EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
G. Rossetti - From The Economist – Special Report: Turkey and the EU – Article1: “Why Europe must say yes to Turkey”
ARTICLE
Why Europe must say yes to Turkey

SOURCE
The Economist (Authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion),
September 18th 2004

TOPIC DISCUSSED
The article discusses the pros and cons of Turkey’s controversial entry into the EU.

CONTENT
Right from the title the journalist makes his opinion evident, he is in favour of Turkey’s entry. A mature reader can notice something else: the title is made up of a positive statement. This means that his proposal is to write an article aimed at convincing the reader admit Turkey, not as an obliged choice, but as a personal decision.
The article is only one page long. This means that the journalist has no chance to examine the problem closely and deeply. This can make us suggest that even a superficial reader will be able to find his answers about the matter there .
The article is made up of three sections that present three headings (this is another aspect that recalls my theory of a superficial addressee, that needs pre-established subtitles):
  1. The EU faces a momentous decision;
  2. Risk and reward;
  3. Islamophobia.

The first paragraph is an introductory sequence. It begins with a question: "Should the European Union open membership talk with Turkey?" to which the journalist tries to give an answer, defining it “controversial and momentous”. A mature reader will notice that even if the decision will be of great importance and seriousness, especially in future effects, the journalist has already taken his decision (evident right from the title), making the question sound even rhetorical.
This paragraph is divided into three sections.
The first with the aspects that cannot be discussed:
  1. “Turkey is already in all the other European organisations, from the Council of Europe to NATO”;
  2. "this club has just let in a motley crew of mostly ex-communist countries from central Europe”;

The second with the aspects that may be criticized (that cannot be summed up with the “easy” word cons):
  1. Turkey is very large;
  2. Turkey is very poor;
  3. Turkey is not all in Europe;
  4. Turkey is Muslim.

The third introduces the real decision making: the European Commission that should start entry talks in two weeks time.

The second paragraph deepens the four aspects named in the first. The structure is always the same: it begins with the cons and ends with the pros (introduced by the word “yet” in the middle of every section). The stylistic choice makes the reader assign more evidence to the second part, that remains fixed in her/his memory.
All the sections take, more or less, the same space, except for the one that deals with Islam that embedds three of them, to signify that, according to the journalist, it is the most controversial matter:
  1. Islam is incompatible with a secular, liberal democracy;
  2. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism;
  3. Turkey has a secular government since Ataturk;
  4. Mr.Edogan’s government is democratic but has Islamist roots.

The last paragraph makes the journalist’s opinion about Islam clear : Turkey could be a test-case and it should be given the benefit of the doubt.

PERSONAL COMMENT
The article is well organized for a naïve and superficial addressee that will find the answers to the main terms of the matter.
I do not completely agree with the content that seems so different from the first and the last paragraph. A matter of fact such a great importance for the consequences it will take (described by the same journalist as “momentous”), find a solution that is nothing else than a try, a “test-case”. I understand that a definite and sure decision in such a case is impossible, but in my opinion there is no need to take careless decisions, especially considering the integration itself may take years.