It would have had to break every imaginable record in the military-industrial complex. It should have brought Europe great benefits. It should have been the largest merger in history, with the result of the biggest military group, aviation and aerospace in the world. It was not to be. The three participating countries did not want it to be. It was first and foremost, Berlin that didn’t want it. Germany would have had to cooperate with France and British group BAE and London categorically opposed the perpetuation of predominantly government approach favored by France and Germany, while the latter was afraid of losing jobs.
The project would have been, for Europeans, extremely profitable as it would have amplified the efficiency of military, aviation and aerospace structures of the Old Continent, greatly increasing European competitiveness in a field dominated by the United States. Thomas Enders, head of EADS, also wanted the merger. Enders was disappointed by the failure of the trilateral project. And one of the spokesmen of his group has made Berlin responsible for the failure of negotiations regarding the merger.
The federal government has refused to take a position on this. German Defense Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, was limited to a short statement, saying that he doesn’t share the view of other participating countries who said that it was Germany’s fault for merger failure.
German press was more talkative and more critical. The political spectrum from left to right, German editorialists regretted and condemned what many consider to be the decisive contribution of officials from Berlin to wreck the talks. Moreover, German State Secretary Peter Hintze, aeronautics and astronautics coordinator, was, as old enemy of the merger, relieved. Hintze praised the “preservation of the independence of EADS”.
In turn, the French President, Francois Hollande, admitted that Paris has put conditions on locations for the mega-corporation, but declined to attribute project’s failure to French, German and British politicians. He said the failure was the result of a business decision.
In reality things are not so. The lion’s share of responsibility lies just with the political classes of the three countries that were not able to understand the degree of independence of the projected super-enterprise.
According to British defense minister, Philip Hammond, the success of the aerospace corporation would have had to arise by EADS and BAE merger and would have depended on its ability to operate with commercial freedom of a private entity, away from excessive control of governments.
If this government control, expressed by 22 percent of the shares in EADS owed by France and Germany would have been maintained, the group resulted from the merger with BAE would have been faced with thorny issues in the U.S. market.
Europe is struggling to regain financial credibility and withstand the debt crisis. However, given that everywhere there is a need of massive austerity programs and big cuts in military spending, the projected merger would have fueled hopes that Europe will succeed in the future to rival the American military and aerospace giants. So far, this hope was shattered.
Reply