Declaration of the Foro Ermua to the European Parliament

 

Strasbourg, 27 September, 2006

 

 

I. The situation in the 80’s and 90’s. the dark years.

 

A few years after the founding of the Foro Ermua, in February 2000, a delegation of the Forum’s leaders travelled to the European Parliament headquarters in Strasbourg to present MEPs with a series of reflections on the so-called “Basque problem”. The principal points of that declaration are summarised here below describing the situation which prevailed in the Basque Country during the preceding twenty years, i.e. since the establishment of democracy in 1977.

 

1) The freedoms of the non-nationalist citizens of the Basque Country – approximately 50% of the total population – were permanently and seriously violated by ETA terrorism and by the constant coercion perpetrated by different legalized satellite organisations, especially ETA’s political wing, Batasuna. In practice, the Basque terrorist network had created a permanent state of emergency in a part of western Europe.

 

2) Terrorist violence and intimidation focused exclusively on non-nationalist political parties and individuals (town councillors, professors, entrepreneurs and journalists) and on representatives of Spanish government institutions (police officers, military personnel, judges,…) who did not share the nationalist’s ideology.

 

3) The regional government, led by an uninterrupted series of Basque nationalist party governments dating back to 1979, was constantly trying to take political advantage of ETA criminal activity, calling on the central government to grant it broader powers and more funds and justifying ETA activities to a large extent by claiming they were the result of alleged national oppression. As stated on several occasions by "moderate" nationalists, they shared the political aims of ETA while distancing themselves from their methods but never condemned the intimate link between the terrorist murders and the political objectives they were trying to achieve.

 

4) Furthermore the nationalist government, with its own regional police force,  has exclusive power over maintaining public order in its territory, failed to adequately protect non-nationalist citizens who were left virtually defenceless in the face of ETA threats and persecution and of its political wing Batasuna (which changed names a number of times to dodge criminal liability). The Spanish police was not authorised to take action in the Basque Country in defence of citizens’ freedoms and rights with the exception of arresting terrorists.

 

5) Non-nationalist parties have had a difficult time finding citizens to run as candidates in Basque elections (local, provincial and regional) owing to the fact that dozens were murdered by ETA and hundreds have been attacked or threatened by Batasuna-ETA over the years. The result is that in the Basque Country, elections have not been democratic and nationalist parties have had a great electoral advantage thanks to terrorism and intimidation. A crude example of this radical inequality is the fact that hundreds of non-nationalist politicians have required the protection of round-the-clock bodyguards for many years – even still today – while nationalist representatives move about freely without bodyguards and can hold electoral meetings throughout the whole of the territory without running the risk of receiving any threat whatsoever.

 

6) The result, therefore, is a huge deficit in Basque political life in general and in electoral processes in particular, also bearing in mind that approximately 10% of the Basque electorate (close to 200,000 persons) have left their land due to ETA threats or owing to the oppressive atmosphere given their distance from or opposition to nationalism. This democratic deficit is the result of deliberate action on the part of the nationalist forces which have openly exploited the situation for their own gain. This position of anti-democratic dominance has enabled them to maintain control of the regional government for over 20 years without interruption right up to the present time. 

 

7) Spain has been a fully democratic nation since 1978 and the Basque Country enjoys the highest level of regional self-government of the entire European Community. For example, it collects all of its taxes and manages nearly every detail of the education, health-care, police, fiscal and public works systems.

 

8) The permanent dissatisfaction of the nationalist forces, despite the wide-ranging levels of self-government, derives from the fact that they refuse to renounce the goal of becoming a sovereign nation independent of Spain and are set on joining territories in the north of Spain and the south of France based exclusively on alleged ethnic criteria because, historically speaking, the Basque Country has never been independent. In order to achieve this ultimate objective, they have no qualms about systematically using the pressure created by ETA-led nationalist terrorism and social coercion, i.e. they have no qualms about remaining on the fringes of democratic and legal proceedings.

 

9) In the Basque Country there has never been a clash between two factions or between two sectors of the society. The violence has been perpetrated exclusively and unilaterally by the ETA nationalist organisation – justified by those inappropriately labelled as moderates who call this the “Basque conflict” or the “dispute with Spain” – and all of the victims who have lost their lives have been non-nationalists.

 

10) And to wrap up, the Strasbourg declaration of the year 2000 characterised the ETA organisation and the set of satellite associations it created as a Nazi-fascist movement whose intent was to impose itself upon the Basque society by means of violence, blackmail and extortion. That declaration likewise denounced the tolerance of the so-called “nationalist moderates”, with representation in the European Parliament, towards that project.

 

This open denouncement of the responsibilities of the Basque nationalist forces made by the Foro Ermua in February 2000 was the first time the situation had been described in quite that way and this caused a strong reaction on the  part of the nationalist politicians in the media. The ETA terrorists responded in their normal fashion: the next day threatening graffiti appeared on the home of the painter/sculptor Agustín Ibarrola whose emblematic work which was displayed in the Bosque de Oma was subsequently destroyed and three months later, in May of 2000, they murdered the journalist José Luis López de Lacalle. Both of these individuals were founding members of the Foro Ermua and formed part of that delegation to Strasbourg.

 

 

II. the 2000-2004 Period. eta is practically defeated.

 

In January 2000, ETA abandoned the truce it had declared 15 months earlier and commenced a new campaign of bloodshed. The Spanish Government, then under the leadership of José María Aznar and the People's Party, responded by implementing a more coherent and tough policy which had never before been attempted in Spain with the aim of completely defeating the ETA terrorist group and its network of satellite organisations through police and political action, all within strict adherence to the law.

 

In addition to strengthening police action in Spain, collaboration with the French Police was intensified as well and efforts were made to create EC anti-terrorist police and judicial collaboration instruments such as the European arrest warrant (the so-called Euro-order).  From 2000 to 2003, 640 terrorists were arrested.

 

Moreover, in 2000 the wide-ranging State Pact (The Anti-terrorist and Freedom Pact)  was signed between the government of the two main political parties in Spain (PP and the Socialist Party) which established all of the measures to be taken against nationalist terrorism. This provided a great degree of political unity and strengthened the nation.   

 

Finally, within the framework of the said anti-terrorist Pact, the decision was taken to approve a new law on political parties to prevent parties from fostering or supporting violence as a means to achieving political aims and rendered illegal those parties which collaborated or worked in tandem with a terrorist organisation. In 2002, that law was approved by over 90% of Parliament and, in its enforcement, the Spanish Supreme Court decided by unanimous decision in 2003 to declare the illegality of ETA's political wing, Batasuna, given that it formed part of the structure of the ETA terrorist group. This Judgement was unanimously ratified by the Constitutional Court. Batasuna was also suspended from all of its activities in the criminal jurisdiction (Audiencia Nacional) for forming part of the ETA terrorist network. This judicial decision was subsequently confirmed through an appeal process.

 

The European Union as well as the United States included Batasuna on their  list of terrorist organisations.

 

As a result of this new law on political parties, the Supreme Court decision on illegalisation and suspension in criminal matters, Batasuna was unable to participate in the municipal elections held in 2003 and was therefore cast out of the town halls for the first time in 24 years. Up to that point, approximately one thousand people from Batasuna had held government positions and had handled municipal funds thus obtaining considerable financing for Batasuna and even for ETA. They had also transformed Town Halls and the institutions they governed into forums for the exaltation of terrorism.

 

Hence, hundreds of Batasuna members lost their posts in the town halls of the Basque Country thus drastically reducing the funds available for the ETA-Batasuna terrorist network and other satellite organisations, giving rise to overall demoralisation. They also lost their privileged position from which to intimidate non-nationalist citizens. Their street demonstrations quickly lost their popular appeal and all of their calls for general political strikes failed.

 

At the beginning of 2004, before the Spanish general elections, ETA was the weakest it had been in more than three decades. Actually, as of one year earlier (June 2003), ETA had stopped committing murders due to the effectiveness of the police which prevented them from undertaking those already planned, the high internal political cost that this entailed and the international rejection it caused – particularly in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.

 

We have absolutely no doubt that if the government had continued implementing this firm anti-terrorist policy for three or four more years, ETA and its entire network of intimidation would have been completely defeated without any political concession whatsoever. This wise anti-terrorist policy would have set an important precedent in the fight on terrorism in Europe.

 

Furthermore, during those four years, we non-nationalist Basque citizens partially recuperated our freedom and to a large degree our trust in Spanish institutions was restored because we felt that the government was successfully defending us. Signs of freedom were on the horizon in the Basque Country after decades of oppression from ETA’s nationalist terrorism.

 

 

III. the so-called peace process.  2004 to 2006.

 

With the arrival to the Presidency of the Spanish Government of the leader of the Socialist party, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero following the 11^th  March terrorist attacks, the policy of isolation and relentless persecution of terrorism was abandoned. This shift was so incomprehensible that the Government repeatedly concealed its true strategy from the general public.

 

The cornerstone of the new government’s political discourse was the “peace process” concept, i.e. a “negotiated solution” with the terrorists themselves instead of their defeat without concessions. Terrorist arrests began to decrease, slowly at first and then drastically as of the middle of 2005.

 

The Spanish socialist government seconded the tolerant stand of the Basque regional government towards the open political activity of Batasuna, despite the fact that this group had been declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Batasuna’s leaders were able to hold many press conferences, call dozens of demonstrations through different subterfuges and hold public meetings with other parties while the Spanish government stood idly by without doing anything and even proclaimed that this illegal activity "helped in the normalisation process" of the Basque Country.

 

The new government also froze – although publicly they continued to proclaim its currency – the Anti-terrorist Pact with the People's Party, condemning it to a slow death by not calling on it during this entire period of socialist government. This freezing of the Pact was on ETA’s wish list as well as that of the rest of the nationalist Basques. Those responsible at the ministerial level and the nation’s new Prosecutor General (chosen by the Government) came out, in an indirect but effective way, in favour of judges shirking their responsibilities and permitting Batasuna to increase its political activity, even though this involved infringement of civil and criminal laws in force. The Vice-president of the government declared that we should seek a solution “in which there were no winners or losers”, effectively putting victims and terrorists on an equal footing.

 

On 22 March 2006 ETA announced a “permanent cease fire”. It proclaimed its intention of not committing any more deadly attacks while indirectly making this promise contingent upon the achievement of a series of political objectives. It is important to mention that five times in the past ETA had announced truces of varying lengths[1], which were revoked when conflicts emerged with different governments (socialist or centre-right) deriving from political demands, the typical response being new murder sprees.

 

As we pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs, before this announcement made by ETA the Government had already made a series of concessions to them and, more specifically, to Batasuna. Since the time this “cease-fire” was declared, the Spanish government has made new concessions to the terrorists. The following is a short list of the most noteworthy ones:

 

1. The government neither publicly admits nor denies that since the “cease fire” declaration ETA has continued to perpetrate terrorist activities, although for now has not committed any deadly crimes. The following are some of the government’s statements: <The government claims to be unaware that ETA continues its extortion activities of entrepreneurs despite overwhelming evidence indicating this to be so>. <A Spanish police officer close to the number one government-appointed anti-terrorist official warned an ETA extortion unit collaborator that a police operation was going to take place thus preventing that operation>. <The government systematically pays little or no attention to acts of street terrorism carried out by individuals following ETA's instructions. Over 131 street attacks have been perpetrated, including the burning of buses, attacks against political party headquarters, media, town councillors, municipal buildings and against firms which refuse to give in to extortion. The estimated cost of this damage totals €1.4 million. <The government denies that ETA continues "to gather information and remains potentially operational" to carry out attacks at any time, contrary to the opinion of Judge Baltasar Garzón of the “Audiencia Nacional” and others.>. 

 

2. The government no longer calls on ETA to clearly state its commitment to not carry out any further violence and less still to disband as an organisation before commencing negotiations. This is what the Foro Ermua and the victims of terrorism are clamouring for. Previously the government itself stated in no uncertain terms that there would be no dialogue with ETA unless they expressly and definitively renounced violence.

 

3. During this “cease fire” ETA has been periodically proclaiming that it does not renounce any of its long-standing political objectives, mainly the Basque Country’s right to self-determination, the annexation of Navarre and freedom for inmates serving prison sentences for crimes of terrorism, among others. Instead of flatly rejecting these demands, the President of the government has insinuated in his somewhat ambiguous statements that he is willing to negotiate within the framework of the “peace process” (<Rodríguez Zapatero has even said that without arms everything is possible>) despite the fact that they are in breach of the Spanish Constitution, are an affront to democratic citizens, lead to a division in the unity of Spain and that this is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists.

 

4. The government continues to refuse to take any action against the political activities undertaken by Batasuna even though it continues to be an illegal and terrorist association.

 

5. The Government, the Prosecutor General and outstanding members of the Socialist Party, on several occasions, have gone as far as to declare their willingness to re-legalise Batasuna.

 

 

IV. the Foro Ermua would like to make the following observations to the European Parliament in respect of the so called “peace process” in spain.

 

1. Noteworthy differences between ETA terrorism and the case of Northern Ireland: While it is not our intention to assess the virtues and deficiencies of the peace process under way in Northern Ireland over the past eight years, we would point out that there are very important differences with the terrorist situation in the Basque Country.

 

a) Unilateral violence. In Spain there has been no clash between two nationalisms; violence has been perpetrated exclusively by the Basque nationalists against Basques and other Spaniards who are not nationalists. Practically all of those murdered were ”non-nationalists”, either politicians, writers or representatives of state institutions (police officers, military personnel, judges, …). In contrast with the approximately 900 individuals murdered by ETA, only 23 people from this organisation or its sphere of influence were murdered in terrorist acts carried out by a group called GAL which operated in the mid 80’s with the intervention of high-ranking officials from the Ministry of the Interior from the former Socialist government according to Supreme Court judgements.

 

In contrast with the thousands of non-nationalist persons who have been mutilated and injured by ETA car bombs, many of these children, no ETA member or their families have been injured in this way. A further 11,000 non-nationalist citizens lost property (businesses, homes and automobiles) through ETA attacks but nothing of the sort affected those linked to or collaborating with the terrorist organisation.

 

b) Affiliation of terrorist prisoners in Spain. As a result of this unilateral violence described in the foregoing, the second difference with Northern Ireland is that all of those imprisoned for acts of terrorism in Spain, with the exception of Islamic extremists, are ETA members. There are 660 ETA members in prison today: over 500 in Spain and the rest serving sentences abroad, almost all of these in France. This means that the release of prisoners serving sentences for crimes of terrorism would only benefit ETA and nationalists in general who support unconditional amnesty with a view to weakening and humiliating Spain as a nation.

 

In Northern Ireland hundreds of prisoners, both republicans and unionists, were given their freedom as part of the Stormont agreements. It is also important to remember that the young Spanish democracy already granted total amnesty to absolutely all ETA inmates immediately applicable in 1977. However, this generous amnesty during the Spanish democratic transition did not keep ETA from committing crimes under the new democratic system.

 

It should also be recalled that the early release of prison inmates in Northern Ireland caused profound dissatisfaction within the society, especially among the victims of terrorism from both factions. Compelling society to accept excessive “sacrifices” for the sake of peace was a blow to people’s sense of justice leading to electoral polarisation towards the political extremes. If this measure failed to work well in Northern Ireland, perspectives are even worse in a region such as the Basque Country where the population has always reacted peacefully in the face of terrorism and where all victims have renounced taking justice into their own hands, placing their trust in State institutions.

 

Moreover, Spanish laws allows reinsertion contingent upon openly renouncing violence and compensation of victims by expressly asking for pardon and assuming civil liability deriving from the crimes committed. Hence, peace is possible respecting certain limits which prevent criminal impunity and which are indicative of the unequivocal will to put an end to violence.

 

            c) In the Basque Country, terrorism has not been perpetrated against those in power (regional nationalist government) but rather against those that are in the opposition (non-nationalists).

 

d) Differences in the competences of the governments in the Basque Country and in Northern Ireland.  The degree of political autonomy in Northern Ireland, even considering full deployment of the competences envisaged in the Stormont agreement of April 1998 – which is still not in force – would barely be equivalent to that which Spain granted the Basque Country in the 1979 Guernica Statute of Autonomy.

 

Despite the extraordinary decentralisation of the recently constituted democratic Spain, the Basque nationalists have acted with radical disloyalty to the 1978 Spanish Constitution and to the Spanish government and its institutions.

 

f) In Spain, the regional government has never been suspended. During the course of all of these years, dialogue and agreement with the regional government has been the untiring rule despite the reiterated disloyalty of Basque nationalism and its proven tolerance of ETA. Spain has never suspended the competences of the Basque government and parliament even those this is possible under the Spanish Constitution.

 

In contrast, on a number of occasions the United Kingdom has suspended the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland assuming its administration directly from London. This suspension, declared over three years ago, still persists. In the view of the Basque nationalists, a similar suspension of Basque autonomy – even if for only a few months – would be considered casus belli and labelled as “fascist”.

 

And lastly, it is our view that the use of what could be called “Stormont language” to refer to the terrorist problem in the Basque Country prevents a true analysis of the Basque reality.  It is not only a serious offence to the victims but also denies their existence in supposing that there are two conflicting factions and ignoring the sacrifice and democratic example of their renouncement of vengeance. Not only has the outbreak of a war been prevented but also the “dirty war”, sadly undertaken by the former Socialist government, has been denounced and condemned. The democratic effort on the part of the Spanish society is inspirational and merits the respect and support of the international community.

 

2. Grounds on which the Foro Ermua rejects the “peace process”. The Foro Ermua is a group of Basque citizens who defend constitutional values and are against ETA and policies seeking independence and taking advantage of Basque nationalism in general. Our organisation will continue to flatly oppose the misnamed “peace process” encouraged by the current Spanish government which is actually a process of giving in to the political and penitentiary demands of the ETA terrorist organisation.

 

a) The valuable experience gained through the anti-terrorist policy applied by the Spanish government for four years (2000 to the beginning of 2004) reaffirms our conviction that it is possible to totally and definitively defeat nationalist terrorism in a fully democratic manner without making political concessions of any sort. We therefore call on the current Spanish government to reinstate a firm and consistent anti-terrorist policy with the support of the main opposition party (PP).

 

b) the Foro Ermua calls on the Spanish government and the European Union institutions to hold to the principle established in international policy: no negotiation with terrorists and no yielding to its blackmail. This principle holds true not only when it comes to Islamic extremist terrorism but also in the case of the nationalist sort. Europe would be weakened and its citizens subjected to greater risks if we were to opt for appeasement and concessions when faced with threat, either from within or outside of our borders.

 

c) The current government of Spain, however, while promising that it would only establish a dialogue with terrorists if they clearly expressed their unequivocal will to put an end to violence, persists in conducting direct negotiations with them. The clear and objective breach of the promises made by the President of the Spanish government gives us reason to fear that the terrorist organisation will extract future concessions in exchange for their keeping their formal “cease fire” which, by the way, has done nothing to prevent a series of ongoing terrorist activities as mentioned above (extortion of entrepreneurs, street terrorism, …).

 

d) Before accepting a return to legal status for Batasuna, ETA's political representative, we must insist on the total disappearance of the terrorist organisation because if not, this could coerce the country, promising its disappearance in the future but always making this contingent upon giving in to new political demands. The pretension that the political wing become independent of the terrorist organisation is a dangerous illusion which is not a reality in Northern Ireland eight years after the Good Friday Agreement or in the Basque Country after a six-month old truce.

 

e) Social rejection of the misnamed “peace process”. For the reasons expressed above, most of society rejects this process. The main opposition party, the principal associations of victims of terrorism (representing over 80% of the victims) and the main civic constitutionalist associations such as the Foro Ermua, reject the policy of negotiation undertaken by the current Spanish government.

 

In response to the “negotiated solution” policy of the current Spanish government, five large demonstrations have been held – some with approximately one million demonstrators – upon the initiative of the association of the victims of terrorism. The sixth demonstration of this nature in under two years will be held on the 1^st of October in the city of Seville. The voice of this active opposition of half of the Spanish society which has taken to the streets will continue to be heard in the future. 

 

In Northern Ireland a broad sector of the population rejected the so-called “peace process”. Having ignored the said social rejection and granting concessions to terrorists in the belief of their democratic integration has, in the end, strengthened the position of the radicals at the cost of the moderates and all of this has led to a legitimisation of terrorist positions and political and social polarisation, giving rise to the current paralysation with regional government still suspended after over three years.

 

 

requests

 

1.  The Foro Ermua calls on the  European Parliament to reject polices which include concessions and appeasement of ETA nationalist terrorism.  We specifically request that you not condone any form of dialogue between the Spanish government and ETA until which time this organisation has demonstrated that it has definitively abandoned all forms of violence (including extortion and street violence) and clearly commits to disband unconditionally.

 

2. We also call on the Members of the European Parliament to speak out in defence of democratic values, the dignity and freedom of persons and the fight against terrorism to achieve its definitive defeat excluding all political concessions.

 

3.  We ask the European Parliament to support keeping Batasuna and its satellite associations, made illegal by Spain’s Supreme Court, on the Community’s list of terrorist organisations.

 

4. The victims of terrorism at the hands of ETA, mostly represented by AVT and COVITE, should receive the acknowledgement of the Euro parliament and support in their call for justice for the crimes they have suffered. Their dignity and historical memory should likewise be respected, rejecting offensive measures such as the release of ETA murderers from prison.

.