A. Bergagna | |
Title: | The impossibility of saying no |
Source: | The Economist, authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on
international politics and business news and opinion, on 18th September
2004. |
Topic discussed: | The article is about TURKEY'S ENTRY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. The article refers to the process which led to open
membership talks.
|
Content: | The article is made up of four sequences. Their titles are:
He describes Turkey process to join the European Union as "a tale of two countries". The choice of the word tale is particular. Generally speaking the word “tale” something imaginary. The journalist provides the reader with the image of two contrasting countries. Istanbul shows a lot of positive peculiarities in order to joined. "It has been a stalwart member of NATO for over 50 years, it has a flourishing democracy, a lively free press and a stable government with a big parliamentary majority. It is secular, its economy is booming and its population is young and growing". On the contrary, Ankara shows a lot of negative peculiarities. "It lies most in Asia, its population is Muslim, it borders such troublesome places as Iraq, Syria and Iran", its economy is bad, "its currency has been repeatedly devalued, many of its banks are ailing and it is a debtors to the IMF." It is poor and "has a history of military coups" and unfortunately torture is recognized. Therefore the journalist describes Istanbul as a possible Member State in opposition with Ankara. The problem is that the two countries belong to an unique state and their future in Europe became a "poser for the European Union". Besides the journalist introduces the process that led from the European association agreement in 1963 to the start of negotiations in December 2004. After that he speaks about the oppositions, which are underlined through by Franz Fischler, Frits Bolkestein and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's words. They bring its geographic position and the meaning of its admission into question. The war on Kurdish PKK terrorists and human rights violations are other cons to the join. As a matter of fact for these reasons Turkey does not satisfy the Copenhagen criteria, to which the journalist gives large space. The journalist lists them to make the reasons of the European refusal clear. The second sequence underlines the reforms Turkey has undergone to satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. Between them there are the improving of human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. The journalist takes into account the progress reached by Turkey, but he does not forget shortcomings. Between the "good marks" he mentions the stability of economy reached after 2001 thanks to the control of inflation and the tight fiscal policy. As for the "bad marks" he mentions the current-account deficit, the debt and the scarcity of foreign investment. After that, he focuses his attention on political and judicial reforms. He argues that many people maintain that these changes are not enough to authorize Turkey's join. The third part of the article draws on the information give in the first article and deals with them more in depth. It speaks about Turkey's position, size, poverty and religion. Unlike the first article, in the second one the journalist does not provide a possible solution to overcome the problems. After that the consequences to the European replay are considered. A yes could mean that democracy and liberal economy are compatible with Islam; a no would antagonise other Muslim countries and could be seen like a blow against all Islam. The last part expands the topic, taking into account they who are in favour and they who are against the join, underlining the second ones. France Germany, the Niederlands, Austria worry about the possible migration from Turkey, while Greece is mentioned as a supporter of Turkey's entrance in the Union since the earthquakes in 1999. The journalist also considers the length of the negotiation as a reassurance for the naysayers. The article ends with a little provocation: the possibility of a referendum on Turkish accession to solve the question. |
Problem raised: | The journalist introduces the Copenhagen criteria to make the expectations of the European Union clear. The list
offers the reader the chance to better understand why Turkey was not admitted. In my opinion, the most important problem
raised deals with the consequences of a no from the European Union. As a matter of fact, the journalist underlines the
efforts made by Turkey to satisfy the European criteria. I think the irritation of the people from Turkey, which bursts in
1997 because of the European evasiveness, can increase. Other problems raised, which are Turkey's peculiarities, are similar
to the ones of the first article: position, size, poverty and Islam. As discussed in the first article, the consequences of
the European reply are considered. A yes could have the best consequences for Islam, but Europe must also take into
consideration the aspects that led mainly to a negative reply. |
Personal Comment: | I think that the article was written by the same journalist
who wrote the first one. The style is the same. In my opinion, at the end of the second part, he makes an important
consideration reporting Mr Erdogan thought: The desire to join European Union makes Turkey promote important reforms, which
could help the population even if Turkey does not enter the Union. I side with Mr Chirac, who said that a referendum on
Turkish accession is the best solution. Teacher: serious work but still compromised by L1 interference |