Why the European Union should take a leaf from Deng’s book

Last September, Armenia stunned Brussels when it gave up on its association and free trade deal with the EU following Russian demands for Yerevan to join the Customs Union, thereby excluding the possibility of a free trade agreement with the EU.

It was not Armenia’s decision in itself that shook the EU foreign policy community, but a fear of the possible shape of things to come. As EUISS expert Nicu Popescu asserted, the Union is right to feel uneasy: its influence in world affairs should no longer be taken for granted, and it will become increasingly dependent on the ability of Member States to stick act in economic, security, and foreign policy matters.

A few weeks later, former Bangladeshi general Muniruzzaman Khan published an opinion article in which he pointed out that India, China and Pakistan depend on the glaciers of the Himalayas for water. Those glaciers are melting fast, and the world’s most populous countries, all with significant military capabilities (including nuclear weapons), could well find themselves facing an existential crisis within two decades. And, as Mr. Khan wisely pointed out, people do not always make the wisest decisions when faced with deprivation of an essential resource.

The combination of both articles made me think about the section Henry Kissinger devotes to Deng Xiaoping’s famous guidelines for the rule of an emerging but still poor China in his monumental book On China. Here is what Kissinger wrote:

As he receded from the scene, Deng decided to buttress his successor by leaving behind a set of maxims for his guidance and that of the next generation of leaders. In issuing these instructions to Communist Party officials, Deng chose a method from Chinese classical history. The instructions were stark and succinct. Written in classical Chinese poetic style, they embraced two documents: a 24-character instruction and a 12-character explanation restricted to high officials. The 24-character instruction read:

'Observe carefully; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.'

The 12-character policy explanation followed with an even more restricted circulation among the leaders. It read:

'Enemy troops are outside the walls. They are stronger than we. We should be mainly on the defensive.'

It might sound premature, exaggerated or even completely offshoot, but maybe – just maybe – the European Union should consider adopting a longer-term approach, calmly take the backseat and capitalize on strengths that are more durable than the benefits of free trade agreements, financial innovation and even technological leadership – valuable assets that can nonetheless be rapidly eroded in the era of networks and globalization.

In the context of a G-Zero world threatened by climate change, ideological radicalism and sectarianism, growing inequality and explosive demographic growth, Europe enjoys what emerging and even some more established powers do not: food security, internal stability and (still) fairly distributed economic wealth. Securing these enormous privileges while maintaining a relatively low profile – i.e. being an actor but not a leader – and ensuring greater internal cohesiveness makes quite a lot of sense for an ailing Europe.

It can be argued that demography is not at all on Europe's side if it really wants to be patient. However, it is not on the side of China, either, and a Pakistan or Nigeria-like demographic boom is no boon either. What is urgently needed for an approach based on strategic patience to be feasible is a comprehensive reform of EU immigration regulations and policies and an agreement on a common immigration policy for Europe.

Making sure that the right immigration flows enter the continent will not only help offset the strains tied to lower birthrates and longer life expectancy at home, but will also be crucial to ensure a greater degree of stability and prosperity in the EU's immediate neighborhood and beyond – all, of course, in a perfectly compatible manner with this low-key, benevolent strategic approach.

As Henry Kissinger correctly points out in his book, with his words, Deng wanted to invoke virtues such as calm in the face of adversity, high analytical and strategic ability, and discipline in pursuit of a common purpose. Seemingly unable to revert their crisis-fueled internal disunion, facing a potentially explosive combination of emerging threats and emerging powers, and increasingly impotent to make their partners follow EU norms, European leaders could definitely take a leaf from Deng's playbook: keep calm, keep close and wait for the right time to reemerge.