According to the USA, the project of the connection on the Strait would not be a strategic expense for the defense. Too bad that at their home they consider such sewers and galleries to their home.
That the cost of the Messina bridge could be inserted in the calculation of the percentage of GDP dedicated to military expenses was something creative but all in all realistic. But the government, after a severe scolding from an American official, said this will not happen. However, despite what has been said to the US ambassador at the Alliance, Matthew Whitaker, it is difficult to deny that the bridge over the Strait of Messina does not have a strategic military value for our country. It must be remembered that the NATO allies had decided that 3.5% increase would be spent on systems and weapon means, while the remaining 1.5% could have been spent to create or protect critical infrastructures, defend our IT networks, guarantee preparation and civil resilience, to encourage innovation and strengthen the defense industry.
In fact, Sicily is a region that hosts very important military bases such as Trapani Birgi and Sigonella, therefore promoting the road and railway connection with the mainland falls within an investment that also favors the strategic and military positionas it will allow easier access to the bases on the island. And it is the thesis supported by the Minister of Transport Matteo Salvini, who publicly declared last month that the bridge would “obviously double use, for safety reasons”. Certainly this interpretation would allow to consider the 13.5 billion euros allocated for the construction part of the Italian defense expenses provided for by that 1.5% of the GDP, or corresponding to around 30 billion euros. And even if the investment bank Equita said that it would be “opportunistic accounting”, it is undeniable that transferring tanks, heavy vehicles and military structures via Nave continues to be problematic, slow and expensive. Probably, as an American, Whitaker would like that money to be spent in US weapons, so he saw the initiative under a bad light and caused a rapid response from the Italian Ministry of Transport, which said: “The bridge over the Strait of Messina is already entirely financed with state resources and there are no funds for the defense; the possible use of NATO resources is not currently at the agenda and, above all, is not an absolute necessity.
In diplomacy it is necessary to know how to mitigate the controversies, but the Italian response knows a little of Excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta. Going beyond the declaration of Palazzo Chigi, it must be admitted that the affair shows double -sized: the US has always financed public works considering the strategic value, from the Florida Keys motorway to the Seattle Ship Canal Tunnel, a recent project that provides for the construction of a 4 km gallery that would solve pollution problems but would also be used for rapid connections in case of crisis. Or the Cleveland Dugway Storage Tunnel, a work similar in Ohio for water management and the Three Rivers Protection & Overflow Reduction (3rport) in Fort Wayne, in the state of Indiana, a work designed to reduce floods and pollution that provides for an excavation of 8 km already in progress. In all these cases in the neighboring territories there are important military installations that will enjoy the benefits of the new infrastructures, the costs are therefore also considered useful funds for defense even if the history teaches that the only attacks suffered by the USA in their territory were those of Pearl Harbor, the Pentagon and the twin towers. Not to mention the “towns” that arose specifically for military projects with defense funds, such as those that arise next to the bases of NASA, in the new Mexico or in the Mojave desert.
So Americans at their home can do what they like, making “opportunistic investments” and “casual accounting”, but do not tolerate that we do the same.
