I am very grateful for the opportunity to provide the contribution of the Italian industry to the highly politically sensitive - and never ending - issue of European defence.
First of all, I welcome this initiative pursued by the WEU Assembly, as well as its continuous and useful Recommendations addressed to promote European security together with its defence industry.
I wish to specifically refer to the most recent Assembly documents on the space dimension, on antimissile defence and its implications for European industry, on the US-EU trade relationship.
Overall they provide, in my opinion, valid inputs and guidelines on complex realities of direct interest to our industry.
Let me briefly comment on the role of the WEU Assembly in the evolving framework of European security.
I am convinced of the unique place of this Assembly, being the only European parliamentary body specifically entitled to debate defence.
It provides scope for different political forces to converge towards a common vision of European defence.
The proposal launched in Lisbon in 2000, to move this Assembly from the current transitional period to full inclusion in the EU framework, on the occasion of the IGC (Inter Governmental Conference) planned in 2004, represents a useful development in the progressing framing of ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy).
In Europe, from Maastricht to Laeken, the debate on defence is progressively evolving.
I expect the "heritage" of this Assembly will continue to contribute positively to the definition of its future developments, based on realistic expectations.
From my industry perspective, it is still too early to give a final answer on how and when any future common armaments policy will emerge in Europe.
In this respect, I maintain that an effective defence policy is a long-term objective, that will remain a national prerogative of the governments (that is to say that the states will remain at the centre of defence).
In the meantime the states cooperate more and more closely in a European framework that we need to improve, update to the new realities (new security requirements, the next phase of industrial consolidation expected in Europe and in the United States, the transformation of military alliances to the new scenario).
But most important is the need to define this framework in realistic terms.
· The Italian approach to defence
It is obvious that such an exercise needs a comprehensive assessment of what is going on in the individual nations.
In Italy, my Government is setting a trend, and is determined to anticipate in 2004 the establishment of a smaller, more efficient, all volunteer Defence Force, with well equipped professionals.
Spain is also heading the same way.
Let's also remember that today, Italian public opinion is in favour of a greater defence commitment.
The Government's priorities - namely NATO DCI (Defence Capability Initiative) together with ESDP - offer a comprehensive picture for industry, since the guidelines favour European and transatlantic cooperation, to the advantage of the customer and taxpayer interests, for the "country value".
This is, in perspective, the major contribution of my country to the European security dimension, where a central role continues to be assigned to NATO, with its command & control infrastructure, and expertise.
An appropriate role for the EU Member States is envisageable, in the future ESDP, with the management of the current Petersberg tasks.
· Common views on European defence
This aspect of the military perspective on the development of the ESDP was recently outlined at the European Parliament by the Chief of the EU Military Committee: "we are not building up a standing European force".
Therefore, we should carefully evaluate the effective substance between the enthusiasm for ambitious concepts, and the existence of political willingness and means available.
The same attitude was affirmed by Rainer Hertrich, when he noted that "there is no effective framework yet for the Joint Intervention Force; for defence procurement a number of uncoordinated efforts are under way; on the defence side we are still pretty much in the hands of our governments".
Even in Paris, at the "Peace & Defence" meeting, a similar mixed and cautious message was delivered. France expressed the view that, for the time being, it is premature to put an end to national interests.
It also said that only 10% of its military budget is dedicated to European cooperation.
I outline here the different approach taken by the Italian Government, since one third of DoD investments in R&D and Procurement is devoted to European collaboration. I understand that a similar amount of European investment is spent also in Spain and Germany.
The ultimate message of that Conference was: European ambitions are limited since the current resources can satisfy only the Petersberg tasks.
The envisaged solution was: write a European White Paper, where priorities are projected beyond next decade. It is self-explanatory.
· Global security and industry: a necessary link
I believe that a coherent approach of European policy must inevitably be seen in the new global context of security, where the US and EU industries are called upon to play a primary role, in order to respond to the new kinds of security threats, and fulfil national commitments.
In this context, the relationship between military capabilities, and a strong industrial base, has potential impacts on the competitiveness of the European industries and the transatlantic relationship.
Look at what is going on in the US, where the recent takeover bid of Northrop Grumman for TRW illustrates the continuous transformation of the US landscape.
A rebalancing is expected among the US players, with the strengthening of their technological basis.
In Europe too, further alliances and movements are possible among the few, big players emerged from the large restructuring that occurred in the Nineties.
· A long road ahead for European defence: realities and ambitions
Focusing on the European defence policy, I observe how complex and not yet organic the situation actually is. It has been defined as a "Christmas tree".
Notwithstanding that, interesting attempts and steps have been taken - well appreciated by industry - with the creation of common bodies and the realisation of common initiatives (OCCAR, LoI), aimed at "modernising" the European defence level-playing field.
I remark that Italy is actively committed to all these initiatives.
However, it is common understanding that this joint effort is, nevertheless, the less difficult to put in force.
In fact, these steps rotate around the central point (one policy, one army, one industry) that we Europeans are not yet able to build up.
We should ask ourselves: do we really want it?
Saying that, I do not intend to criticise anybody, at a time when the need to increase military capacities in an appropriate framework is recognised in the EU.
In fact, I remark that there are several good reasons for the individual nations to keep European defence within the current inter-governmental approach. National interests prevail.
Nations are active in promoting technological leadership, controlling their own industrial capabilities, which are seen as strategic assets for their military and foreign policy.
It seems therefore not easy, in such a situation of scepticism, to find a convergence path on large, short-term and effective solutions.
It seems also hard that any further progress by Europe will be able to reduce the increasing gap in terms of financial resources and technological advances vis-à-vis the US.
It goes without saying that a continued weakness in technology will reduce Europe's ability to be a credible player alongside the US in the context of multinational operations.
· Need for flexible approaches
These considerations lead me to draw attention to two European initiatives, laid down by some States:
These "projects", if effectively realised, could represent a flexible and practical way - and a reference method - of taking a step forward in the convergence of European technologies.
The perspective could also foster the development of future products, able to satisfy European defence requirements.
Going beyond current uncertainties, I am convinced that it is possible to pursue valid initiatives also with the contribution of the European authorities in some areas, such as research & technology and the space dimension.
This is a way to provide effective tools for the implementation of the second pillar of ESDP.
· Balanced criteria and realistic solutions
It has to be realised now, that the construction of a real European defence cannot take the form of wishful thinking. Neither can it be a disguised excuse to reinforce national privileged positions.
We must remember that in military field, government rules live together with business interests, not with nice theories.
This means that the governments, in the industry view, are called upon to invest the taxpayers' money not only to pay less, but also to provide the best value for money to the benefit of the country.
It is a choice of national priorities, technological and industrial return for the economy, qualification of national Hi Tech capabilities inside international partnerships.
On the field, we can say that you can be a real European player, if you:
