EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
Mara Sorato - from The Economist - Special Report : Turkey and the EU - Article 1 - Why Europe Must Say Yes to Turkey
Article: Why Europe must say yes to Turkey

Source: The Economist (a British weekly magazine which reports business news and has articles about the economic situation in the UK and other countries, about large companies etc.), September 18th 2004

Topic discussed: Turkey’s entry in the European Union

Content: The article is made up of three sequences: the first one introduces the problem, the second one analyzes in depth the issues of the previous part, the third one focuses on the question the journalist recognizes as the one that has a determining role in the debate.
As the starting question anticipates, the journalist who wrote the article tries to analyze the pros and cons of Turkey’s entry in the European Union, insisting on the vantages (he uses “should”). As a matter of fact, just from the title the reader can see he expresses a favorable point of view (“must say yes”), so the text will provide an argumentation in favor of Turkey’s entry.
In the first part of the article (“the EU faces a momentous decision”), the writer singles out four aspects which characterized Turkey (wideness, poverty, geographical location difficult to define, Muslim religion).
In the second one (“Risk and reward”), he discusses every aspect considering its possible negative implications but making the groundlessness of the worries about Turkey’s entry in the European Union prevail.
In the end, in the third part (“Islamophobia”), the problem of Islam is analysed in detail, still underlining the “catastrophic consequences” of a “no to Turkey” and the positive function Turkey could assume as a model of freedom and democracy for other Muslim countries.

Problems raised: To be precise, the problems raised are: Turkey’s size, that will allow it to become the biggest Member of the Union with the heaviest voting weight; Turkey’s poverty, that might involve “copious hands-out” and migrations to the west part of Europe; the question of whether Turkey is even in Europe; and last but not least Turkey’s Islamic roots, which, on the one side, could be incompatible with a secular democracy, on the other side, could be a fertile soil for the development of Islamic fundamentalism.

Possible solution/s: As I have already said, the journalist tries to reduce the implications of the problems he has singled out. As a matter of fact, referring to the first point, he underlines that, even if Turkey would have a heavy voting weight, it would be only one of the numerous Member States of the Union (“hardly a position from which to dominate decision making”).
In response to the possible worries about Turkey's poverty, the writer remembers there will be a long transition period before it could join the European Union, during which it can improve its economy.
As regards the third issue, the journalist asserts Turkey’s position is not a problem, given that it was considered, in Brussels in 1963, “sufficiently European to be a candidate one day”.
Finally, to Islamophobia, the writer opposes the active role Turkey would have in promoting democracy once she entered the European Union however reminding the reader of the possibility to turn it away if Turks would not respect and safeguard the fundamental human rights.

Personal comment: Analyzing the article, I saw the writer insists on the positive aspects of Turkey’s entry in the European Union, trying to convince the reader of the concreteness of his ideas through confutation of the possible arguments against Turkey’s entry. In my opinion, the journalist does not give an objective vision of the problem, but he writes from his favorable point of view: this implies the reader has less freedom to create a personal opinion because he has to side with the opinion of he who writes.

Teacher: Very well done!