Contact us <
Foundation<

Manifesto of Foro Ermua concerning the banning of Batasuna 

Bilbao.  22 September 2002.

I.    The neo-nazi phenomenon in Euskadi

                In February 2000 the FORO ERMUA handed the President of the European Parliament at Strasbourg (France), a declaration asking the European Union to protect the citizens of the Basque Country against ETA's repeated attacks on their human rights, the lack of public freedoms and the continual refusal of the nationalist government (formed by PNV and EA [1] ) to safeguard the rights of non-nationalist citizens.  Even more shameful is the fact that, precisely at that time, the president of the Basque regional government (lehendakari, in Basque) Ibarretxe had reached a formal agreement with ETA's accomplices (then called Euskal Herritarrok, later Batasuna) in order to remain in power for the parliamentary term, as they held a minority position.

                In the Strasbourg Declaration the FORO ERMUA unreservedly denounced the neo-nazism of ETA and its accomplices in Batasuna and the huge burden of responsibility the so-called moderate nationalists had taken upon themselves by entering into political agreements with them. At the time some people were shocked at the forcefulness of the diagnosis -neo-nazism, fascism- and by the political responsibility deriving from it. Today it is evident to most Basques and other Spanish citizens that the extreme nationalism of ETA and Batasuna and their contumacious recourse to violence characterizes them as true Nazis.

                However, throughout History, Nazi movements, before seizing power, have generally disguised themselves with the aid of socialist and populist ideas that make them attractive, for example, to young people and alternative movements. Indeed, for a time, a considerable number of Basques and certain sectors of Europeans and Latin Americans were taken in by this false progressivism: how could they fail to support what was apparently a national liberation movement?

But what fascist groups excel at is using lies in order to demonize their "enemies", attract unsuspecting people to their cause and neutralize the half-hearted. In the case of ETA (now with Batasuna), this involves passing themselves off systematically as the victims of the situation of violence that only they have fuelled for more than 20 years in a free society, Spain. It should not be forgotten that the general amnesty which the nascent Spanish democracy generously granted them in October 1977 brought about the release of absolutely all ETA prisoners.

              From the foregoing one infers that Batasuna's current strategy vis-à-vis the process of outlawing them [2] is to brand as fascists the Spanish democratic state, the parties who are in favour of the current Spanish Constitution and, in general, ETA's potential victims -that is, people who defend human rights and the values of democracy; as things stand, anyone who does not oppose ETA's totalitarian project can rest at ease.

                What better disguise than democracy for a fascist movement that aspires to command support in democratic Spain and Europe? What better attack on Spanish democracy than confusing its legitimate defence with fascist violations of rights?

                If put into practice, the "democracy for Euskal Herria [3] " that ETA and Batasuna have been advocating for years would simply amount to a iron-fisted dictatorship, the implacable persecution of those who failed to yield to their authority. Unfortunately, this gloomy outlook is already very much a reality in a considerable number of Basque towns, even though Batasuna only exercises municipal power in them... and the threat of terrorist attacks. Who dares to criticize the municipal extreme radical (abertzale, in Basque) team in public in those places?  What dissident citizen, in those gulags, is able to escape the network of -no less extremist- informers who decide who the next harassment or extortion victims will be? 

                As with all fascists, their credo is exclusionist extreme nationalism and anyone who does not share it is automatically deprived of Basque citizenship in ETA´s and Batasuna´s eyes, even if they descend from generations of Basques. How else are we to interpret the "census of –genuine- Basque people" that has been devised by ETA and is being compiled by the councils and organizations controlled by Batasuna? A "census" that would be the envy of the Jean Marie Le Pen's followers, intent as they are on purifying the French nation... by expelling those left off it. 

The fact is that the abertzale neo-nazis are at a very advanced stage in their task of "building a nation" -on the basis of pistol wielding, without using any sort of census- to judge by the quarter of a million Basque citizens (out of a two million population) who, it is estimated, have been forced to move to other parts of Spain over the past 30 years to escape from the threats and extortion practiced by ETA. ETA´s  plans for the future are called "ethnic cleansing", a variety not much less aggressive and bellicose than that of the paramilitary groups who served Slobodan Milosevic in his project for a Great Serbia.

II.    The Law on Political Parties [4] is a law that protects democracy and fundamental rights

                However, it is not even on the grounds of their clearly antidemocratic and nazi ideology that Batasuna is going to be banned. The Law on Parties is not directed against ideological pluralism because, on the contrary, it is a law designed to protect freedoms and democracy. 

                It is not true that this law persecutes ideologies, however heinous and antidemocratic some of those we suffer in this country are. It will only do so when they are used as a support or cover for attacks or persecutions, as Art. 9, subparagraph 3a) explicitly states.

To avoid being taken in by the confusion fomented by nationalist environments, citizens should be aware that both Germany and France have laws allowing parties to be banned which are even more restrictive than the new Spanish law. For example, In 1952 the Federal Republic of Germany banned the Socialist Party of the Reich (the successor to Hitler's party) and in 1956 the German Communist Party. In both cases article 21.2 of the Fundamental Law was applied, which declares parties which "through their aims or through the behaviour of their members distort or undermine the liberal democratic constitutional order or endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany" to be unconstitutional.

          In the case of France, a Law of 1 January 1936, amended in 1972 and 1986, directly vests the executive with the power to dismantle a political group simply for disseminating racist, discriminatory or violent ideas. This law has been applied in recent years to ban extreme right- and left-wing groups, Corsican pro-independence movements and others accused of justifying terrorism.  We should stress the banning of Iparretarrak (a French-Basque pro-ETA group) in 1987.

            But it is furthermore necessary to point out clearly that in our case we are not dealing merely with a sinister ideology. The process undertaken by Judge Garzón to suspend Batasuna from activity [5] , the Spanish government's motion to have the party outlawed and that of the State Attorney General are all based on overwhelming proof of the ties between ETA and Batasuna -or rather of the latter's subordination to ETA.  What is more, in most cases, the facts in question have been proved in judicial decisions.

           A particularly serious issue is the inclusion of persons convicted for terrorism among Batasuna's executive organs, starting with the party leader, Arnaldo Otegi, who was sentenced to  6 years' imprisonment in 1989 for kidnapping. Batasuna furthermore frequently resorts to persons convicted of membership of ETA and murder for its slates of candidates -even the most important ones; this is currently the case of five of the seven Batasuna members with seats in the Basque regional Parliament, such as the sinister Josu Ternera [6] . The same is true of many abertzale left-wing councillors and other people who hold institutional posts.

             The Spanish government has identified a total of 192 Batasuna leaders and party members with ties to ETA, of whom 67 hold institutional posts (Annex II of the government motion presented to the Supreme Court on 3 September 2002 asking for the outlawing of Batasuna)

            That Batasuna is part of the ETA "holding" is something we Basques were well aware of. What Basque society did not realize is that Batasuna provided ETA with information from the electoral roll for its extortions and harassments of many of our fellow citizens. Batasuna is therefore not being accused on the grounds of ideology but of "aiding, supporting, contributing to and propagating the effects of the terrorist activity of the ETA organization".

III.   The responsibilities of the so-called moderate nationalism

        The preamble to the constitution of  UNESCO states that "since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed". In Euskadi it is precisely an "ethnicist" and exclusionist type of extreme nationalism that incubates -from the schoolroom- the egg of  ETA´s serpent [7] .

A very serious problem of terror is the benefits it has been bringing the nationalists' political project. First through the bonus of legitimacy that Spanish society granted the nationalists as "true" representatives of the "Basque people", believing they would make it possible to put an end to terrorism once the democratic deficit and lack of autonomy generated by the Franco dictatorship had been overcome. Reality has shown ad nauseam that such confidence was largely unjustified.  Nowadays Basque nationalism, as construed by its leaders, is an insoluble problem as regards coexistence in liberty in Euskadi. Incapable of coming up with, let alone promoting, a single integrating idea, they remain entrenched in the outdated ravings of Sabino Arana [8] .

            The PNV has yet to bring about its ideological "perestroika". Nobody is asking them to stop being nationalist, just as nobody is required to cease being socialist, liberal, conservative, communist, Green or Christian democrat. But a system of liberties requires, by its very definition, that nationalism be compatible with basic democratic principles and with respect for the civil rights of all citizens, including non-nationalists. It requires them, no more and no less, to respect other ideologies.

        Concepts such as "people" versus society/citizenship, "collective rights of the Basque people" as opposed to basic individual rights, which they do not mind violating as long as they progress in "building a nation" by force. And as for the "inalienable right" to immediate "territoriality" [9] regardless of the will of the people of Navarre and the French Basque regions;  how many more elections, in which these territories repeatedly express their opposition to being annexed by Euskadi by a wide majority, will it take for the non-violent nationalists to shed the peremptory -and indispensable- nature of their “territorial” aspiration?

        The PNV is and has been against use of violence; this is undeniable. Just as undeniable as the fact that, at least since the Estella Accord of September 1998, this party has opted fully for a  "pro-sovereignty" stance. This means in practice reaping political benefits from the intimidating effect on the population and institutions of the actions of ETA and its cronies, without which -as they are well aware- it will be little short of impossible for them to achieve an ethnicist independence one day and annex other territories.

            Therefore, whenever Batasuna or ETA starts to teeter on the edge of the abyss, the PNV -with their president, Xabier Arzalluz, among the first- attempt to prevent a "police solution" or "judicial harassment", seeking to restore those organizations. We still remember the PNV's manoeuvres to "save" Batasuna after the horrific images of Ortega Lara or the murder "in slow motion" of the young Partido Popular councillor of Ermua, Miguel Angel Blanco, in July 1997 [10] .

        What is moderate about such a policy pursued by PNV?  Only if it is compared to the fascist behaviour of Batasuna is it possible to conceal in part the radical stance of the PNV's current nationalism.

        Some of the foregoing observations are by no means exclusive to the FORO ERMUA. In March 2001 the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, Álvaro Gil-Robles, issued an enlightening report on the situation in the Basque Country, which was circulated to European Union institutions and the Spanish and Basque regional governments.

            The result of the enquiry was devastating insofar as it verified (as the report states) the serious violations of the human rights of people who do not identify with pro-independence political stances. The report analyzes the concrete causes of the violation of human rights in the Basque Country, drawing attention to the two main ones: the direct action of the ETA terrorist group and the kale borroka, that is the urban violence carried out continuously by pro-ETA groups, which particularly threaten the members of the non-nationalist parties and journalists, university lecturers and intellectuals who do not support independence in their sociopolitical leanings.

        But the most serious aspect of this report is that it includes the testimonies of victims which "highlight an abnormal failure of the Basque regional police force to suppress and investigate such offences, which so seriously impinge on democratic life in the Autonomous Region". In some cases, these very worrying testimonies come from members of the Basque regional police force [11] themselves, who are rendered powerless by their commanders' passivity [12] .

            The European Commissioner for Human Rights concluded with an observation of his own, stating that "the Basque regional government bears some responsibility", not only for this very serious matter but also for the use of the means of transmitting culture and knowledge which may at times border on "the giving of encouragement to racist and xenophobic positions, and this is certainly incompatible with a democratic concept of society and carries within it the seeds of human rights violations".

        The supposedly moderate nationalists initially took delight in the visit of the Human Rights Commissioner, thinking he would be convinced by the claims of violations committed against Euskadi's regional government and of the terrible inhumanity of the -actually judicious- policy of dispersing ETA convicts (as had occurred not long earlier with the shameful spectre of a former president of a great nation, Italy [13] ) However, the PNV subsequently discredited the report because they refused to acknowledge the truth it reflected. The PNV have not yet realized that the European institutions formed an opinion of their own on the Basque situation some time ago and that there are sufficient outside witnesses to what goes on there. Do they perhaps prefer not to acknowledge, for example, the explicit support the European Commission and European Parliament have pledged for the steps taken this summer by the Spanish institutions to ban Batasuna? Nor are the governing nationalists allowing the viewers of the regional TV channel ETB to discover that the EU institutions are considering including Batasuna on their list of terrorist organizations once the Spanish Supreme Court decides to outlaw it.

The PNV's conduct in recent years evidences their total disloyalty to Spanish institutions and society, including the non-nationalist Basque society, which generously recognized and greatly expanded in the 1978 Constitution and the 1979 Basque Statute of Autonomy the so-called "historical rights" of the three Basque provinces.

            Instead of pursuing a civic nationalism (the only kind which can be embraced in the concert of democratic nations), the secret pact the PNV sealed with ETA in the summer of 1998 (only disclosed by the terrorists when they felt betrayed) involved putting into practice a pro-sovereignty strategy and doing the utmost to exclude the parties who support the current Constitution from the Basque institutions. That shameful accord (the Estella /Lizarra Pact) provided a starting point and basis for all further agreements with Batasuna: the arrangement whereby PNV and EA were able to remain in power thanks to Batasuna parliamentary votes and the creation of Udalbiltza (i.e. an informal assembly of only nationalists mayors and councillors from the Basque country, Navarre and the French Basque-speaking areas, whose ultimate aim was to displace the Basque regional Parliament, unite those three territories, giving rise unilaterally to an independent State based on the power of that constituent assembly).

            Messrs. Arzalluz and Egibar -leaders of PNV- cannot deceive us as to the legitimacy of their negotiations with ETA. When the Spanish government sat down to negotiate with ETA in 1999 (during ETA´s temporary truce), it was to address only one issue: the personal and material conditions for the terrorists' surrender and the fate of their almost 500 prisoners -certainly not to promote a common political project and reward them with political compensations.

            The falsely moderate nationalists currently continue their struggle with the rule of law over the suspension and banning of Batasuna, with arguments ranging from the absurd to the ridiculous. There is a lesser struggle going on simultaneously between PNV and EA, who are vying for Batasuna's 150,000 voters -as Batasuna is already excluded from coming elections- and in doing so fuelling their own radicalization.

            In this situation, a further ignominious accusation has been levelled by the PNV's president, who speaks of the "de facto state of emergency" the Spanish government has imposed in the Basque country as a result of the order of the High Court judge suspending Batasuna´s activities. Do they not realize that thousands of Basques have been living in a permanent and very real state of emergency for years -under their regional government? Or that for many Basques the state of emergency imposed by Franco has continued with nationalist terrorism? Terrorist activity cruelly intensified during the transition to democracy. In 1980, while Adolfo Suárez's centrist party (UCD) was in power, ETA murdered 92 people; and more recently, in 1991, under a Socialist government in Spain, it killed 46. This does not appear to matter much to the nationalists´ leaders. Or are these victims not "their own people"?

            The Basque parliament's irresponsible show of bravado in July 2002 concerning a unilateral seizure of powers on 11 September -regardless of whether the Spanish government and Parliament accepted it or not- was transformed in September into a proposal for negotiations to modify the Statute [14] . This proposal, the only sensible one, once again seems to have fallen into oblivion judging by the appeal to the people for "mobilization" following the Basque Parliament's refusal to comply with the orders issued by Judge Garzón, which solely and exclusively affect Batasuna. PNV-EA's lack of respect for the organ of representation of the Basque people is an alarmingly constant feature.

IV.  The responsibility of Basque society.  "Dialogue" and "pursuit of peace"

Basque society (so far largely nationalist), as the inevitable mainstay of the PNV-EA leaders and their persistent arbitrary acts, has inevitably helped consolidate a climate of social exclusion that is reflected in daily life in practically all parts of Euskadi. Basque nationalism in practice is not a party; it is not a political idea; it is not a project. Basque nationalism today is a system, in which fear prevails. For some people, fear of being murdered; for others, fear of drawing attention to themselves and being excluded if they show themselves to be non-nationalists. The state of affairs in the Basque Country -which has no place for either plurality or non-nationalism- is not only the fruit of terror or of enlightened leaders; it is the result of a host of exclusionist social practices and, to a large extent, of a rare political ignorance in the most elementary sense of the word.

            It is common to hear in Euskadi that it is the political parties who are causing the tension in a relaxed and cohesive society. Now, many of those who deliver opinions of this kind do not measure all the parties with the same yardstick. Naturally, they condemn violence. They do not feel comfortable with Batasuna beside them (though some have no qualms about joining in their mobilizations to defend their "rights"), but they feel less comfortable with the parties who are in favour of the current Constitution, particularly the PP. They do not like the "intransigent" attitudes adopted to combat ETA. Furthermore, some think that there is an unresolved political conflict (according to them, this does not justify use of violence, but then why do they bring up the stale issue of "conflict"?) Deep down, to cite the same line that the lehendakari is fond of repeating, violence is unacceptable only on ethical and moral grounds, but not on political ones.

        They also put forward another democratically unsound argument against outlawing Batasuna's leaders: 150,000 citizens voted for Batasuna in the last elections. Unquestionably, no party can be allowed to violate the human rights and freedoms of anyone, even if it were to have the backing of 99% of the population. Otherwise, we would have to ask how such a marked fundamentalism and such hatred have arisen in our country within such a tolerant and democratic society as that of Spain today.

        Therefore, the messages of "dialogue till dawn", finding a just solution to the "conflict", not closing doors to Batasuna-ETA by banning them.... all this recalls a past period, the years leading up the Second World War, to be precise. Great Britain (but other countries too, unfortunately) had prime ministers, first Baldwin and then Chamberlain, who were in favour of an appeasement policy towards Hitler's provocations. This policy was a resounding failure. Sebastian Haffner  describes it as follows: "The more he failed, the more the initiative passed from Chamberlain's to Hitler's hands (...) almost without realizing why, Chamberlain found himself at war with Hitler. Suddenly, he was up to his neck precisely in the war which his policy had basically set out to avoid ".

        Neutral, intermediate positions are an alternative that is neither worthy nor wise, because in this country political criticism is not practiced; rather, adversaries get killed. They are much less so now, at a time when the rule of law is persecuting the fascist web of ETA. Is neutrality an option when hundreds of people (almost 800) have been killed since the beginning of democracy in 1978? Or when all the members of the opposition parties have bodyguards? ... However, a large sector of the population -owing to misinformation, to a contaminated education, to the social habit of concealing their own ideas, to the web of financial interests that the governing nationalist parties have woven over these past 22 years, and to bourgeois ways stemming from our “reputedly high standard of living"... is  inclined towards or sensitive to the manipulation of today's nationalism. When asked by the Euskobarómetro opinion poll about the banning of Batasuna, 69% stated it was "not advisable" and 58% believed it to be "damaging". Incidentally, they were not asked to whom it would be damaging. No doubt not to the current potential victims, namely all those who dare to show their disagreement with this exclusionist and totalitarian project. 

        The moral responsibility of those who have looked the other way for a long time or did not mind giving in to the barbarity as long as they were not affected is huge.  But it is furthermore absurd, because today the totalitarianism of ETA is threatening those who defend the rule of law and freedoms, but tomorrow it would threaten the whole population. There is no longer any excuse. Are ETA-Batasuna nazis or freedom fighters? We can all choose one stance or the other, but it is inadmissible to join in the demonstrations with the executioners and, at the same time, share the victims' pain, because the murderers took advantage of the impunity and the means that democracy afforded them to kill or help kill.

        The pursuit of peace by all, true dialogue, the end of this long nightmare is clearly conditional on several factors: first, ETA must disappear, with a verifiable surrender of weapons and explosives, as the IRA is doing in Ulster; second, Batasuna must shed the totalitarian ideas it entertains for Basque society and respect -in practice, in the villages and districts where it enjoys the most power- the human rights and freedoms of the non-nationalists, putting an unconditional end to the  kale borroka; and third, the non-violent nationalist parties must carry out an in-depth review of their ethnicist and exclusionist antidemocratic doctrine, abiding by the rule of law, without subterfuge. Acceptance, without ambiguity, of the Spanish Constitution and Basque Statute of Autonomy -and of the reform procedures laid down in them- is the only basis for a peaceful and civilized coexistence in which there is room for all the projects, all the ideas and all the aspirations of such a plural society as that of the Basque Country.

The serious actions and omissions of the ruling nationalist parties (PNV and EA), which by growing more radical in recent years have accelerated the deterioration of democracy in Euskadi and are damaging the prestige of its organs of self-government, were particularly telling and shameful this September in connection with the process of banning Batasuna. This resistance to the application of the law (practically disobeying judicial decisions and ignoring the separation of powers that guarantees any democracy) is not entirely new behaviour on the part of the nationalists who govern us, but never had they gone so far or stooped so low as the present governing force in our country. 

Therefore, the FORO ERMUA is appealing to Basque citizens because it is neither responsible nor realistic to expect the political parties and other institutions to come up with all the answers. The time has come to behave as free and responsible citizens who are no longer prepared to consent to our regional government helping Batasuna recover from its current weakness by evading the action of justice. Never before has the  kale borroka (i.e., the pro-ETA street violence)  been so scarce. It is obvious that the application of the law is bringing beneficial effects, much sooner than we expected. We are on the right road to peace. It is time to face up to fear and restore collective dignity.

Rebellion, which today is legitimate and urgently needed, will in no way contribute to sparking "social tension“; rather it will help the law prevail. The rebellion is against the current nationalist leaders' constant victimist manipulation of reality and the powerful media they monopolize. Today's "indispensable" demands are for the regeneration and restoration of the dignity of the Basque institutions and freedom for the whole of our society.

Closing remarks

        To conclude, the FORO ERMUA wishes to express its sincere thanks to all the institutions, political parties, judges and all the other people who -often endangering themselves and their families- are helping make possible so many Basques' and Spaniards' dream of seeing Batasuna outlawed and, in doing so, are bringing us much nearer to the final defeat of ETA. We extend these thanks to the National Police and Civil Guard, without whose effective antiterrorist action the ETA-Batasuna network could not have been so successfully weakened, much to the relief of true democrats [15] . For their part, most of the members of the Basque police (ertzainas) endeavour daily -in highly adverse conditions- to safeguard the security of this country's citizens and to enforce the law, despite their nationalist superiors' (verbal)  instructions not to play an active part in quelling the “street violence”. Once again, our sincerest recognition and thanks to them.

[1] [Translator's Note]  The strongest nationalist party is PNV, Basque Nationalist Party, created in 1896.  EA, Eusko Askartasuna, split away from PNV in 1986.

[2] [T.N.]  On 26 August, 2002 an overwhelming majority (almost 90 per cent) of Spain´s lower chamber MPs  voted in favour of initiating a process that will eventually end in the Supreme Court making Batasuna illegal.

[3] [T.N.] A hypothetical territorial entity comprising the whole of the Basque Country, the Spanish autonomous region of Navarre and the French Basque areas.

[4] [T.N.] On 29 June 2002 the new Law on Political Parties became effective. This law (L.O. 6/2002, of 27 June) had been drafted jointly by the ruling party (the centre-right Partido Popular) and the main opposition group, the socialist PSOE. It also gained the backing of several other smaller parties in Spain´s Chamber of Deputies; around 94 per cent of MPs.

[5]   [T.N.]  The very same day, this past 26 August, on which Spain´s lower Chamber voted to initiate the process to ban Batasuna, a judge at the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) decided to suspend all Batasuna's activities, for a three-year period.

[6]   [N. T.]  In the middle 80s “Josu Ternera” was ETA´s leader. Captured in 1989, he spent several years in French jails.  Under his command, ETA murdered some 110 people (including 10 or so children), but it was never possible to demonstrate his direct involvement in these crimes. Later on, as a member of the Basque regional parliament he was admitted to the Human Rights Committee of this Chamber, backed by PNV and EA. In September 2002 the Supreme Court s launched a formal investigation into Josu Ternera's  indirect responsibilities for many of those crimes.

[7]   [T.N.]  ETA´s symbol is a snake entwined around the handle of an ax.

[8]   [T.N.]  Sabino Arana (1865 – 1903) founded the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) in 1896 and developed its main nationalist ideology, based on racial concepts.

[9]   [T.N.]  Both for PNV and EA, and for ETA and Batasuna, the Basque “underlying political conflict” will never be solved unless the Spanish province of Navarre and the Basque-speaking areas in south-western France are united to the Basque country. They all refer to this aim of annexation as the “territoriality principle” and regard it as a centrepiece of their common immediate “democratic collective rights”.

[10]   [T. N.]  At the beginning of July 1997 the Spanish police forces succeeded in liberating Ortega Lara, a modest prison employee who had been kidnapped by ETA and held for 532 days in a 4-square-metre space, several meters below ground level. Two weeks later, in retaliation for their recent setback,  ETA took Miguel Angel Blanco hostage and, once the 48-hour ultimatum elapsed, fired a bullet into the back of his head.

[11] [T.N.]  Called  ertzainas  in the Basque language.

[12]   [T.N.]  The Basque regional police force has been always led -since it was established in 1981- by PNV and EA officials.

[13]   [T.N.]  Francesco Cossiga is the politician referred to.

[14]  [T.N.]  Events are accelerating so intensely, that just one week after this Manifesto was issued, the President of the Basque regional government, Ibarretxe, slipped back to July´s provocative stance calling for stripping apart the 1979 Statute of Autonomy and transforming Euskadi into a Free Associated State, whether or not the Spanish Parliament accepts it.  Indeed, this project would  amount to a totally unilateral declaration of independence.

[15]   [T. N.]  For years, senior PNV officials have never considered  the Spanish and French police arrests of ETA  members to be “timely”.