Erol a question. Not M/M

cambridge · Post by **cambridge** » Tue 18 Aug 2015 2:25 pm

having read your thoughts on an eventual settlement I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on the " red lines" that seem to appear on the GC side. I mean of course the idea of guarantors, the issue of the Turkish mainland immigrants and the idea of a rotating Presidency. From reading the papers on the GC side these seem to be areas of no compromise for them.

erol · Post by **erol** » Tue 18 Aug 2015 3:51 pm

cambridge wrote:having read your thoughts on an eventual settlement I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on the " red lines" that seem to appear on the GC side. I mean of course the idea of guarantors, the issue of the Turkish mainland immigrants and the idea of a rotating Presidency. From reading the papers on the GC side these seem to be areas of no compromise for them.

I am not really sure what 'red lines' the current RoC leadership and negotiators have and also I am not convinced that an expressed 'red line' in a period of negotiation is an actual 'red line'. Just as when negotiating a sale the seller may say 'I can not possible go any lower than X', may mean they really will not go any lower than X or it may not mean this. Reading the papers does not necessarily give an accurate picture I suspect. Also I would say that the starting basis of 'bi communal, bi zonal, federal solution' is itself in some ways already a compromise and concession from a maximal GC desire for a unitary state with no special concessions at all for the TC community within it beyond those given to any ethnic minority group in the RoC as it exists today.