E.G.

There are reasons to think it is against American interests for Turkey to join the European Union.  As is said here:

Long-term, Turkey’s inclusion in the EU causes real trouble for the United States, because it makes a permanent rift between Europe and the United States, along the lines seen recently over Iraq (where Turkey’s position was already closer to Paris and Berlin than to Washington), much more likely. The addition of Turkey’s armed forces makes a common European defense more feasible – which makes NATO less necessary.

In a variety of ways, Turkey’s inclusion in the EU seems to be against long-term American interests.  So why has Bush, following Clinton’s lead, so consistently backed Turkey’s membership in the EU?

Bremmer’s suggestion (in the article quoted above) is that Bush believes that Europeans so loathe him that Europe will do the opposite of whatever he says.  On this theory, Bush supports Turkey’s EU membership simply because doing so makes Turkey’s EU membership less likely. 

But if this is the correct explanation of Bush’s stated preferences, then it makes Turkey’s own behavior somewhat mysterious.  Turkish politicians have, on numerous occasions, responded enthusiastically to Bush’s endorsement of Turkey’s EU membership.  If his endorsement makes that event less likely, then, it would seem, Turkish politicians ought to try to keep Bush quiet on the issue — but they consistently do the opposite of this.  It could be that Turkish officials simply have false beliefs about Bush’s ability to positively affect the EU’s decision, but I think this would assume an inordinate degree of ignorance on the part of Turkish policy-makers. 

Another theory is that by backing Turkey’s EU membership, Bush is doing Turkey a favor — a favor which he hopes to be repaid.  For instance, in late 2002, when Bush was hoping to use Turkish military bases in the invasion of Iraq, Bush’s endorsement of Turkey’s EU membership was especially loud.  On this theory, Bush is, at least as of late 2002, willing to risk harm to America’s long-term interests in order to make the invasion of Iraq a little easier.  Given Bush’s other choices in the lead-up to the war, this would not be very surprising. 

But even after Turkey refused to let the US use its military bases in the Iraq invasion, Bush has continued to endorse Turkey’s membership in the EU.  In the summer of 2004, for instance, Bush visited Turkey and (after being greeted by an estimated 40,000 protesters in Istanbul, where Bush is extremely unpopular), he spoke of Turkey in glowing terms and reiterated his support for Turkey’s membership in the EU.

I assume that the "tit-for-tat" explanation of Bush’s stance plays a role; surely Bush gets something from Turkey in exchange for endorsing Turkey’s EU membership.  But in taking his stance on this issue, Bush makes himself appear to be "meddling" in European politics; this appearance has contributed to America’s growing alienation from traditional European allies (e.g., see here).  I would think the benefits of gaining Turkey’s favor should be counterbalanced by the costs of "chilled" relations with France and others.  Given this, one would think that, if you add into the mix the fact that American long-term interests seem decidedly against Turkey joining the EU, the balance should tip in the opposite direction, and Bush should take a stand against Turkey’s EU membership.  But apparently this is not the case.

I hope Turkey does join the EU, but I find Bush’s stance on the issue somewhat mysterious.  I’m probably leaving out something obvious which would resolve the mystery, but I don’t know what it is.