TITLE: “Why Europe must say yes to Turkey”.
SOURCE: “The Economist”, a British weekly magazine concerning international economy and politics, 18th September 2004.
TOPIC DISCUSSED: The article deals with the pros and cons of EU Enlargement to Turkey.
CONTENT: The article is made up of three parts; each part has got a title.
The first part is entitled “The EU faces a momentous decision”: it has the function of introducing the problem.
The second part is entitled “Risk and reward” and analyzes the problems posed by the first sequence.
The third part (“Islamophobia”) goes in depth into a question that, according to the journalist, is the most important as regards EU Enlargement to Turkey.
Right from the title, the reader can understand that the journalist approves of such Enlargement: as a matter of fact, the title tells that “Europe MUST say yes to Turkey”, and the word “why” makes us understand that the journalist is going to organize an argumentative text that could explain EU's reasons for a “yes” to Turkey.
The article starts with an overview on the problems of EU Enlargement to Turkey, it deals with Turkey's wideness, poverty, geographical location, prevalence of Muslims in the population.
Later on the article analyzes each aspect referring to the reasons that make Europe unsure and worried about Enlargement.
In the third part of the article, a problem (symbolically referred to as “Islamophobia”) is analyzed in detail sice it is considered the most significant element in contemporary debate.
In the end the journalist expresses his personal opinion, saying that: a “yes” to Turkey could have important consequences in the process of peace, because other Muslim countries could be encouraged to strive for freedom and democracy.
PROBLEMS RAISED: The first problem posed by the journalist is Tukey’s size: the country is very wide and if it will join EU it would be the biggest member of the Union thus gaining heaviest voting weight in Brussels.
Another significant point raised is Turkey’s poverty that could produce an encreasing immigration to Western Europe.
Also the debate about Turkey’s geographical location is still open: many people wonder if Turkey is in Europe or in Asia, but the journalist says that in 1963 Brussels established that Turkey was “sufficently European to be a candidate one day”.
The problem analyzed more in depth is Turkey’s Islamic religion. This is the problem that worries most European citizens, because we can see that “Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise in the Muslim world”, and so Islam is considered “incompatible with a secular, liberal democracy”.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: The journalist gives some possible solution to each problem, analyzing the pros and cons of every situation.
Referring to the problem of Turkey’s size he thinks that “it is not logic to barring a country because it is big”; and also, Turkey could represent the solution for another problem: EU suffers from the smallness of many present members.
Speaking about Turkey’s poverty, the journalist says that there will be a long transition period before Turkey could join EU and during such period it can make efforts to the purpose of reaching a more stable economy.
As said before, considering the problem of Turkey's geographical location, the journalist answers that "Brussels established that Turkey was sufficently European to be a candidate one day".
Speaking about Turkey’s Islamic roots, the journalist says that this is not a problem: Enlargement is a possibility for promoting democracy and freedom in other Muslim countries.
In the end, the journalist says that, if Turkey would not respect the human rights, or if it would have relations with Islamic fundamentalism, the Union could let the Turkey out again.
PERSONAL COMMENT: I think that the journalist does not use an objective point-of-view, because he often writes his personal opinion.
But I think that this is interesting, because it involves the reader who is encouraged to read other articles, with different points-of-view on the same question and make some comparisons.