EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
Federica Delbello - from The Economist - Special Report : Turkey and the EU - Article 1 - Why Europe Must Say Yes to Turkey
Article: Why Europe must say yes to Turkey

Source: The Economist, a British weekly newspaper dealing with policy and economy, September 18th 2004

Topic discussed: Pros and cons of Turkey’s entry in the European Union

Content: As the title suggests, the article analyses the pros and cons of Turkey’s entry in EU, with particular attention to the positive aspects; it presents three steps: the introduction (“The EU faces a momentous decision”), the development and analysis of the topic (“Risk and reward”) and finally the personal comment of the journalist about the most relevant problem (“Islamophobia”).
The delicacy of the debate is underlined right from the start; as a matter of fact, the writer connotes it as “controversial and momentous”; it make us understand that he will try to analyze the pros and cons of the problem not giving an answer, but just a suggestion to such a complex argument.
The first part of the article focuses the attention of the reader on four aspects: size, economy, geographical position and religion, which are also (according to the journalist) the reasons European people easilychose to avoid Turkey’s entry along history. Thanks to the reforms carried out by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan to reach the possibility of entering EU, Turkey is expected to succeed.
After posing the problem, the journalist analyses it in detail in the second part: each aspect considered before (size, economy, geographical position and religion ) is deeply evaluated in a sort of climax, from the less feared point to the hardest problem (Islam).As a matter of fact, the last part of the article is dedicated to it, because it is considered the most relevant.

Problems raised: In the first part the article raises four problems expected to be developed in depth in the second one; the writer focuses the attention on the great size of the country (Which is not a con itself, but it’s seen as unbecoming when compared to the smallness of many countries of EU), poverty (People is afraid of migrations in the West) , the ambiguous geographical location (only a chunk of Turkey is effectively in Europe) and last but not least, the Islamic religion to which the writer dedicates the most part of the article.

Possible solution/s: In the writer’s opinion, saying no to Turkey could be interpreted as an offence to the whole Muslim world; on the contrary, a positive reaction might guarantee the collaboration of other east countries. In addition to this, from the conclusions given to each problem, it seems as if the journalist also criticizes the lack of information and cooperation on the Western world part. For example, while discussing the third point he goes back to 1963 when it was decided that Turkey was “sufficiently European”.

Personal comment: I think the article is well structured; it is made up of three sequences (each one with a specific subheading) with different functions; the topic is clearly developed and discussed. The opinion of the writer is there many times in the article, but it sounds rather rigorous and objective thanks to the recurrent argumentations.
I agree with the journalist’s consideration about the consequences of a negative response to Turkey’s request; it must be remember that EU is based on the concepts of deepening and widening; since it was born to prevent wars, the entry of any country should be well seen and accepted; globalization and narrow-mindedness are words in contrast; but we cannot forget the economic and political origin of the Union, from which came the structure of the community nowadays; therefore aspects like poverty might be considered, especially in a such a global world like it is today. Nevertheless I think they are relevant but not decisive.
From the consideration above a debate characterized by doubts and contradictions, that is why the problem is still so hot.