Article: The impossibility of saying no
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, in particular the opening of membership talks with Turkey
Content: The article provides the argumentation supporting the thesis expressed in the title, that is “The impossibility to say no” to Turkey.
The article is made up of four parts. In the first one, the journalist recognized the contradictions inside Turkey which make its entry in the European Union a difficult and problematical question. Moreover, he speaks about the unfavorable position of several European commissioners, the evasiveness the European club uses towards the question of Turkish membership, explaining also its causes and, last but not least, the criteria Turkey had to satisfy to join the European Union (Copenhagen criteria).
In the second paragraph (“Good marks and bad”), the writer largely speaks about the reforms Turkey adopted from an economical, political, social and judicial point of view, remembering, nevertheless, also the “failings”, the wants Turkey still have in the same fields.
In the third part (“Unwritten criteria”), the writer speaks about the “unwritten criteria” meaning, therefore, not the Copenhagen criteria, according to which “it would be hard to say no to Turkey”, but the negative factors the Europeans consider when they speak about Turkey. These are the same of the article analyzed previously(Why Europe must say yes to Turkey): Turkey’s geographical location, its size, its poverty and its Islamic religion.
In the last part of the article (“The naysayers”), the journalist explains the positions of they who said no to Turkey (France, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria)in depth; he later states reassurances that would allow to open entry negotiations with Turkey, insisting, nevertheless, on the difficulties that may oppose to the unanimous approval of existing Members. He concludes the article with the Turks' point of view about the possibility to enter the European Union.
Problems raised: The problem the journalist recognizes as the principle one is coexistence in Turkey of two contradictory realities: at the beginning of the article he even speaks about two different countries. As a matter of fact, since the former is the reality of a developing country, the latter is that of a country in which there are still economical and social problems to face(current account deficit, Turkey’s huge debt, feebleness of foreign investments, precarious protection of human rights -emblematic is the attempt to criminalize adultery- minorities and religious freedom).
Other problems raised by the journalist are Turkey's negative factors like its location, poverty, size and religion.
The last problem regards the obstacles to the accomplishment of an unanimous approvation of Turkey’s entry by the Member States.
Possible solution/s: The writer does not provide solutions to the existing problems but he rather tries to deconstruct the worries about Turkey showing their groundlessness and underlining the positive effect a “yes” to Turkey could have on its development and in the relationships with the other Muslim countries.
Personal comment: Reading and analyzing the article, I suppose it was written by the same journalist who wrote the previous one (Why Europe must say yes to Turkey), because it proposes, although expanding them, some questions the previous article has already spoken about.
As regards the topic discussed, I think it is difficult to make a choice because Turkey still presents some contradictory or unstable realities in its inside (I am thinking of its the attempt to criminalize adultery reforms and the transformations it has undertaken.