ETA: no surrender

From what is known about the discussion that preceded ETA's ceasefire announcement last week, it appears that the organization's leadership has no intention of abandoning its policy of influencing Basque politics by the use, or threat of, violence. Under pressure from its political wing, Batasuna, but at the same time reflecting its refusal to die, ETA has said that it will continue its ceasefire, but will only lay down its arms definitively under the condition that it can negotiate what it calls the "consensus for a formula" in pursuance of its long-stated goals of self-rule for the Basque Country and the inclusion of the Navarre region in that eventual independent state. If that demand is not met, ETA sees itself freed of any further commitment to a permanent ceasefire, and can legitimately return to its armed campaign.

In the light of such an approach, there seems little sense in the discussion that has taken place following ETA's latest communiqué, notably within Batasuna itself, where some are suggesting that ETA's words have been misinterpreted, and that in reality, the organization is not so much making demands as simply laying out its aspirations. If the starting point for any talks is that "the political-military strategy is non-negotiable," it is obvious what the point of ETA's ceasefire really is. At the same time, Batasuna has missed the chance to do the one thing that would have given it the credibility it wants: to refuse to take part in any negotiations about the terms and conditions of ETA's demise. That is the only way that ETA will be prevented from continuing to influence Basque politics.

It has also been suggested that allowing Batasuna to register a new party to take part in the upcoming municipal elections in May would somehow persuade Batasuna to make the break with ETA. There are some points in favor of such an argument; but so far it has been the opposite policy that has produced results. The government's refusal to budge has forced Batasuna to make concessions that would have been unthinkable in the past. If ETA's ceasefire were to be regarded as grounds for lifting the ban on Batasuna, then there would be no longer any reason for the party to continue pressuring ETA to either lay down its arms once and for all, or to make the definitive break with terrorism.

Batasuna wants to register a new party. All the Interior Ministry needs to do is not overrule this, and ETA's political wing is back in business. A more likely outcome is that it will tell the State Attorney's Office to reject any such application, which would then leave the matter in the hands of the courts. They would then have to make an evaluation based on law, taking into particular account whether the links with ETA that prompted the ban on Batasuna in the first place had been broken.

In any event, there should be no misunderstanding that were Batasuna to be allowed to take part in the May elections this would in any way mean that the government was negotiating with ETA. This is the position put forward by Jaime Mayor Oreja, a Basque eurodeputy for the Popular Party and a former interior minister. His view does not coincide with that of his party. He is obsessed with the idea that ETA's latest communiqué was agreed beforehand with the government, and that ETA will only lay down its arms once it has achieved its goal of an independent Basque Country. This is precisely the message that ETA wants to hear, and which makes it feel it is still a power to be reckoned with.