Article: The impossibility of saying no
Source: The Economist, a British weekly newspaper dealing with policy and economy, September 18th 2004
Topic discussed: EU Response to the entry of Turkey in the Union: for and against.
Content: The article looks similar to the previous one; it discusses the same issues (size, location, religion, and poverty)and the connotation sounds similar, too.
The article is made up of four sequences: in the first one the topic is presented underlining the difficulty of the decision,listing who is for and who is against, and finally reporting the criteria Turkey has to satisfy; in the second one (“Good marks and bad”) the economic, religious and political situation of the country are discussed, underlining a sort of progress (which is nevertheless not enough for European people) thanks to the reforms of the last two years;
Again the third paragraph ( “Unwritten criteria” ) takes into consideration the geographic, historical and economical situation (used as a pretext for being against Turkey), comparing it with other countries expected to enter EU soon (for example Cyprus. The writer insists on the European aspects of the land even when he says that in the 19th century, Turkey was under Western power.
Finally the fourth paragraph (“the naysayers ”, as suggested by the title, lists the countries of the Union against the opening
Problems raised: the writer refers to the same problems discussed in the previous article (size, location,religion , economy);, the writer also underlines the coexistence of two different realities in the country: one is that of a progressive government, the other is victim of poverty and backwardness. In addition to this the journalist presents the diplomatic pretexts for the debate: as a matter of fact, the real criticism seems to be the narrow-mindness behaviour of the West.
Possible solution/s: There cannot be a unique solution unanimously shared to such a complex debate; the writer can just express his opinion trying to convince the people of the positive aspects of the possibility of letting Turkey enter.
Personal comment: I think the article is well organized;the text is full of historical and political argumentations.
As said previously, I think it is impossible to give an answer to the problem because lots of contradictions coexist in this situation. The journalist succeeeds in conveying his thought at the same time being rather objective.