245
the advantages of Chile in the news media when the subject was aired in
public were most revealing, so much so, that their words might have been
dictated by ESO. One would then see Mrs Garmendia use similar words in
Parliamentary exchanges and the press.
I sent the Minister three letters informing her on these matters. I explained
the hidden motives behind ESO’s closing of ranks in the question of putting
the E-ELT in Chile and indicated the only way to upset their manoeuvres. I
told her that it was a matter of urgency to show the ministerial departments
of the member countries, who were paying hefty annual quotas and subsidizing the cash outflows of ESO, the figures revealing the substantial savings that
would be made by putting the E-ELT in the Canaries. Not only would this
result in lower construction and running costs but funding could also be
obtained from the European Commission on the grounds that the Canaries
are classed as ultra-peripheral territory, for which specific subsidies existed.
The savings were so overwhelming that this would be a crushing argument to
make. Remember that all this was going on during Spain’s presidency of the
European Union, and our ministers, secretaries of state, and others met frequently with their homologues in the other member states paying for ESO. I
ended by asking that state diplomatic actions be taken, as was happening in
Chile. I received the following reply from the director of her office, scolding
me for my frankness and contacting the Minister directly: ‘I wish you to
understand that the Ministry would not permit its civil servants or high officials to repeat your affirmations, which might harm our institutional relation
with the intergovernmental organization ESO’. It was shocking that the
Director of the IAC should receive such a rap on the knuckles for drawing
attention, as was his duty, to rude reality from the President of his own
Governing Council, who was also the Minister of science. This correspondence is kept in the IAC archives.
In the end, the IAC, and the people and politicians of the Canaries, were
the only ones who defended ‘against wind and tide’ Spain’s candidacy for the
E-ELT. In the local parliaments, the press, and everywhere we pressed home
the exceptional benefits and advantages of the Canaries. We highlighted our
strengths: the astronomical quality of our summits, protected by law; the lack
of seismic activity and strong winds, allowing the possibilities of giant telescopes to be taken to their limit, thereby simplifying their design, construction, and running; the reduction in construction and running costs, etc.
Added to all this was the advantage of the high standard of living in this territory of European culture. Naturally, we also preached the multiple benefits
that hosting the E-ELT would bring to Spanish science and technology, and
to the economy. They were crowded years.
22 The European Extremely Large Telescope…
the advantages of Chile in the news media when the subject was aired in
public were most revealing, so much so, that their words might have been
dictated by ESO. One would then see Mrs Garmendia use similar words in
Parliamentary exchanges and the press.
I sent the Minister three letters informing her on these matters. I explained
the hidden motives behind ESO’s closing of ranks in the question of putting
the E-ELT in Chile and indicated the only way to upset their manoeuvres. I
told her that it was a matter of urgency to show the ministerial departments
of the member countries, who were paying hefty annual quotas and subsidizing the cash outflows of ESO, the figures revealing the substantial savings that
would be made by putting the E-ELT in the Canaries. Not only would this
result in lower construction and running costs but funding could also be
obtained from the European Commission on the grounds that the Canaries
are classed as ultra-peripheral territory, for which specific subsidies existed.
The savings were so overwhelming that this would be a crushing argument to
make. Remember that all this was going on during Spain’s presidency of the
European Union, and our ministers, secretaries of state, and others met frequently with their homologues in the other member states paying for ESO. I
ended by asking that state diplomatic actions be taken, as was happening in
Chile. I received the following reply from the director of her office, scolding
me for my frankness and contacting the Minister directly: ‘I wish you to
understand that the Ministry would not permit its civil servants or high officials to repeat your affirmations, which might harm our institutional relation
with the intergovernmental organization ESO’. It was shocking that the
Director of the IAC should receive such a rap on the knuckles for drawing
attention, as was his duty, to rude reality from the President of his own
Governing Council, who was also the Minister of science. This correspondence is kept in the IAC archives.
In the end, the IAC, and the people and politicians of the Canaries, were
the only ones who defended ‘against wind and tide’ Spain’s candidacy for the
E-ELT. In the local parliaments, the press, and everywhere we pressed home
the exceptional benefits and advantages of the Canaries. We highlighted our
strengths: the astronomical quality of our summits, protected by law; the lack
of seismic activity and strong winds, allowing the possibilities of giant telescopes to be taken to their limit, thereby simplifying their design, construction, and running; the reduction in construction and running costs, etc.
Added to all this was the advantage of the high standard of living in this territory of European culture. Naturally, we also preached the multiple benefits
that hosting the E-ELT would bring to Spanish science and technology, and
to the economy. They were crowded years.
22 The European Extremely Large Telescope…