The EU suggests that there is an opportunity to connect Europe and Asia by building air, road and rail connection, but they do it in terms of air-decarbonization and good practices. Cooperation is part of the deal but strict bureaucracy takes over as the priority is to “adhere to high standards of transparency and good governance”

When it comes to China, the policy emphasizes that “the EU should strengthen the existing cooperation […], promote the implementation of the principles of market access and a level playing field, as well as rely on international standards”. And as far as Japan is concerned, the idea is that “the EU should coordinate closely efforts to promote international standards”.

A profound gap in mindsets.

In short, the EU’s strategy demonstrates how big the gap is between the West and the East. The document says what the EU could do and what it should do. And when it says what it “will” do, the focus is put on trying to understand how things work over here.

This position is easy to explain: the Asian dimension is new to Europe. The EU connectivity policy furthers a previous policy from 2016 in which (Central) Asia was described not as an economic partner per se, but as a way to counter-balance the political and energy instability created by Russia. As a result, the European Union is now wondering how to move things forward with a region it now needs to understand in order to operate better. And it is visibly looking for a way to shape its message.

What comes next?

This leads to two very important questions: what comes next, and how do Europeans create a durable relationship with Asia based on reciprocity and mutual interests? Two important stakes are worth mentioning here.

Stake one: Connectivity with who?

Asia is a big place and the Connectivity proposal takes a very holistic approach to it. Yet, defining what the European Commission means by “Asia” would appear to constitute a sine qua none requirement. The proposal talks about developing market principles in China and happens to mention Japan, but are there countries worth targeting more than others?

When discussing the initiative, a common idea is that the connectivity thing is the EU’s answer to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This makes sense, of course. Yet, the policy paper does not mention it explicitly. And it does not mention alternative countries with significant growth rates and economic potentials so the policy goal is somehow confusing. A major stake, therefore, will be for Europe to define which partners it wants to connect with in particular.

Stake two: The connectivity method (and mindset).

The second important stake is that of methods and mindsets.

The European mindset is focused on business stability and business certainty, therefore the current policy message unsurprisingly focuses on creating rules and building certainty. This is not a bad thing, as China isn’t for instance famous for the strength of its legal standards or for the stability of its financial system. Hence, to this extent, Europe has an opportunity to contribute to building a reliable EU-Asia connectivity.

Yet, building connectivity “the European way” by imposing a mindset is probably not the best way to proceed.

From the Asian perspective, what matters is whether there are opportunities to construct win-win business relationships. But Europe is so focused on building rules that the connectivity policy only mentions that the EU “intends to support platforms for matching European and Asian businesses, with a focus on SMEs and envisages creating a Business Advisory Group for Euro-Asian connectivity” at the last paragraph, immediately before the policy document’s conclusion.

Connecting Europe to Asia: a hint.

What that means is very straightforward: the European mindset needs to evolve.

>> Related Reading: China’s Eurasia Means we need a new business mindset.

The connectivity policy conveys an important message, i.e. business needs to be safe, but the message so far is paternalistic. If the purpose is to create real connectivity with Asia and Eurasia, the discourse will have to change and the idea of matching European and Asian businesses will need to gain importance in the public discourse.

The potential for Europe-Asia business is immense and rules will matter, this is for sure. But, ultimately, the difference will come from operational businesses willing to bet on Asia more than from technocrats seeking to create rules. The key, in the meantime, is to realize that European and Asian mindsets are different and that things get done in the region because the modus operandi is, precisely, to get things done.