Perhaps the most significant infrastructure project in recent Italian history is the proposal to build a bridge connecting Sicily to the mainland. The Strait of Messina Bridge would be the world’s longest single-span suspension bridge, spanning 2.05 miles (3.3 kilometers), connecting Calabria to Sicily. The government is seeking ways to generate the €13.5 billion (around $15.6 billion) in funding, and one new proposal is to count it toward NATO spending.
Italy has proposed that the Strait of Messina be included in its 5% NATO spending target. The Italian government believes that the bridge could be used to facilitate the movement of troops, military vehicles, and aid from Sicily to the mainland in the event of war. Since the bridge has the potential for dual usage, Italy is urging NATO to permit it to count it toward their contribution.
The US ambassador of NATO, Matthew Whitaker, immediately shot down the idea, attributing the notion to “creative accounting.” “It should not include bridges that have no strategic military value,” Whitaker warned, “It’s not schools that somehow, in fantasy land, would be for some military reason.” Instead, the ambassador believes all contributions must be related to “hard defense capabilities” such as military equipment or spending on Ukrainian infrastructure. Basically, spend on the US military industrial complex or directly on Ukraine with no room for margin.
Yet, the stipulation is for nations to spend 1.5% of their 5% obligation on infrastructure projects. The allied troops certainly could have used a bridge from Sicily to the mainland during World War II. The NAS Sigonella is located in Sicily as one of the larger NATO bases. The US also has a Naval Air Station in Sicily as the US was awarded some land in Sicily in 1957.
The Italian government responded as a good colony of the European Union. The Transport and Infrastructure Ministry (MIT) clarified that there is no plan to use NATO resources to fund the project. “The Strait of Messina Bridge is already entirely financed by State resources, and no defense funds are earmarked,” it said. “The possible use of NATO resources is not currently on the agenda, and, above all, it is not an absolute necessity.” However, that was never the issue as Italy was merely requesting the 13.5 billion euros to count toward its spending obligation.
All of these alliances come with strings attached. NATO, similar to the EU, benefits those at the top who dictate how others are to spend their funds in a way that ensures the top contributors benefit more than the others.