Brussels, 23/05/2006 (Agence Europe) - During the seminar entitled “Industrial Strategies for Europe's Defence” organised in Brussels on 15 May by the Schuman Foundation, the director responsible for the aerospace industry, security and defence at the European Commission, Paul Weissenberg, stressed one should “not be afraid” of saying that “the defence industry is a strategic industry” and that “a strong industrial fabric is needed if one wants a credible ESDP”. He went on to stress that European industry is competitive, comprising even “global players”, which sometimes makes one wonder why calls are launched for the creation of European champions. The industry has carried out major restructuring and consolidation work, Paul Weissenberg said, noting that things have even started moving in the land sector over recent days with GIAT and Krauss-Maffei. Although the supply side is well on track it is still necessary to ensure that “demand is a credible partner for supply”, the director for DG Industry said, asserting that “Article 296 must not serve as a pretext for not moving forward”. He went on to conclude by noting that, in the ESDP field, there is a strategic concept, institutions to back it up and citizens who want such a policy, but the policies themselves are not up to standard. For now, no progress is being made either at the Community level or at the intergovernmental level, he added, asking: “Why not have a military Schengen Area?”.
Eric Trappier (Dassault) urged for a European industrial model to be placed in the hands of European project managers responsible for bringing together the most qualified participants for the development of various kinds of armaments to meet the needs of the European armed forces. This system would go hand in hand with the rejection of the fair return system, he explained, noting that Dassault has chosen to give up its competence to federate, in 2030, the expertise necessary for developing a new fighter aircraft. Eric Trappier regretted the limited nature of the European Defence Agency's means, adding: “The thirty to forty million euros (Ed.: envisaged for financing research cooperation) compared to the billions of US dollars leaves us somewhat concerned”.
In answer to questions put to him by a representative of EADS on the introduction of a European preference, at least in a form equivalent to 50% of the American content imposed by the United States, Paul Weissenberg noted that the notion of European preference did not have many supporters in some Member States and he therefore suggested “dressing it up differently” by working on the notions of “supply security” and “autonomous decision-making”. This brief debate on European preference prompted Bill Giles (BAE Systems) to stress that some countries (for example, the United Kingdom and Poland) are more concerned about the “NATO preference”. In his view, progress made with the code of conduct and the interpretative communication is “remarkable” because, just two years ago, “the idea of a European market was not on the agenda”. However, when asked why BAE Systems has chosen to pull out of Airbus, his answer was simple: “For our shareholders, investing in the United States is the best choice”. In response to a Belgian colonel who criticised the industry's lack of competitiveness and the lack of effectiveness of European spending, saying that Europe spends the equivalent of 66% of the American budget but that this only corresponds to 3-5% of equivalent means on the ground, Eric Trappier replied by making a comparison between the current cost of development of the American JSF, 170 billion, and that of the French Rafale, €28 billion.