Its title is The Impossibility Of Saying No.
The topic discussed is the controversy over the Turkey joining the European Union.
The article is organized into four sequences:
- Ankara and Istanbul: Many European governments dislike the idea of Turkey joining the European Union-but they are still likely to agree in December to open membership talks.
- Good marks and bad
- Unwritten criteria
- The naysayers.
The problem posed is the difficult entry of Turkey into the European Union. The reasons why such problem is still unsolved are analysed in the following sequences; in particular, the second sequence considers the reasons why Turkey does not meet the Copenaghen Criteria concerning economy, policy, peace conditions, education, morality, the third one examines some factors that however do not prove not relevant to the matter of the Copenaghen Criteria, butare all the same important and namely geographical questions, size, religious matters, and the last one takes into consideration another issue not directly depending on Turkey itself, that is the possible refusal of saying yes by the existing members.
In the first sequence the journalis starts discussing Turkey considering its two different and opposite parts, that is the one with Ankara as the main city and the one whose main city is Istanbul: the former shows lots of positive aspects to become an EU member, the latter mainly raises problems. Since they are parts of the same body, they can neither be separated nor join the EU only in part, thus the problem of Turkey joining HAS BECOME a poser for the EU. The matter is awkward to deal with from the moment that Turkey’s expectation of starting membership talks with the EU has been around for four decades. Turkey is a candidate for the EU just from 1963 though not formally accepted until 1999. The reasons why the entry of Turkey into the Eu has been denied for many times are connected to its economy, policy and cultural system. As a matter of fact, Turkey has not yet got the necessary credentials required by the Copenaghen Criteria: economic and financial difficulties, political disorganization, human rights’ violation and the war on Kurdish PKK terrorists do not let open negotiations. Yet ever since 2002, Turkey has made another attempt through new reforms enacted by Mr Erdogan in order to fulfil the Union’s membership criteria. It has not given proper results yet, since the economy remains fragile, human rights need more protection and the new penal code does not successfully improve women’s rights. In addition, there are other factors which make the matter difficult: the debate whether Turkey is all in Europe, its size which entails its political weight, its poverty which means the need of big budgetary transfers from Brussels from many years, and last but not least, the religious question on whether the EU should admit a Muslim country after September 11th, in spite of the Union’s proclaiming religious freedom. The controversial matter is still whether Turkey is politically, economically and culturally suitable to join the EU, but besides its conforming to the rules, there is the problem of its entry to be accepted unanimously by the existing members.
The problem raised is whether Turkey is successfully in progress or not. Turkish government enacts lots of reforms, but the matter is rather to actuate than to pass them.
On the other hand, the problem is whether the existing members completely agree or not in saying yes to Turkey since its joining depends on an unanimous decision.
There is no denying that some practical problems hinder the entry of Turkey into the EU, because it means politically to have an “unbalanced” voting system and join a country where there is neither secular democracy nor respect of the human rights, financially it means to give it lots of money for many years, and culturally to accept a country where fundamentalism is on the rise and abuses are not under control. Especially the last point of discussion seems to be the most difficult and dangerous problem according to which many existing members are against any such joining.
As concerns the journalist's judgment on the subject, I am not totally sure of what he thinks. Even if just from the title I expected him to express a positive opinion on the same, going on reading and analysing the article, I saw that he does not single out satisfactory pros about the possible entry of Turkey.
Conversely, the idea I received from reading the article is that the expectation of joining the EU cannot be satisfied neither actually nor in a near future.
Personal opinion
I agree with this possible opinion because I think that, before any possible joining, implementation of the reforms enacted should be stressed and such process needs a long time time with the risk for some problems to persist. However, I think also that such a program may represent a very important step forward to making Turkey a modern democratic state.
Teacher: Well done!