EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
Riccardo Aita - From the Economist - Special Report: Turkey and the EU - Article 1 & 2

Source:

“The Economist”, authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinions. It is a market liberal weekly news and international affairs publication of The Economist Newspaper Limited in London. Edition of 18th September 2004.

Title:

“Why Europe must say yes to Turkey”

Topic:

The article is about EU and the possible entry of Turkey in the Community.

Content:

The article is sub-divided into 3 chaptersthat look well-balanced and starting with a striking introduction followed by an informative part, that explains the pros and cons of Turkey entry and which provides a meaningful conclusion about what will happen in the future both if EU denies or accepts Turkish membership.

The pros and cons of the entry of Turkey into EU are well illustrated. Its entry represents a big issue; as a matter of facts Turkey already belongs to all the other big European organisations and actually fulfils the Union’s usual membership criteria on one hand. On the other its population, poverty and religion might represent a problem and nevertheless recently many ex-communist countries from Central Europe have joined EU (the journalist seems not to approve of those entries: “motley crew”)

The title strikes the reader’s attention with the positive attitude of the introduction and seems (with the word “must”) to presents the entry as a given fact. Moreover It analyses pros first, leaving cons in the end. On the other hand, right from the start it appeals directly to the reader’s opinion immediately wondering about the most advantageous decision to take.

The first problem raised in the article concerns the Turkish population which is now 71m and, if Turkey joins EU, it will overtake Germanyas the biggest member and have the heaviest voting weight in Brussels. On the contrary the journalist suggests the real problem might be related to the smallness of the other States, already belonging to the community.

The second problem concerns Turkey’s poverty as its GDP is actually low due to the great number of farmers. It might happen that, after Turkey joined EU, the majority of its population would migrate towards richer countries.

A further problem is related to the question of whether Turkey is even in Europe: its biggest city Istanbul lies undoubtly on the European continent, but the majority of its lands are situated in the Middle East. In this case the journalist refers to the entry of Cyprus, which lies east of Ankara.

Last but not least, the Muslin religion represents one of the biggest fears for the Europeans. On the other hand the journalist compares Turkey and its religious problems to the ones of Ireland not many years ago, and says that we cannot criticize the Islamic way of life because it is simply does not demonstrate that the Christian religion is the only one which could produce liberal democracy.

Moreover the journalist explains America's and its allies purpose to foster liberal democracy in the Middle East and the crucial decision to let Turkey join EU.

Title:

“The impossibility of saying no”

Topic:

The article is about EU and the possible entry of Turkey in the Community. In particular it analyses different aspects of its entry and how Europeans leaders judge it.

Content:

Just looking at the title the reader can notice that the article is strictly connected to the previous one; the words “yes” and “no” too, sems to appeal to a common ground.

The article is then sub-divided into 4 paragraphs, whose titles are:

· Ankara and Istanbul

· Good marks and bad

· Unwritten criteria

· The naysayers

They are well organized and the journalist generally tries to balance positive and negative opinion about the issue. On the other hand, considering the title (“The impossibility of saying no”), it looks as if the journalist does not support his initial thesis which was clearly in favour of Turkey’s entry throughout the article and seems rather to adopt an objective way of analysis. At the end, different possibilities of conceiving of the future strike the reader who realises the Turkish issue is really serious and what is more it is related to the European main leaders’ decision.

The first sequence tells of two countries, without revealing their name until the end. They are presented one really different from the other, but both aiming at joining EU. The journalist himself refers to the sequence as a tale. He wants really to describe the countries with images and hinting at specific aspects which will be relevant both for entry or denial.

One is described with the word “shoo-in”, a State which quite surely will be let in EU, “member of NATO for over 50 years”, with a “flourishing democracy”, a “free press”, a “stable government” and a booming economy.

The other is presented as a State that EU “should not touch with a bargepole”, which lies mostly in Asia, its economy isn’t very flourish and it “borders troublesome places as Iraq, Syria and Iran”.

In the end, the journalist unveils the trick: they are not two distinct States, but rather parts of the same one. The first refers to the area whose main city is Istanbul and the second one refers to Ankara. The journalist considers them completely different and according to what he writes, they do not seem to have any analogy or affinity. So, whereas Istanbul might be a perfect future member, Ankara might not reach Copenhagen Criteria; the real problem concerns their belonging to the same country and both are eager to start membership talks.

The first section proceeds reporting that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, had “pressed the case for starting membership talks” around Europe, but there’re still many European leaders who spoke against Turkey, such as Franz Fischler, Austrian agriculture commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, Dutch single-market commissioner, and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, French president. In particular the first one referred to Turkey as an oriental country, the Dutch one mentioned the Turkish invasion in 17th century and the French president alluded to the end of Europe.

At the end of this section the journalist explains how Turkey’s membership has begun and what EU leaders were suppose to decide in December 2004. The entry would have been discussed according to Copenhagen Criteria which were actually been reached, even though repeated human rights violations and PKK terrorists could have prevented its entry.

The second sequence explains, what the situation in Turkey is like nowadays. It explains that after Mr Erdogan has became Prime Minister,something has changed: economy is stabilised, new reforms have been actuated and death penalty has been abolished. On the other hand, Mr Verheugen, European commissioner for enlargement, has underlined implementation as there are still some problems concerning human rights, women’s respect, economy and religious freedom.

Once more the third sequence concerns the problems explained in the previous article; as a matter of fact the journalist says that Copenhagen criteria aren’t the only ones, according to which decisions and 2004 December’s verdict would have been taken, and probably previous problems, such as the geographical, economical and the voting one, would have be taken into consideration in December. The journalist underlines the religious problem, especially because after 11th September 2001, the Islam and Muslin world are generally associated to terrorism. Nevertheless the entry of Turkey could be imagined as a symbolic event with the aim of preventing a “clash of civilisation”.

The last section is related to general feelings and ideas between EU leaders and in the end the journalist expresses his scepticism about the future, “yet there still be a doubt over their outcome. Turkey’s entry needs to be approved unanimously by the existing members”. He expresses his hopes too: he would be glad also if EU leaders started membership talks: “it is the travelling towards membership that counts, not the arrival”

Problem

raised:

The article suggest a critical analysis of the current situation in Europe as well as in the Middle East. The debate concerns the possible entry of Turkey into EU, nevertheless there are some problems to face.

Personal

Comment:

I think the article analyses a key issue which seems to be the most important matter of discussion these days both on television and in the newspapers in a well-organized way, . I think both the entry of Turkey or a possible refusal by the EU, would represent a milestone, not only for the future of Europe but for the entire globe. It would represents a crucial event, whatever the decision: it could be interpreted as a diplomatic treaty between the Western world and the Middle-East or, if Turkey were not admitted , all hopes would end up in smoke. I think the best thing to do should be a referendum in order to understand what people really want. But it must be recognized that a great majority of people seem not to be interested in Europeans matters and the referendum could be influenced by fears or prejudices.

From my point of view, the entry of Turkey into EU could be an advantage for everyone, not only from the culturalpoint-of-view, but also from the economical one. Thereis no doubt that the big gap between Turkish and our GDP will lower the average level of the Union and reduce EU ability to compete with U.S.A. and China, but on the other hand a new market, for a rich Member State as we are, would be available. Moreover I completely agree with what the journalist says about Islamophobia, the fear of the “alter” has always created prejudices: the Turkish “death penalty”, compared with the the Catholic fundamentalism active in Ireland when it joined EU, seems to be no more than an excuse,especially nowadays when it has simply recently been abolished.