Is the Love Story Between Europe and Brussels Just for Better?

Tue, 29 Jun 2010

It’s after the Second World War that Brussels, the small Belgian capital, started to build its international destiny.

by William Denous

In 1948, Brussels first became host of the General Secretariat of the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg). Then, in 1958, the city was chosen to host the official headquarters of European institutions such as the European Commission and the European Council, as well as a second seat for the European Parliament. In 1966, Brussels added another trophy to its list, hosting NATO's official headquarters.

Without a doubt, it is the European Commission – the centre of European power - which changed the face of Brussels forever. Now Brussels is indeed considered as the de facto capital of the European Union, even though according to treaties the EU does not have an official capital.

In 2008, 30 656 European administrators (including 22 657 permanent ones) worked in Brussels. And this is excluding the numerous interns and auxiliaries. In addition, there are also thousands of organisations such as regional associations, professional organisations, labour unions, consultants, NGOs, and other "lobbies", which defend the ideas and interests of the groups they represent.

The number of these organisations is estimated to be around 15 000. This makes Brussels the 2nd largest centre of interest groups in the world after Washington D.C. Almost all of these workers come to live in Brussels with their family, making consequently 105 000 people directly or indirectly dependent on the international vocation of the Belgian capital. These citizens represent more than 10 % of the total population of Brussels and almost 13% of the city employment.

All these groups and institutions attract foreign companies, estimated to be between 1 500 to 2 000 and employing around 80 000 people. Many argue that if Brussels is so attractive for international companies it is because it has, thanks to its status of “European capital”, the image of a neutral European city (unlike London or Paris, which are directly related to big European powers such as the UK and France). Moreover it is true that Brussels, compared to other major European cities, is a pleasant and relatively cheap place to live. Brussels is also recognised to be a perfect "test market" or Western Europe, thanks to its multi-cultural environment and the fact that it is on the border of the Latin and Germanic cultures. Finally, Brussels has a geographical situation that many other cities could envy: it is at the intersection of the communication routes linking cities such as Paris, London, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.

But Brussels is also a place of segregation and separation. While the city contributes to 20% of the Belgian GDP, 20% of its inhabitants are unemployed. Moreover, most Brussels natives living around the “European quarter” have a bad opinion of this district composed almost exclusively of office buildings. This separation reflects a socio-economic “apartheid” that sunders the “white collars” from the rest of the city.

Brussels should probably consider hosting more “living” structures related to Europe (such as European universities, forums, museums dedicated to the union, and cultural events) than just institutions and interest groups. By doing so, a new European Brussels would be better accepted by the local population and could assume the long-awaited melting pot role. If this process succeeds, why not designate Brussels as the official capital of the European Union?