Being a regional power, but how

Following a meeting with a group of journalists and economists, Friedman signed his New York Times bestseller "The Next 100 Years" for us.

He mentioned Turkey in four pages of this book, starting on page 144.

If you read these pages, you see a striking difference between what Friedman said in the meeting, how he answered our questions, and what he wrote in the book.

He explains Turkey’s Muslim identity and its role in the Islamic world in the book, I mean how Turkey will unite with the Arab world and become the leader of the Islamic world, but he did not focus much on the "Islam" motif in the conversation we had.

The American strategist commented on the global economic crisis, NATO’s future, al-Qaeda and the collapse of the European Union. Only after being asked a question he made a comment about Islam’s role in Turkey.

Similarly, Friedman in an interview with one of my colleagues said Turkey will never lose its "laic characteristic." But such crucial determination is unfortunately not found in his book.

If we go back to our meeting with Friedman, to a question about if Turkey will become a country of moderate Islam, he replied as follows: "Turkey’s weakness originates from its internal issues. The Kurdish issue, the struggle between laics and the pious, for instance. I even can say that the latter is more important than the Kurdish issue."

Thinks differently than the Obama Administration

Friedman is of the opinion that even if Turkey manages to keep its laic identity, and gains Islamic identity, it will become more important as a "regional power."

For this reason, he suggests us to forget about membership to the European Union.

As Turkey has already turned face to the EU and promised to adopt the EU’s values, of course we are perplexed by Friedman’s suggestion. Let alone the Obama administration remarked on that they will continue to support Turkey’s EU bid as the way it was before in the Clinton administration period.

Or is the Stratfor private intelligence agency, known as the "shadow CIA" and founded by Friedman, thinking differently than the Obama administration? Or does Turkey’s being an EU member no longer suit American interests?

Naturally one ponders these questions.

As for becoming the "regional power" in the footprints of the Ottomans, which Friedman tackles in his book and in our conversation, first of all I want to underline the fact that Friedman’s view overlaps with that of Ahmet Davutoğlu, chief adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In the Russia-Georgia row and its effort to mediate between Syria and Israel, Turkey signaled to become a "regional power." That’s correct.

But I have reservations about the stability of this "role." For instance, Erdoğan, due to local election campaigns, did not participate in the "Gaza Aid" conference held in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al Sheikh last week.

After a spurt in Davos about Gaza, Erdoğan did not participate in the meeting attended by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Isn’t this a huge opportunity we’ve missed to become a "regional power"?

Another example showing that the local polls have come to the forefront is the G-20 summit to be held in London in April 2.

In the aftermath of the global economic crisis, a new world order will be established under the auspice of G-20, so it is being said. But have you ever heard any statement from Ankara about how Turkey will contribute to this meeting or have you ever heard of this meeting being discussed in Turkey?

I have not. And I am not sure if being a "regional power" is understood completely.