EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
F. Contin - From the Economist - Special Report: Turkey and the EU - Article 2: “The impossibility of saying no”
ARTICLE: The impossibility of saying no
SOURCE: The Economist, September 18th 2004
TOPIC DISCUSSED: the text discusses the process of Turkey’s entry in the EU. It describes the steps of a future enlargement, presents the Erdogan’s reforms and the improvement of Turkey.
CONTENT: the article is organized into four main points. The first one starts dealing with the difference between the two parts of the country: the Western part, that includes Istanbul, has a flourishing democracy, a stable government and a booming economy while the second one, the Eastern part, whose main city is Ankara, lies mostly in Asia, has a decadent economy,is signed by some military coups, and above all it does not respect human-rights. The big difference divides the country and it compromises its entry. Also a lot of important opinions against Turkey creates difficulties for membership talks. For example F. Fischler, the Austrian agriculture commissioner, said that Turkey is more oriental than European, and Valèry Giscard d’Estaing, a former French president that Turkish entry would mean the end of Europe.
The Kurdish war and the human-rights violation disqualified Turkey’s entry until 1999 but in December 2004 thanks to Mr. Erdogan’s policy Turkey satisfied the Copenhagen Criteria. The improvement did not satisfy the European Commission that said no to the enlargement.
The second argument refers to the good and bad points of the matter. After Erdogan’s reforms the economy is under control and human-rights have improved but the Kurdish question and the religious difference remain a hard rock to overcome. The European refusal (third argument) does not only regard the Copenhagen criteria but also questions as the geographical position, size, poverty and religion. These questions are subjective and according to the journalist’s opinion are unfounded. The most debated question is religion but “the Union already has 12,5m Muslims, and two other potential candidates for membership – Albania and Bosnia – are partly Muslim”. So it does not represent a real problem but an approach to the World of Islam after September 11th. The article ends illustrating the opinion against Turkish membership of France, Germany, Netherlands and Austria and with Mr Chirac's proposal of a referendum on Turkish accession.
PROBLEM RAISED: like the first article, this one underlines the pros and cons of Turkish entry from a subjective point of view because the journalist emphasizes the good marks and Turkey's improvement and just reading the title we know about the writer's position. The problem is European difficult to accept the entry of a Muslim country.
PERSONAL COMMENT: I think we must say yes to Turkey because, first of all religion mustn’t compromise the relationship between two countries and secondly because it means the creation of a direct link for a dialogue with Islam.