EU Enlargement - Analysis about magazine and newspaper articles [5A]
Marco Livon - From The Economist - Special Report - Article 2 - The Impossibility of Saying No

TITLE: “The impossibility of saying no”


SOURCE: “The Economist”, an English weekly magazine concerning international economy an policy, on 18th September 2004


TOPIC DISCUSSED: the article reflects on the question of Turkish entry into EU. It speaks about the process that opens the way to membership talks and analyses the reasons for saying yes or no to Turkey.


CONTENT: the article can be considered as an extension of the previous one because it analyses the same problems but going more in depth.

The title expresses the same point of view of the previous one but if the first (“Why Europe must say yes to Turkey”) is an explanation of the problem for non-informed people, the second (“The impossibility of saying no”) seems to be an order to change a deep-rooted point of view of the problem.

The article is made up of four sections. In the first one Turkey’s situation, EU’s opinion about its entry and its run to open membership talks are presented.

The Turkish situation is described from two different points of view. First Turkey is presented considering Istanbul as example for all the State and later shifting the attention on Ankara. From the first point of view Turkey is ready to join the Union because it is a “stalwart member” of NATO, it has a flourishing democracy with a strong government, a booming economy and a young population; from the second one it has a lot of problems: it lies mostly in Asia, it is an underdeveloped economy for EU’s standards, the majority of people are poor and it is Muslim. These are the two opposite sides of Turkey and the reasons of European hesitation.

The journalist goes on speaking about the story of the development of the Turkish issue. Turkey was the second country that had already signed a European association agreement in 1963 and it formally asked for membership in 1987. But the European Commission postponed the decision and in 1997 left the country off its list of candidates. This exclusion was caused by a Turkey’s economic crisis, the brutal war against Kurdish PKK terrorists and its violation of human rights. Only in 1999 an EU summit declared Turkey a possible candidate and in 2002 EU leaders assured that if in 2004 Turkey satisfied “Copenhagen criteria” they would open membership talks.

In the second section the writer discusses the process of reforms adopted by Turkey to join the Union, from an economical, political and administrative point of view. He also speaks about the difficulties and failures of the process. The economy has stabilised after the crisis but current-account deficit is large and debts still remain, in spite of strong fiscal policy. On the political side, judiciary and army were restored and the death penalty was abolished. Also the situation with Kurds improved with the capture of PKK leader and with a lot of reforms concerning the possibility for Kurds to have schools, a TV and a parliamentary voice. But the way to reach UE is still far and difficult because economy remains weak, human rights and there is no religious freedom.

In the third paragraph the journalist tells about the “Unwritten criteria” which consist on Europeans opinion about Turkey, often made up of prejudices or false ideas. The criteria refer to those of the previous article: Turkey is not all in Europe, it will become the biggest Member, poverty is enormously diffused and it is Muslim. One by one the journalist criticizes every prejudices. As a matter of fact EU accepted Turkey candidacy is spite of its geographic position; size is not one of the Copenhagen criteria; poverty is a problem but Turkey could be an area for investments. Last but not least EU is not a Christian club and a lot of Muslims live in Europe, moreover its entry can improve its democracy and Turkey could become an example for all Islam.

In the last section the writer analyses the naysayers’ opinion. The strongest opponents to Turkey’s entry are France, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. They worry about Turkish poverty. The reassurance for the opponents is that negotiations will take many years and Turkey’s entry needs to be approved by every Member State.


PROBLEM RAISED: the article is an exhaustive analysis of the Turkish question. It reflects on the reasons of its possible exclusion and describes the process of reforms that Erdogan’s government is carrying out. The problem is if Turkey is ready or not to satisfy the “Copenhagen criteria” and to join EU.


PERSONAL OPINION: I think the article, as the previous one, is well organized but not so easy to understand. As a matter of fact a young reader does not posses a complete knowledge of Turkey’s situation ( for example: Turkey’s economy or Kurdish situation) and he cannot understand the writer’s considerationin depth. The question is to find out why younge people are so uninformed. I think the reasons of this ignorance are their lack of interest in political questions and the lack of information at school and by the media, particularly television.

As regards the problem of Turkey’s entry I think that people must be more involved in EU’s questions but the lack of information does not necessarily imply a referendum as possible solution for Turkey’s entry. In my opinion I am favourable to Turkey’s admission, but after a complete satisfaction of “Copenhagen criteria”; it must improve its economy, pay more attention to the protection of human rights and develop its democracy. Islam is not a problem, it only marks a prejudice. As a matter of fact, if EU accepted Turkey’s candidacy why cannot it join the Union.