EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
A. Nigro - From The Economist - Special Report - Article 1 - Why Europe must say yes to Turkey
Title: Why Europe must say yes to Turkey
Source: The Economist,a British weekly magazine, September 18th 2004
Topic discussed: Turkey and its entry in the European Union
Content: the opinionist analyses the situation of Turkey from four points of view:
  • it is large;
  • it is poor;
  • it is not all in Europe;
  • it is Muslim.

  • He provides a guide line to the reader organizing the article into three paragraphs having different aims. The first part is an introduction and the opinionist presents the four questions he will pose.
    In the second paragraph he analyzes Turkey from the previous four points of view . The journalist tries to demolish every key point to demonstrate that some worries and ideas about Turkey are unfounded. Anyway the last aspect is the most problematical. Even if, the opinionist underlines the Copenhage criteria include respects for religious freedom, Muslim religion is the most significant problem. As a matter of fact the dicussion of the last topic occupies a whole paragraph simbolically called “Islamophobia”. EU has to consider that Turkey is part of Islam. A no to Turkey could be interpreted as a blow against all Islam. On the contrary if EU says yes to Turkey, such decision could become a representative act in favour of democracy for entire Islam.
    Problems raised: the problems raised are the four aspects analysed by the opinionist. If he provides a solution to wideness, poverty and its geographical position, the Islam question is more difficult to solve. The problems are the compatibility of Islam with liberal democracy, and Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover EU is also part of international relations and USA is trying to foster democracy in the Middle East.
    Personal comment: I think that the article is easy to understand and well structured. The opinionist defends his idea with good argumentations, but however he allows his readers to have her or his own judgement. He proposes the questions to the reader but the reader can chose if to agree or disagree with it.