Where turf wars get really messy

By Ilana Bet-El

Date: 16/02/06

Turf wars are notoriously nasty events.

Whether over a paper clip, access to a filing cabinet, order of precedence or a senior title, they tend to bring out the worst in everyone - and that is just in an office. The nastiness multiplies when offices go at it and even more so when entire institutions full of offices and people enter a fight. For after all, what is at stake is not only the standing and importance of a person or an office or an institution in their own eyes - but also in the eyes of others.

It is sad but safe to say that the EU is an organisation that seems to excel in turf wars, with the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament constantly trying to garner something off the other - or at the very least make sure they do not lose out to the other. It is bad enough when these battles take place in Brussels or even in the member states. But since the EU has evolved into an organisation that also deals in crisis management and deploys into areas in need of it, the internecine fights have been externalised for all to see - and it does the Union little good.

From Bosnia to Afghanistan, the EU has bravely entered the fray in a number of hot spots around the world, often with a double presence: the Commission opens the official EU representation, and then the Council sets up office. In broad terms, the former tends to have funds and the latter brings political clout. Unfortunately, neither can manage without the necessary component held by the other. And even more unfortunately, neither will usually co-operate with the other - let alone concede power to it.

At the most basic level the situation tends to reveal the complexities of the EU: two offices representing two institutions tasked with distinct capabilities and funded separately. The problem is, that for the rest of the world both of these are the EU: one organisation, and the differences between the institutions are just too complex to understand.

Put another way, when local leaders or representatives of other international organisations or diplomatic delegations wish to interface with the Council office in any given location, they may receive wise words of political engagement and even reach agreements. They will, however, then find that these have to be funded by the Commission, which has its office somewhere else, has not been party to the political negotiations and sees no reason to put its funding mechanisms into action to make good the agreement.

As a result, these local and international interlocutors end up being sent from pillar to post between the two, mainly seeking to bridge a compromise between them - let alone between the sides to any crisis or conflict on the ground.

To such interlocutors this situation is simply a mess and often a quite undignified one at that. But to the EU and those interested in it is quite logical, as explained above. And, as anyone steeped in EU affairs well knows, it is a situation that was meant to be resolved by the EU constitution, which was dumped last year and stands only a slim chance of survival in a new form - in two years, or more.

That is not good enough. The EU has managed to gain a distinctly negative reputation on the ground and is undermining its own efforts to have a presence in international affairs as and where they happen. If the constitution cannot be used, then another solution must be found to harmonise EU representations. Who knows, if they were forced to live together, the Commission and Council representatives might find they have at least one thing in common: the EU tax payer, who would be grateful for the saving on double office space.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Author calls on a reorganisation of the European Union's external representation, presently characterised by double structures of the Council and the European Commission.

• Primary Source