GMF - The German Marshall Fund of the United States - Strengthening Transatlantic Cooperation

Co-authored with Kerry Brown, Senior Fellow at Chatham House.

Despite being the largest meeting of heads of state and government in the world, the 8th Asia Europe Meeting (Asem) held in Brussels last week went largely unnoticed by the majority of the inhabitants of the two continents its members represent.

Asem was designed, in part, to complement the various bilateral conversations that take place between Asian and European countries, expanding the European Union model of large multilateral organisations providing a context in which to address issues of common concern.

But this Asem summit took place in the context of an EU identity crisis. Months after the Lisbon Treaty, Brussels is still absorbed in petty bickering about appointments to the External Action Service, the EU's attempt at a diplomatic service. This bickering belies a deeper discussion about the nature of the EU itself.

In recent years, the EU has become settled in the belief that it offers a model of how economic integration can lead to greater political integration and regional stability.

By analogy, it was thought that a similar institution in Asia could create a space in which the process of consensus could create a tool to rein in the expansionist ambitions of China, while providing both increased economic opportunity and regional stability.

Despite years of discussions, the truth is that none of these attempts has ever passed beyond the ideas stage. Asia has been generally resistant, and at times completely opposed, to ideas about what such an institution would look like.

China has dismissed proposals which would see powers such as the United States enter the region able to challenge its power unilaterally. This has not been helped by the fact that the debate has also been handled poorly - Mr Kevin Rudd, then Australia's Prime Minister, famously scuppered his own idea of an East Asian Community by excluding Asean from the discussion. The case was also made that Asia had no need to add any more letters to an alphabet soup of multilateral organisations in the region.

In Asia, one sees plenty of economic integration, with free trade agreements being signed left, right and centre. Even Taiwan and mainland China, one of the most contentious relationships on the planet, managed to sign a comprehensive FTA in June. Asian countries, despite their profound political differences, have moved dramatically towards an increasingly open economy.

With the EU - created after two world wars from the desire to prevent anything of the sort from happening again - Europe achieved its goal. It is a largely peaceful and prosperous region, though lacking in the global power that its nations were able to exercise before its creation. And yet, never has the EU been so downbeat about its real raison d'etre.

Recent efforts to remedy this lack of influence seem to be going nowhere. The EU's two new leaders - Baroness Catherine Ashton as the Foreign Policy Chief, and Herman Van Rompuy as the President - are largely unknown figures outside of Europe, posing difficulties as they seek to represent the EU in international discussions. The External Action Service, which was supposed to help to create a face for Europe in the world, is going nowhere fast due to infighting within the EU institutions about various ambassadorial appointments.

The EU remains as confused as ever about its identity. It remains stuck between presenting itself as a market, an economic superpower, with combined benefits for its members, and as a political idea and a foreign policy player, creeping closer and closer to being a super state.

That tension was there from the start, when it was established as an economic free trade zone for certain commodities just after World War II. It also has to acknowledge the huge influence of the US during its establishment and growth, based on the deep desire to see no more devastating wars originate on its borders. There are very specific things about the origins of the EU, why it was set up, and what it was meant to do.

Quite why these should be regarded as comparable to the situation in Asia remains a mystery. But in view of its success at expanding and its relative economic growth in the past couple of decades, the EU has become more confident about how it tries to speak as one voice, and how it likes to regard its relevance to those outside.

Once the EU has resolved its crisis of identity, perhaps it can face Asia more confidently. It needs to jettison the idea that it can wield any influence by offering a transferable model for Asia. This is currently not the case - although it may be in the future as rifts open up and countries reach a point where they can no longer develop unless in close cooperation with their neighbours.

In the meantime, the EU needs to hammer out a workable consensus among member states on what they want from Asia, and in particular from India, China, Japan and Asean members - and it must be prepared to offer advice on multi-lateralism when asked, rather than try to pre-empt what can only be a natural evolution.

Kerry Brown is senior fellow on the Asia Programme, Chatham House, London and Amy Studdart works for the German Marshall Fund in Brussels.