On April 8 the prime-minister of Turkey Recep Tayip Erdogan stated that his country is elaborating the programme on cessation of the hostilities in Libya which includes armistice, withdrawal of the troops loyal to Muammar Kaddafi from some cities, creation of humanitarian corridor and immediate initiation of the reforms in Libya. When on April 3 the Pentagon stated that it ceased the participation of the US troops in Libyan campaign after which the troops loyal to Kaddafi regained the superiority and advanced to the East, in the direction of Bengazi – the center of the rebels, this statement by Erdogan may mean that for the international coalition formed against Muammar Kaddafi the military solution of the issue seemed to lose its topicality. In the initial stage of crisis in Libya France stood out with its initiatives and it is not a mere chance that the first anti-Kaddafi congress took place on March 19 in Paris, to which Turkey was not even invited. But the aforementioned statement by Erdogan not only means that Ankara at least has support of the United States (e.g. to offer armistice to Kaddafi on behalf of “international community”) but it also demonstrates the purpose of the Turkish policy to obtain the role of the regulator in the Libyan crisis which has turned into an important regional issue. And if we consider the issue from the point of view of the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, and correspondingly, from the point of view of the influence areas, it becomes clear that the Turkish party is very interested in the affairs in North Africa and that part of the Mediterranean. Of course, this is not a novelty in the Turkish foreign policy of the recent years. But the point is whether the US are going to support that policy of Turkey only in this part of the Mediterranean or in the other territories and areas of influence of the former Ottoman Empire (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Caucasus) either. Situational survey In the initial stage of the crisis in Libya Turkey was particularly against the foreign military interference. On February 28 Erdogan stated: “NATO has nothing to do in Libya”. This line of Turkey’s military and political leadership continued even after the well-known decision of the UN Security Council and the March 19 Conference in Paris, during which international anti-Kaddafi coalition which included the US, France, Great Britain, Canada, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Denmark was established. On March 20 at the session of the NATO council it was Turkey who did not allow the NATO to undertake the mission of providing no fly zone over Libya. The main reason for such an approach of Ankara was the ignoring of the interests of Turkey. As it was mentioned, in the initial stage of the anti-Kaddafi coalition formation it was Paris that singled out by its diplomatic, informational and military initiatives. The result was that for the first time since the 1956 Suez crisis Paris (by the way again in cooperation with London1) has initiated a military campaign directed to the widening of their authority and, correspondingly, its political influence in the Mediterranean which is considered to be important in the aspect of French interests. But such an activity of Paris has again put forward the French-Turkish contradictions in the Mediterranean which has aroused in recent years2. Coming forward with such an initiative France at the same time made efforts to minimize the involvement of Turkey in this process. It is not a mere chance that during the meeting with the Minister of Defence of Macedonia Zoran Konyanovski on March 21 in Ankara, the Minister of Defence of Turkey Vecdi Gonul stated that it was difficult to understand the leading role of France in Libyan campaign. The situation, however, changed after the phone conversation of Obama and Erdogan on March 21, during which, according to the official statement, the crisis in Libya was discussed. Two days later, on March 23 Turkish parliament not only approved joining of the Turkish navy to the NATO forces in blockading Libya, but Ankara also sent the biggest navy forces after the US – four frigates, one submarine and one support vessel. On the same day the president of Turkey Abdullah Gul made a statement and called Muammar Kaddafi to quit. It is remarkable that the United States turned for the assistance to Turkey and in consequence of the mediation of the later it became possible to free four captured correspondents of The New York Times. And on March 22 the US State Department officially stated that the interests of the United States in Libya will be presented by the Turkish embassy. And finally the most serious evidence of the Turkish involvement in Libyan issue was the decision of the North Atlantic Alliance to station the NATO control center responsible for the Libyan campaign at the military base in Izmir. Conclusions It is very remarkable that against the background of events in Tunisia, Egypt, the ongoing developments in Libya, Yemen, Syria and a number of other Arab countries Turkey is the only Muslim country on the international diplomatic and informational stage that tends to influence the processes. Even Saudi Arabia which is well-known for its financial possibilities and behind-the-scenes connections in Arab countries cannot position itself in such a way and Saudi approaches are often restricted to the measures of official character. As for the other Muslim power in the region – Iran, the initiatives has not acquired the same form as in case with Turkey. The Iranian authorities confined themselves to calling the events in Egypt Islamic revolution and exerting some diplomatic and informational pressure on the Sunnite authorities of Bahrain. On the other hand being involved in the Libyan crisis in this way, Ankara, in essence, creates precedent for at least diplomatic and informational interferences (if not military ones) in case of the similar developments in the Middle East, North Africa, maybe even on Balkans and in South Caucasus-Central Asia line. E.g. over the recent period anti-governmental disturbances continued in Syria and today Turkey is the only country which practically interferes into Syrian developments. At the end of March about half a dozen phone conversations took place between Turkish prime-minister and president of Syria. On March 27 in Damascus Bashar al-Assad received the chief of the Turkish intelligence Hakan Fidan and several days later the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Ahmet Davutoglu arrived. One of the statements of Erdogan concerning the developments in Syria in which he called official Damascus to meet halfway the wishes of the Syrian people and to initiate democratic reforms drew attention. In all the aforementioned the approach of the US should be singled out. One can see that Washington initiates some measures to promote the regional claims of Ankara and the cooperation between Turkey and US which has been revealed in consequence of the crisis in Libya seems to be the evidence of that. In this aspect the novelty is that the American-Turkish contradictions which could have been observed over the last period of Bush’s governing can be substituted by a partnership which may acquire new meaning, as, e.g. for the US which is leaving Iraq it is very important to have such a partner in the region. But the point is whether Turkey will be able to undertake that mission. 1On October 29, 1956 Great Britain, in the alliance with France and Israel, embarked on a military campaign against Egypt. The aim was to restore control over the Suez which had belong to the British and French shareholders for almost a century (it was opened in 1869) and in June 1956 it was nationalized by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Naseri. Under the pressure of the Soviet Union Great Britain, France and Israel who were not supported by the United States were obliged to stop military actions just in several days (November 6, 1956) and in 1957 they withdrew their troops from the occupied territories of Egypt. 2Those contradictions are mainly based on the initiative of France to create the so-called Mediterranean union. From the point of view of Turkey this initiative contains two dangerous circumstances. Firstly, in this way French try to increase their geopolitical influence in the Mediterranean basin; such attempts are also made by Turkey. Secondly, Paris tries to close finally the doors of the European Union for Turkey, instead offering Turkey to join the Mediterranean format. For the first time the idea of the Mediterranean union was put forward by N. Sarkozy in May 2007 as a format for cooperation of the European Union countries and countries of the region which are not members of the EU. The Mediterranean constituent assembly was called in July 2008 in Paris under the name of “Barcelona Process: for the sake of the Mediterranean”. It is remarkable that some observers in Ankara express the opinion that the real initiator of such a way of keeping Turkey out of the EU is the Pope Benedict XVI. Noravank

---