Galileo: a necessary investment

If this column were Eurosceptic, the everlasting debate over the Galileo satellite system would provide excellent fodder for it - not least because it can be counted on to press all the right (or wrong buttons): unclearly defined, it is unclearly funded for a community purpose that is apparently not agreed and possibly offering easy income to a raft of players.

There is the added factor always beloved of the Eurosceptics: it just goes on and on, providing an ever present punch-bag and proving above all that the EU just cannot get its act together - so why trust it?

Debates on launching an independent EU satellite navigation system started in the mid-1990s and the formal decision to actually proceed with the project was taken in July 1999 - eight years ago. Most of the problems with the concept were well known then - and have altered little over the years. Nonetheless, they still get aired regularly, as if new.

The idea behind Galileo is simple: an independent satellite navigate system for Europe, to ensure its transport systems and wider economic viability. The reason behind this idea is also simple: the only two operative satellite systems at present are the US’ Global Positioning Service (GPS) and the Russian Glonass system, both of which are military and while made available for civil use there is no guarantee for continuity: either or both could be withdrawn at any time.

There ends the simplicity and commences the classic and complex EU wrangling, which is basically about money and ensuring each member state gets a share of the pie - but obfuscated by apparently lofty principles. The money issue boils down to the hard fact that global navigation satellite infrastructure (GNSS), which is what Galileo would be, costs a lot of money and does not promise a juste retour. In order to be competitive with the American GPS, the system would have to be free for the individual user, and only commercial enterprises could be charged. There may not be enough of these to ensure a profit for the private sector investor, a fact that has been obvious for some time. Yet the Council of Ministers in its wisdom decided to put the project out to the private sector, more or less in its entirety.

After initially taking the EU up on the offer, through various bids which were amalgamated into a single consortium - to ensure everyone got a slice of the cake - the private sector unsurprisingly calculated that the project was commercially unviable and tried to squeeze more funds out of the EU. In its communiqué last week, the Council both effectively accepted the assessment and fired the consortium - and is now accepting that it may have to fund the construction of the system out of its own budget. In other words: define it as a public good.

In truth, that is exactly what Galileo should be, to the greater benefit of all EU citizens. The conceptual obstacle however - the "lofty principles" - is that whilst it is known that the system could be used for security, there is a chance it would also be used for military purposes, an idea that makes some people shake, either with rage or with fear. But this argument can no longer be viable in this day and age, for two basic reasons.

First, the distinction between security and defence, once clear cut between police and military, is no longer applicable. ‘Military’ could mean security as much as defence. Are member states to abandon the security of their citizens therefore? This is related to the second issue: many who object to military applications for Galileo also objected to the US invasion of Iraq, for example, or other shows of US military might - yet in vetoing the use of Galileo for military purposes they are effectively saying that they wish their own defence organisations to remain beholden to the US, since they are dependent on GPS.

Making Galileo work could and should be a major step for the EU in recognising that some public goods are necessary even if they cannot be totally categorized under one of the common pillars. Like the proposed technology institute, this is a necessary investment in the future.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

If this column were Eurosceptic, the everlasting debate over the Galileo satellite system would provide excellent fodder for it - not least because it can be counted on to press all the right (or wrong buttons): unclearly defined, it is unclearly funded for a community purpose that is apparently not agreed and possibly offering easy income to a raft of players.

• Primary Source