Ferai Tinc: "Privileged partnership": the proposal which makes the professor angry

"Privileged partnership": the proposal which makes the professor angryOn these hottest of summer days, it was a pleasure to see the students gathered in a room at the top floor of one of Yedi Tepe University's buildings. They were listening to one of the conceptual architectsof the European Union, Professor Marc Maresceau. And part of the pleasure of witnessing this event is not just that the students have made time to hear his thoughts, but that there is clearly a rising number of people taking European experts seriously in Turkey. I know that part of my joy in witnessing this may be inevitable. I am a journalist who follows these things incessently. As experts on the EU increase, the demand for news from these experts will also increase, but the most important thing is that the quality of public discussions of the EU will also increase. I found a chance to speak with Professor Marc Merasceau, who is the director of the Europe Institute at Gent University in Belgium. I asked him what the legal implications were for the "privileged partnership" with Turkey being proposed by the future leaders of France and Germany, Sarkozy and Merkel. He replied: "Don't ask me, ask Sarkozy and Merkel. Since they have no alternative to a full membership for Turkey, they are bringing this empty proposal to the table." This was Professor Maresceau's first response. * * * Because, from a legal perspective, there is no concept of a "privileged partnership" in the EU tradition.  According to Maresceau, "Turkey is already right now a privileged partner." And so he says: "We are privy currently to the most developed partnership agreement possible with Turkey. Turkey is one of the very few countries which, despite not being an EU member, is within the customs union. The other countries with this status are very small European ones, like Andorra and Monaco."To present "privileged partnership" as the accession talks begin would mean to open up the Ankara Treaty of 1963 for discussion. "Because at the Helsinki summit, Turkey was presented as a candidate country. What kind of candidate? A candidate for full membership. Last year, when the EU Commission advised the EU Council that Turkey was ready for accession talks, it was in reference to a full membership. Which is why the EU Council decided that accession talks should begin on October 3. At the basis of all these decisions is the Ankara Treaty, which was a pre-condition for full membership. So if they are going to pass up on full membership, then Turkey will have to have to reconsider the Ankara Treaty of 1963 all over again." Maresceau also notes that all this would be a sign of greater crisis within the EU: "If Europe opens up talks only within the framework of a new agreement or treaty, it is obliged to do this with Turkey. And if Turkey doesn't agree to do this, and if Europe insists on a 'privileged partnership,' then Europe is breaking its word on its own treaty." The same situation goes for Turkey if it passes up full membership. Up until now, the EU has broken its agreement with a country only once, and that was with a cooperation agreement with Yugoslavia in 1991. But the situation with Turkey is different. Is it easy to swallow the idea that an allied partner like the EU might not recognize a 42 year old treaty? It is not easy. Â