A propos “privileged partnership”

As we still have to learn what exactly people like Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy mean when they speak of a “privileged partnership” between Turkey and the European Union, some elements are obvious and some might be inferred from historical precedents quite prominent in European history.

Let’s start with the obvious. The main goals are to prevent Turkey, as a state, to take part in the determination of common European policies on an equal footing. Turkey shall not take part in the European Council, European Commission or European Parliament. Implicitely, Turks as voters shall not be represented in these institutions, they shall not become European citizens. Which obviously has similar implications for the rights of Turkish citizens as individuals.

So far that’s not extraordinary insofar as it is the same with all non-member states, wether the United States or China. It may deny some ideas of the founders of the Union, indeed, and also contradict the spirit of some old treaties. But then, where is the recommended “partnership”, and where is the “privilege”?

Where is the privilege ?

Perhaps one idea expressed, for instance, by Sarkozy and Edmund Stoiber, may give us a hint. They say that the EU shall be prevented to border on states like Syria or Iran. In plain words that means that they expect that the EU will not be able to deal with these states in a satisfactory manner; or to formulate a bit more provocative, they think that the EU has to be afraid of them.

Turks perhaps may understand this, as they know some problems first hand; however, Turkey does not have the privilege to avoid them. On the other hand, the EU may have, so we may say that what Sarkozy etc. look for is the EU, not Turkey, to be privileged.

Admittedly, they want to buy at least some oil and gas from, and sell some European products and services to that region. Turkey is well placed to function as a transit country for those products. This trade is quite vital for the EU in the medium term, and may be also for Turkey and adjacent countries. To sum it up: It is therefore quite understandable that Sarkozy does not want to negotiate political integration with Turkey (Merkel is ambiguous or evasive on that point), whereas he well supports integration of traffic lines (“European networks”). At least to some degree the latter is also in Turkey’s interest, but the package of negotiating some and not negotiating other chapters is a practical step towards privileges of the EU.

“Advantage Sarkozy” in terms of tennis.

A question of “Mark”

The idea has really ancient predecessors, the “Mark”, or “Grenzmark”, already applied in Carolingian times (the Frankish Empire around 800-900 A.D.), and later in the “Holy Roman (German) Empire”. It means a border province facing a possibly or actually dangerous neighborhood, where the military ruler has specific privileges in return for protecting his foreign borders. Interestingly, there is some similarity with the Crusader states of Near Eastern Middle Ages. The medieval Marks (like Mark Brandenburg, Ostmark = Austria, or the Spanish Mark) were all at the borders of non-Christian peoples at the respective time (Slavs, Avars and Magyars, Cordoba - the Spanish Moors). The respective privilege may be that the Mark-Count or -Earl is exempted from certain taxes or/and customs or/and some other legal rules applied to other noblemen. So one thing to ask may be which financial return Turkey can expect from the EU or from France and, perhaps, Germany, if it accepts such a deal.

Another aspect may be that in such a “Mark-”replica it may be acceptable for the EU that rules of democracy are not applied or less strictly applied than in the EU. “301” may not be a problem then - so hey, Mr. Cicek, what do you think about it? Nice idea, such a privilege?

And yes, perhaps it might apply to a military coup; or, on the other hand, a “moderate” Islamism. As long as it remains moderately pro-Western, that is.

Such unspoken considerations result from deep fears of which some European leaders either are victims, or which they try to misuse for political gains. The fear of Islam. The idea of a “Turkish Mark” literally marks this fear.

And so -to mention some other precedents-, as we dub some historical rulers of those ancient times as “Charles the Brave”, “Philipp the Beautiful”, or “Suleiman the Magnificent”, what could be the epitheton of Mr. Sarkozy, for instance? “Nicholas the Timid”? Or what about “Angela the Shaky”?

But how realistic is it to expect a Muslim country to function like a Crusader Mark, while not allowing them access to decision-making? The two aspects of the idea obviously contradict each other, but they have something in common: They both result from the same fear.

And what about to expect to get it even without providing some countable returns, which obviously would have to be higher than the EU agrarian subsidies which would be granted in the case of full membership? Because otherwise they would not give, but take in exchange for taking!

Capitulations

To be serious, it would be a clinically weird idea were it not for the options of some Turks who wish less than full democracy for their country. Current varieties of Kemalism, nationalism, Islamism are all options which do not allow for EU membership, so some quest for alternatives may be reasonable. This part of the game is up to Turkey itself.

Another historical precedent from the Ottoman Empire are the privileges known as “Capitulations”. Originally grants given unilaterally by the sultans, they became judicial claims of European powers in time, but retained their unilateral character in that rights were on one and obligations on another side. It does not appear as if this historical precedent is really conscious on the part of any EU member state, but of course it is a very tempting idea for anybody who might be on the profiting side, so it might be reborn from scratch. However, this precedent is quite present on the Turkish mind, so any rebirth is likely to be a stillborn.

Nonetheless, I think that both these historical precedents should be conscious on either side. Ponder your options, dear Europeans.

By which I mean everybody concerned.