocupied by civilian concerns, it is condemned to being a Europe of merchants. Even the Head of Saint-Gobain, Jean-Louis Beffa has written saying that the EU is being deprived of an instrument that could have ensured its autonomy in defence matters.
The truth about military matters. Mr Poncelet's thesis is both false and inept at the same time (I'm talking about his thesis and not the eminent person worthy of respect or the tasks he performs). The agreement signed in 2004 between the EU and the USA, following negotiations, which proved extremely difficult, does not rule out Galileo being used for military objectives. Certainly there is nothing automatic about this: ad hoc decisions will be needed but a) procedures are planned for crises. If emergencies require immediate action, the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) will take the necessary decisions for military use of the system. Mr Solana will therefore be able to take action within the remit of his current role and subsequently he will be able to do so when he is minister of foreign affairs; b) the Council will be able to decide on how “defence” uses evolve within the framework of the CFSP; c) from the outset, Galileo will provide “security signal” for customs services, immigration control and the police. The armed forces will be exercising civilian functions (gendarmes in France, carabinieri in Italy etc.) as well as military detachments that back up humanitarian missions having access to this service. According to François Lamoureax, Director General of “transport and energy” at the European Commission, thanks to the above mentioned characteristics, “Galileo is the first strategic security infrastructure subject to European Union political control and will become “an essential element of EU foreign policy” if the Union carries out common security action. For further details see our bulletin of 11 February).
Industrial and financial significance. How can the rumours about technical delays to the project be answered, as well as the uncertainties about the financial profitability. The first two satellites have to be in orbit by 2006 at the latest, so that Galileo's frequencies are definitively operational. Moreover, thanks to the cooperation of Russia, it is impossible that technical problems will delay the launch of the first satellites. There are already plans for the first Soyuz rocket-launch in November at Baikonour in collaboration with Ariane. Moreover, third countries are queuing up to join the project: China, Israel and Brazil etc.
As for the commercial and financial prospects, there is a simple answer to the insinuations and rumours emanating from certain “expert” quarters. The two consortia still in the running for the project (the choice will be announced this Tuesday, are still unknown as I am writing) are prepared to invest several millions of Euro. These are not the kind of commitments to be” taken lightly. Third countries that want to take part in the project will of course bear their share of the costs too. European Commission services have indicated that the world market for products and services linked to the radio-navigation satellites doubled between 2002-03 and that it would be work EUR 300 bn by 2020. Do sceptics and the fainthearted want Europe to miss out on this market and great scientific adventure when even the Member States that initially hesitated are wholeheartedly behind the project and when the European Parliament has fiercely defended the project from the outset? Read the text that follows (published as a whole in the daily “Les Echos”, of 22 February) on Galileo's prospects and aims. It was written by Director General François Lamoureaux he main architect for the operation, and mentioned above. It is an informative insight.
(F.R.)