SOURCE: “The Economist”, a British weekly magazine concerning international economy and politics, 18th September 2004.
TOPIC DISCUSSED: The article discusses the reasons for EU Member States'uncertainty about Turkey's joining the Union.
CONTENT: Right from the start, from the very title,the reader can understand the journalist’s point-of-view.
As a matter of fact, the article is an argumentative text, supporting the opinion expressed in the title.
The article consists of four parts:
- 1. First part: It has the function of introducing the problem. The journalist uses an interesting “intro” to involve the reader. Then he illustrates the contradiction that characterize Turkey as well as EU Leaders' opinions about EU Enlargement to Turkey. The article also refers to the "Copenhagen Criteria" (the criteria Turkey must accept and apply to join the Union.
- 2. Second part: It is entitled "Good marks and bad". It speaks about the reforms carried out by Turkey in economy, politics and in the social and judicial fields.
- 3. Third part: "Unwritten criteria". The expression means, all the negative aspects that people (but also EU Leaders) generally attribute to Turkey. They are called "unwritten criteria" because they are not part of the "Copenhagen criteria".
- 4. Fourth Part: "The naysayers". In the last part of the article, the journalist explains the point-of-view of the Nations that say "no" to Turkey (Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands).
On the other side, the opinion of the people from Turkey about their nation's entry into EU is also explained .
PROBLEMS RAISED: The journalist insists on a particular point: even if Turkey has many problems (concerning economic, social, cultural and religious levels) it is a country improving its economy and trying to solve its problems.
After speaking about the "Copenhagen criteria", the journalist discusses some of Turkey's problems, in satisfying the "unwritten criteria" which are further explained also in the article "Why Europe must say yes to Turkey": Turkey's size, poverty, geographical location and religion.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: The journalist does not provide a real "solution": he speaks about the progress made by Turkey and about reforms as a positive aspect.
He says that Europe should accept Turkey's entry also because saying "no" could be perceived as an offence, by the Arab world.
PERSONAL COMMENT: The article has a striking introduction so I have been involved in reading it, even if the great number of specific and statistical data (especially in the third part of the article, "unwritten criteria") confused me.
After reading the two articles, I have understood that I do not know what my opinion about Turkey's entry is yet.
I think that saying "yes" to Turkey would mean a great opportunity for Turkey, and even for Europe, because it could open itself to different realities than the more typically REuropean ones.
But, on the other side, I realize that Turkey is very different from all the EU Member States; my opinion is not a racist one but I think that Europe must consider every problem before making a decision.