Statements of the importance of the Galileo project (from the strategic, industrial and scientific point of view as well as for the living standards of Europeans and the EU's image, see this column of yesterday) should not be based on statements of principle or on impressions, but rather on actual fact. For that reason I return to the subject briefly to make a few observations.
A telling symbolic success. The success of the system which enables motorists to identify their exact position (down to a few centimetres) and directs them step by step to their destination does not need to be demonstrated: it is there for all to see. It is obviously preferable for Europe to have its own system rather than depending on an American system which belongs to the military authorities and which could therefore be interrupted or limited at any given moment for strategic reasons. This autonomy is not solely a European concern: Russia (the Glonass project) and China (the Beidou project) are also pursuing it. Europe would not be doing this if the EU did not exist and if the European Commission had not taken this adventure to their hearts: no individual member state had any such ambition.
The case of China: hopes and fears. Several other countries want to be involved in Galileo. For two of them, the deal is already done: Israel and China. Why China, when it is already developing its own system? In financial terms, the level of Chinese participation in Galileo is not far off that of the major EU member states. From a European point of view, the prospects of opening up the enormous Chinese market are of course mouth-watering. But for the authorities in Beijing, the aim is twofold: participate in the European project in order to acquire knowledge and experience, and at the same time pursue the national project. China has already used the same tactics in other sectors, such as aviation and the motor industry (German car manufacturers have been up in arms against the casual way in which the Chinese use the knowledge acquired in this way). In the space sector the issue is particularly delicate because of the technological and military implications. The American authorities have taken steps with regard to the EU to warn against the transfer of “dual-use” technologies (i.e. civil and military) to China, and there are several points of concern, not least because China intends to use certain “frequencies” which according to the EU are reserved for Galileo, which would eliminate the European chances of a presence on the Chinese market. Information on these subjects is confidential; however, it is clear that Chinese technological capacities enable them to use rapidly any knowledge which comes their way. That is not a criticism, in fact it is rather a compliment, but it does justify a certain caution.
Excellent prospects for economic viability. Economic viability is as essential to Galileo as the scientific and strategic aspects. The Commission experts talk of a rapidly expanding market which should reach €450 billion per annum worldwide in 2025; the European industry could hold a third of this, a fact which can only whet the appetites of the industries concerned. Moreover, there is the matter of 100 000 additional qualified jobs. The repercussions will also be substantial for the budgets of the member states: VAT and other fiscal revenues will easily, and permanently, compensate for the cost of public funding over the next few years. As for its uses, the road traffic aspect mentioned above was just one example: Galileo can control air and maritime traffic, earthbound traffic, rescue services, ambulance and fire services, etc. Some of those in the know have no hesitation in saying that the applications of Galileo will revolutionise entire areas of the economy and the daily lives of citizens.
Deadlines to be respected. The implementation timetable is crucial. About three years have been lost because of the disagreements within the industrial consortium in charge of the project, and the personal intervention of the former European commissioner Karel Van Miert was necessary to re-establish the dialogue between the companies and come up with new agreements. The systematic principle of “juste retour” (fair return) for the member states was rejected by Mr Van Miert, but he believed that a “skills safeguard” mechanism in favour of small member states (which do not have any industrial giants) could be justified. The launch of satellites (initially by Russian Soyouz rockets) will recommence next year and the full constellation, with its 30 satellites, should be in place in 2012, so that Galileo will be fully operational in 2013, just before the revised and modernised American system becomes functional. As we can see, time is of the essence.
(F.R.)