The impossibility of saying no
SOURCE
The Economist (Authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion),
September 18th 2004
TOPIC DISCUSSED
The article discusses the problems raised by Turkey’s yearning after joining the European Union and the opening of membership talks.
CONTENT
The article proves involving right from the start: opening the magazine on the very first page of the article, the attention is not struck by the title, as it usually happens,but by a big photo that seems to exploit all the page.
It represents five smiling children, directly looking into a camera so that they immediately capture the addressee's attention with their painted faces recalling the Turkish flag. readers'interest is attracted by the title: “The impossibility of saying no”, followed by a little subheading in Roman font: “Ankara and Istanbul” and by a bold one that makes the stylistic choice (use of a negative statement for the title) immediately explicit. Not all EU Member States like the idea of Turkey joining the Union and admittance will probably never be unanimously approved and more likely be an obliged choice, somebody’s release.
The article is made up of four sections:
- Many European governments dislike the idea of Turkey joining the European Union -- but they are still likely to agree in December to open membership talks;
- Good marks and bad;
- Unwritten criteria;
- The naysayers.
The firs paragraph (with its topic summed up in the subheading) begins in a narrative form, named “a tale”; thanks to the stylistic choice the author rises everybody’s interest and makes the differences coexisting in the same nation even more dramatic. But the article quickly leaves the colloquial tone, dealing with plenty of particulars like specific dates (1683, 1963, 1987, 1989…), names of Ministers(“Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Franz Fischler, Frits Bolkestein…) and the “Chopenaghen criteria” (regarding institutional reference standards compulsory for new Member States to enter the Union, law, economy…).
The second paragraph expands some of the previous arguments. Particular attention is given to economy, politics, the Kurdish question, Cyprus’s hanging on with Greece, religion, human rights protection and, last but surely not least, the problem of implementation.
In the third sequence the journalist introduces an interesting aspect: the existence of “unwritten criteria” that will influence EU decision in any case.
They are connected to Turkey’s geographical aspect, its size and poverty. But the hottest issues are Islam and the islamist roots of the party in charge: Mr. Edogan’s Justice and Development Party.
In the last section of the article the writer discusses the position of the European member States that strongly oppose Turkish membership (France, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, at the same time reminding the ones that support it. The article concludes saying that “it is the travelling towards membership that counts, not the arrival”; in fact, Turkey’s effective membership is not possible before a rage of 10-20 years.
PERSONAL COMMENT
In my opinion the article is excellent. It makes the reader involved right from the start . It can be read by any kind of reader even the if the ideal addressee has a high-culture level reader (for example in the last paragraph Schroeder’s nationality is not even made explicit).
I found the distinction made by the journalist between “Copenhagen criteria” and “unwritten criteria” particularly important because, in my opinion, not everybody is aware of such difference.
There is, though, one aspect I did not agree with: the writer insists on the same points a bit too much running the risk of being boring. For instance, in the second section, he writes about the Kurdish question twice when I think he could have deepened the argument one at a time.
I liked the conclusion: very honest and diplomatic, and the fact that the journalist leaves the reader great freedom to make his own opinion about the matter.
Teacher: The work is very well done but check grammar!