Comment from ese
Time: March 7, 2008, 6:59 pm

¿ Por qué la BBC y otros medios internacionales llaman a Eta “separatist group”? Eta es una banda terrorista y , por lo tanto, la denominación correcta tendría que ser “terrorist group”

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 7, 2008, 7:08 pm

The quick answer to Ese is because they believe in reporting what is happening rather than telling people what they should be thinking about it - a distinction that seems to be completely missed by many people. It is also completely possible for a terrorist group to be a separatist organisation too, there is no incompatibility between the two.

On the main question you ask Ben I don’t think anyone can answer with any certainty. If I was going to place a bet I would say it will have little effect. If anything it will motivate people to vote a bit more, which tends to favour the left. I could do some idle speculation about how certain parties would have reacted had the victim been from the PP instead of the PSOE but I think its best to leave that for another day.

Comment from Tom
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:04 pm

Ese - is ETA not a separatist group? Are you not aware that ‘terrorist’ is a subjective term?

Example: a bombing in NYC the other day against an Army recruitment office. ‘Not terrorism’ according to the White House.

As Graeme says, it would be better to leave terms like ‘terrorism’ to the politicians and out of the press. Not quite sure I have as much faith in the Corporation as Graeme, though.

Comment from Edith
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:05 pm

@ Ese

En primer lugar, los acontecimientos de hoy son una tragedia. Nunca comprenderé qué ETA quiere alcanzar con estas fechorías.

Estoy de acuerdo contigo al respecto de la BBC, pero TVE hace lo mismo con grupos como Hamas - los llaman ‘integristas’ o ‘militantes’ aunque son terroristas.

Comment from Amy
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:14 pm

My understanding is that “terrorist,” in reference to ETA, isn’t subjective. ETA is internationally recognized (by the UN, EU, US, etc.) as a terrorist cell. I actually think the reference to being a “separatist group” is more intelligent in international press. After all, you are at least informing those viewers/readers not so familiar with ETA of their primary goal.

Comment from acosta
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:20 pm

What ever we call them it is terrible. My regards to the fallen.

Comment from Ben
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:24 pm

@Graeme, thanks for the insight, I hoped you would comment.

Comment from Tom
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:27 pm

Amy - while I agree that the international community has ETA on the terrorist list, that doesn’t change the fact that the term will always be subjective because of how it’s used. There’s no reliable definition for ‘terrorism’ which does not also include the sanctioned violence of state forces… so it’s up to everyone to decide whom they consider to be a terrorist.

Comment from llave inglesa
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:43 pm

Is ETA not a terroist group? the british press is promoting a more likeable separatist group to the rest of the world and that’s a mistake. ETA is a TERRORIST, separatist group, please don’t be silly. This is serious. Descanse en paz Isaias.

Comment from llave inglesa
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:49 pm

If a violent group of murders which has assasinated, kidnapped, tortured inocent people is not a terrorist group then we don’t have the same concept of terrorist. You can call him murders or assasins which is totally true instead of terrorist if you want but you don’t do it. Why?

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:54 pm

Nobody is being silly and using the term “separatist group” doesn’t mean that the writer thinks they are not terrorists. I don’t the TV news to use the term “banda terrorista” to describe ETA, I’m capable of making up my own mind. There seems to be a feeling often in Spain that reality depends purely on the words you choose to describe it.

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 7, 2008, 8:56 pm

sorry, that should be “I don’t need the TV news”

Comment from Jo mateixa
Time: March 7, 2008, 9:09 pm

Tom, observo que tienes un lavado de cerebro colosal, pero, mira, te voy a contestar con palabras del propio Josep Lluís Carod Rovira en referencia al terrorismo de ETA: ninguna, NINGUNA, ideología justifica el asesinato de una persona.
I encara et diré més: sóc catalana i no necessito que parlis en el meu nom. Si vols lluitar contra el feixisme, torna al teu país. Gràcies.

Comment from Colin
Time: March 7, 2008, 9:13 pm

The subjectivity of terms . . .

Many years ago - while in California - I was incensed to see the IRA referred to always as ‘freedom fighters’. I wrote to the Senator Ted Kennedy saying I was going to form a group whose intention would be to return California to Mexico. I warned that we would undertake a campaign of bombings and murder and I expressed the hope that the US press would refer to us as merely ‘freedom fighters’, and not terrorists.

I take Graeme’s point but I can also understand the Spanish reaction. It was much in evidence in comments to the Times article I cited in my blog today.

Comment from Colin
Time: March 7, 2008, 9:18 pm

PS. Whatever label you use for ETA, it would be something of an irony if what I’m sure we all agree was an act of terrorism turns out to have had a significant impact on this election as well. Especially if it’s the other way.

And here’s a question to add to Ben’s - Can anyone figure out ETA’s logic?

Comment from Tom
Time: March 7, 2008, 9:21 pm

Jo mateixa - what a lovely person you are. And just what Catalonia needs: more people telling foreigners to ‘go home’. Bravo.

By the way, the fact that I have a semantic difficulty with the word ‘terrorist’ doesn’t mean I support or agree with ETA. Of course I don’t. I’m just pointing out that the word’s troublesome and best left to demagogues.

Que vagi molt bé.

Comment from Tom
Time: March 7, 2008, 9:27 pm

Colin - I’m not sure they’re very logical. But the chance that Rajoy might score a political point in his ’stopping campaining campaign speech’ (which he tried to) - might be worth a bet. They’d probably prefer to have the PP in power.

Then again, it may well have just been a reminder that they’re there.

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 7, 2008, 9:29 pm

“Can anyone figure out ETA’s logic?”

Here we have to use the word logic with care. They want to be protagonists in the campaign, they are weak at the moment and so the only way they can achieve promienence 2 days before the elections is to pick an easy target. ETA thrives on rejection from a society which they don’t feel part of.

Comment from richardksa
Time: March 8, 2008, 1:05 am

While appreciating the reasoning behind the cessation of campaigning, I hope it does not lead to knee-jerk voting based on recent tragics events. That was, I feel, the situation 4 years ago. Terrible though it is, I hope it does not affect the outcome.

Comment from Moscow
Time: March 8, 2008, 7:18 am

@Graeme,
I watch the BBC an awful lot. I like watching the BBC, but I am not sure they are as objective as you seem to imply. Perhaps, according to the same logic we should start calling Al-Quaeda “Fighters for Islamic Respect” or may be “Movement for the Recovery of Al-Andalus”, ….or something like that. Perhaps, someone is able to enlighten me. The BBC never called the IRA a terrorist organization or simply terrorists? Was it always separatists or “Fighters for the Union with the Republic of Ireland?

Comment from Colin
Time: March 8, 2008, 8:53 am

Graeme, Why would ETA prefer the PP in power? Greater confrontation? Higher profile? More recruits???

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 9:23 am

“Why would ETA prefer the PP in power? Greater confrontation? Higher profile? More recruits???”

Absolutely Colin - ETA lives off the idea of a hostile, oppressive anti-Basque Spanish state. The less the state lives up to that caricature then the less reason they have to justify their existence.

Moscow, my comments on the usage of these terms wasn’t really intended to be just about the BBC - it’s quite common across much of the media. But in any case I do not remember the BBC always referring to the IRA as a terrorist group every time they mentioned them. I also remember them resisting political pressure from the British government on the way in which they handled terrorism in their programmes. The example of Al-Qaeda is an interesting one for this discussion - was Osama bin Laden a terrorist or a freedom fighter when the was fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan?

Comment from Edith
Time: March 8, 2008, 9:36 am

@ Graeme

RE ‘ETA lives off the idea of a hostile, oppressive anti-Basque Spanish state’

This reminds me of the tactics used by RAF, a terrorist group from Germany, during the 1970s. (RAF stands for Rote Armee Fraktion (= Red Army Faction), not for the Royal Air Force. ) They actually hoped the German state would revert to ‘fascist’ tactics, which would then ‘justify’ their actions even more.

Basque nationalist anger was somehow justified during the Franco era, but now ETA is fighting a losing battle which does not serve the Basque cause in any way.

I often wonder who these people are and what makes them tick, so to speak. What enables these people to bully and terrorize the rest of the population, like the Mafia does in parts of southern Italy? And why? The Basque country is one of Spain’s richest regions - what kind of hidden discontent are these extremists ‘feeding’ on?

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 9:47 am

@Edith

It’s much easier to start these things than to put an end to them. That’s why Spain still has GRAPO, an RAF type group that occasionally pops up into the headlines as another of its aging members is arrested. The Red Brigades in Italy carried on for years too. Look at it from the point of view of the terrorist - you spend 25 years in an “armed struggle” against what you regard as an oppressive colonial state. Giving that up is like saying that your whole life has been a waste of time. The IRA faced up to that and took the only thing that was on offer - the chance to participate in normal political activity. ETA doesn’t seem to be ready for that.

Comment from Colin
Time: March 8, 2008, 9:52 am

Thanks, Graeme. My bitch about the BBC is that it uses ‘claim responsibility’ instead of ‘admit responsibility’. They did this with the IRA too, though I think they suspended the practice for a while and then brought it back. I share with a recollection that the BBC always avoided the use of the words ‘terrorist’ and terrorism’ with the IRA. So they are not giving ETA preferential treatment, much as it appears to annoy Spaniards from both sides of the political divide. Language and its abuse turned out to be the theme of my blog today. Which was never my intention. In so far as I ever have any . . .

Comment from Colin
Time: March 8, 2008, 9:55 am

Graeme, I’ve just recalled a comment along the lines of ‘Nationalists always define themselves by their enemies’. So, ETA is best defined against the PP than the PSOE. A much better enemy as a recruiting sergeant?

Comment from Parubin
Time: March 8, 2008, 9:59 am

By not calling ETA what it is (a Terrorist Band, of course) and simply labeling them as a ‘Separatist Group’ (which of course they are too) the international press is taking dangerous and perverse equidistant grounds that go in favour of ETA itself.

Equidistance is not always objectiveness, and sometimes equidistance or reporting both sides or both views of the news is just insane.

Taking an example to the extreme, could anyone image an equidistant press report on the terrible events promoted by the Third Reich?? (i.e. “Millions of jews, opponents, homosexuals, physically handicapped, mentally retarded and prisoners of war are being recruited in concentration camps by SS Authorities, on the other hand it has been argued by these authorities that scientific reports on their hand prove that the survival of the fittest is required to develop purity and healthyness”).

Like I said the above is an extreme example, but still it is valid and self explanatory. Sometimes being equidistant is just plain wrong.

Comment from frank
Time: March 8, 2008, 10:00 am

“it would be something of an irony if what I’m sure we all agree was an act of terrorism turns out to have had a significant impact on this election as well”

A terrorist act certainly affected the outcome of the last election.

Comment from Edith
Time: March 8, 2008, 10:05 am

@ Parubin

But there are many ‘terrorist bands’ in the world, yet like I said before the Spanish media call them ‘integristas’, ‘militantes’, etc. Even Al Qaeda is never addressed as ‘la banda terrorista’ - even though they killed hundreds of people in Spain during the 11-M attacks. There is an inconsistency here which I don’t understand.

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 10:10 am

You’re arguing against a straw man Parubin, nobody here is claiming that the press has to do what you are saying. Avoiding the use of the word “terrorist” in journalism is not being equidistant - it’s simply avoiding subjective and difficult terminology. In WIkipedia for example, the use of the word terrorist is avoided. Why? Because it’s an encyclopaedia and the objective of an encyclopaedia is to describe, rather than to impose. I want the press I read to do the same, and then I reach my own conclusions.

Comment from Moscow
Time: March 8, 2008, 10:13 am

@ Graeme, obviously the BBC is a far cry from the politizised Spanish media. But if they refer to Al-quada as terrorists, and did refer in the past to IRA attacks as terrorist bombings, this would imply the BBC discriminates between different violent groupings, and that would beg the question as to why this is so. The same would apply to Bin-Laden, but nowadays at least, I have no problem calling him a terrorist, plain and simply. I am not neutral. I am subjective. I see the world from my own imperfect,
non-objective, culturally determined perspective. What this all boils down to is that whatever language is used, it is almost impossible no to be seen inadvertedly to be taking sides - however unintentionally -.
I asume the BBC believes it is acting according to it’s own internal ethos of neutrality, but, however admirable this might be, it is striving for the impossible.

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 10:18 am

@Moscow

Yes, we’re all subjective and I’m not arguing that the BBC is a model of objectivity. I regard ETA as a terrorist group, but that doesn’t mean that I want my newspaper or TV news to try and tell me who is terrorist or not. We can pick any number of examples - the FARC in Colombia is always a good one. Or we can start talking about terrorist methods used by governments. But the key issue here for me is that there are perfectly good reasons why journalists should avoid making that judgement for us.

Comment from Moscow
Time: March 8, 2008, 1:35 pm

@Graeme, now I don’t to bore you with this……but if the issue is the press being judgemental or not, then why call them “Basque separatists”? Why not just “them naughty boys”? Or “outdated romantics”? Separatists sounds like strong wording……and a trifle judgemental.

Comment from Parubin
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:02 pm

IMO words are not neutral. Words make you take sides, whether intentionally or not.

I don´t know about the subjective definition of ‘terrorism’ but, to me, a clandestine group, with residual popular support, that continue to pursue their goals by killing innocent people, putting bombs in cars, kidnapping and making continous threats to anyone who do not agree with their aims in an environment of political and democratic freedom and high standards of living, seems like a plain and simple terrorist group to me (and to mostly everyone fot that matter).

So calling them a ‘Terrorist Band’ looks to me like not only a reliable and neutral definition but also as the only decent possible definition.

What’s more intriguing and yet still unexplained is the contradiction of the BBC calling the IRA or Al-Qaeda ‘terrorists’ (it has been said before that they do, I don´t know as I don´t follow that media so sorry if this statement is incorrect) and ETA just a ‘Separatist Group’.

Can anyone tell me why?

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:02 pm

@ Moscow

Perhaps because “Basque separatists” is about the only label you can use that is universally accepted? Even ETA probably wouldn’t dispute that one.

Comment from ValenciaSon
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:02 pm

If we start calling those who commit terrorist acts, terrorists, then we would have pretty much call every nation’s government and those associated with them, terrorists.

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:08 pm

@ Parubin

“I don´t know about the subjective definition of ‘terrorism’ but, to me, a clandestine group, with residual popular support, that continue to pursue their goals by killing innocent people, putting bombs in cars, kidnapping and making continous threats to anyone who do not agree with their aims in an environment of political and democratic freedom and high standards of living, seems like a plain and simple terrorist group to me pursue their goals by killing innocent people, putting bombs in cars, kidnapping and making continous threats to anyone who do not agree with their aims in an environment of political and democratic freedom and high standards of living, seems like a plain and simple terrorist group to me”

And to me as well, put we are talking sources of information here - not our own subjective judgements. I don’t need my sources of information to tell me who is terrorist or not, because when they start doing it they inevitably start to use questionable criteria.

Comment from Parubin
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:25 pm

@ Graeme :

I can see your point. I do not agree with it in this particular case (to me not labelling ETA as a terrorist band is perversely misleading) but I understand what you are saying.

Still I can´t figure out the reasons of the BBC’s different treatment when addressing ETA in comparison with IRA or Al-Qaeda (in the latter two it seems correct and neutral for the media to name them ‘terrorists’ while in the case of ETA they persist on not using this term).

Comment from Graeme
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:32 pm

@ Parubin

Well I think we’ve already noted in our comments here that the BBC didn’t automatically label the IRA always as a terrorist group. Having said that, I think one factor here is the influence of distance from events. The word terrorist is much more likely to be used by media reporting on events closer to home, which is yet another reason why perhaps it should be avoided? I just did a search on El Mundo and El País for articles about the IRA - it more or less confirms my point.

Comment from Edith
Time: March 8, 2008, 2:42 pm

But the fact remains that the Spanish media keep pussyfooting around the issue of how to address other terrorist groups - Al Qaeda killed hundreds of innocent commuters in Madrid, yet they are never referred to as ‘la banda terrorista’ whereas ETA always is.

Comment from Colin
Time: March 8, 2008, 3:03 pm

I have no problem with ETA, the IRA or Al Qaeda
being called terrorists as I, subjectively, regard
them as such. And I believe Graeme wouldn’t shy away from referring to them in this way either, regardless of how he wants the media to report events.

But, in complex world in which ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, perhaps it would be best if the entire world’s media observed the convention of simply reporting the acts of groups which perpetrate terrorism while simply calling them by the name they give themselves.

But it’s never going to happen, is it?

Further, I suspect, if it were put to the vote, most people in Spain and Britain and the USA would prefer the IRA, ETA and Al Qaeda groups to always be referred to as terrorists. This, then, would be the subjective, democratic route. To set against what appears to be the minority objective view of Graeme. No matter that he has impeccable logic on his side. Horses for courses.

And I suspect that, if the BBC only worried about its British audience, it would go with the democratic flow. But the world is much bigger and has many different subjectivities that can easily be offended. Hence the opting for a standard others don’t aim at because they have a different audience.

Not many people in Spain are going to be offended if the IRA are not called terrorists. Different horse; different course.

Comment from Tom
Time: March 8, 2008, 4:47 pm

Colin - I agree with you on this. Personally, I consider ETA to be terrorists. But I also consider that the label ‘terrorist’ can be applied to plenty of state-sponsored activities. What did ’shock and awe’ mean, if not ‘terror’?

That’s why the term is best left out of the media.

By the way, the media generally seem to reflect public opinion these days (rather than attempting to shape it). Last night, I re-watched Adam Curtis’s short film about the way journalists no longer understand the world and every second of it rings true. Have you seen it?

Comment from soy pescador
Time: March 8, 2008, 5:21 pm

Having lived through my youth in the Apartheid error in South Africa and doing compulsory 2 years military service , I ask the question as to what you would then call the ANC (African National Congress ) ? Would they be called terrorists or seperatists , revolutionaries etc. My former goverment was definately wrong in its former policies , no doubt about that , but the ANC still resorted to bombing innocent targets. The ANC were fighting for what they believed in but still used terror tactics. So what are ETA ??

Comment from Moscow
Time: March 8, 2008, 6:01 pm

@soy pescador, sorry if I offend you but SA was hardly a democracy, but a pretty disgusting and opressive regime.

Comment from soy pescador
Time: March 8, 2008, 6:40 pm

@moscow

No offense taken , Politicians to me are only in this for their own glory. Spain needs to realise they are one nation and get on with living. They are still in terms a young democracy and have a long road ahead. Going on the past history of Spain this is no easy road.

Comment from Tom
Time: March 8, 2008, 8:29 pm

@soy pescador

“Spain needs to realise they are one nation and get on with living”

Your words would resonate with many people but they would anger many others. The problem is that for many people, Spain’s not as simple as that.

Also worth pointing out: not all separatism or nationalism in Spain has an armed struggle at its heart.

Comment from Olentxero
Time: March 9, 2008, 9:32 am

Perhaps we could drop the posturing and accept the reality: the media uses terms to shape and influence people’s opinions. They most certainly are not objective.

The Spanish media refers, with cloying unanimity, to “la banda terrorista” because it is working towards the goals of the Spanish establishment which is to deny any legitimacy whatsoever to ETA and their objectives.

Similarly, the BBC refers to “terrorism” whenever it is talking about an organisation that represents a threat to “our” way of life and against whom we must all form a common front.

As for how the murder of this citizen will affect the election, I am sure that it will increase the turnout. It will probably affect the Basque nationalist vote negatively, although probably not by very much. I would expect the “Socialists” to benefit from it.

As for ETA’s justification, if indeed ETA are responsible: I would imagine that they would argue that the victim was a representative of a foreign state which is occupying their land, and as such he was a legitimate target.

This is not my opinion, I hasten to add, but I don’t think that conflict resolution is likely whilst one side is utterly demonised. One has to accept that Basque nationalism is an acceptable ideology with a legitimate goal. Representatives of that ideology who restrict their actions to purely political ones (and I am referring as much to the PNV as I am to the abertzales) are entitled to put forward that ideology.

When Spanish judges close newspapers, arrest political leaders and bar parties from contesting elections, one could argue that they are forcing the hand of those who shoot and kill. If Otegi is a member of ETA, let him be tried for membership of a criminal organisation. The same can be said of any of the abertzale leaders. However, once you begin to actually prohibit the abertzales from taking part in the political process, I think you have a moral duty to consider whether or not your actions may have played any part whatsoever in the death of a young father who was going out to work at the end of the week.

On a personal level, I cannot see how the cold-blooded murder of a man in front of his wife and daughter could have been motivated by anything other than pure hatred. If that were the foundation of Euskal Herria Askatua, then I would be surprised to see anything other than a state of oppression emerge from under the ikurrina. I suspect that ETA’s desperation reflects precisely how far they are from even beginning to negotiate an end to their little war against the unprotected.

Rather than demonise the people who are responsible for these murders, I think that every effort should be made to create a democratic ambit wherein which they can operate. Demonisation leads to isolation. If they are isolated from public opinion, then their way of thinking is the only one which they hear. This is how they can justify their actions.

Comment from Moscow
Time: March 9, 2008, 11:05 am

@Olentxero, not that I entirely disagree with you, but where do we start? Whose step should be the first? Now that’s tricky.

Comment from Colin
Time: March 9, 2008, 11:27 am

@Olentxero,

I agree with you too.

But would people inspired only by hate really participate in a democratic process?

Even so, this should not stop the first step[s] on a long process.

But, as Moscow asks, what is this to be in a febrile atmosphere?

Comment from Olentxero
Time: March 9, 2008, 12:26 pm

Who should take the first step? Who cares? Presumably the first stepper will be the one who is most motivated to end this conflict, regardless of what people will say.

I don’t think that the politicians in whatever initials the abertzale movement is using at present are motivated solely by hate. The same can not be said for the descerebrado who pulls the trigger.

Zp was brave for entering into discussions with the abertzale movement. He didn’t have the political strength to supplement this bravery with acts of good faith, like relocating Basque prisoners to prisons in the Basque Country. Perhaps a stronger mandate would give him this strength.

I would like to see the new government calling for inclusive talks with all sides in the Basque conflict, with a readiness to consider any outcome at all - even fully-fledged autonomy from the Spanish state.

I suspect that the political leaders of the abertzale movement would also welcome this. I even suspect that the politically-minded members of ETA would welcome it. As for the right - well, they would obviously resist and manipulate the family members of the dead. But when Spanish society rejects this kind of blatant politicking with the dead, then the right will lose their gameplan and new opportunities will beckon.

One difference between Ireland and Euskal Herria was that family members of the dead regularly used to call for inclusive talks and even British withdrawal if that would help others avoid the suffering they were undergoing. It seems that this rarely happens in Spain. In the worst situations, the families are swallowed by the AVT and manipulated in the most abhorrent style.

Comment from Edith
Time: March 9, 2008, 12:29 pm

@ Olentxero,

RE: ‘one could argue they are forcing the hand of those who shoot and kill’

Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi did not respond by shooting and killing… and they gained the world’s sympathy. In the end, this helped them achieve their goals and they are remembered for their actions to this day. Remember the Montgomery bus boycotts, the protest marches, the sit-ins? That was resistance, too!

Nelson Mandela advocated armed resistance in his younger years, but in the end it was his moral superiority and strong personality which helped bring about a peaceful transition in South Africa.

The Basque people do not suffer under any kind of apartheid or colonial rule, and in my opinion, they have got ample opportunity to express their nationalist aspirations in a non-violent way.

Apart from that, how many people does ETA truly represent? Surely, the majority of Basques are sick and tired of them.

Yet, you seem to suggest that the Basque people are in some sort of plight which ‘explains’ the existence of ETA. With all due respect, did’t that situation end with the death of Franco?

Comment from Olentxero
Time: March 9, 2008, 6:15 pm

Martin Luther King also had the spectre of armed resistance behind him in the shape of the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers. Gandhi was not operating in an entirely peaceful Raj. The violence of Indian nationalism was present too. Nelson Mandela, it could be argued, achieved a peaceful transition merely by representing no threat whatsoever to the corporations that were busy exploiting S. Africa.

I think it is for the Basque people to say whether or not they suffer under any kind of apartheid or colonial rule. For what it’s worth, I think that the answer will vary depending on which member of “the Basque people” you are speaking to. Some will say that everything is just fine as it is; others will say that they are not free to express their political aims in the press or in the street.

In my experience, very few people join movements of national liberation such as ETA or the IRA purely because of political ideologies. Many are reacting to some sort of personal plight, whether that be eternal unemployment, police harassment or political bias. I doubt that many -or any- of ETA’s volunteers are in it for personal gain.

I can’t say that I know any etarras, so I don’t want to speak for them. I do regard Basque nationalism as valid as Spanish nationalism (and, to be honest, have next to no time for either).

My main point wasn’t to excuse the existence of ETA., simply to say that I think that the only way out of this miserable situation is to accept them as important players in the Basque conflict and to ensure that they have plenty of room to express themselves in manners which do not involve violence. ETA exists. It needs no justification - as we have seen, it operates perfectly well when there is minimal support (to answer your question, I would be surprised if ETA represented more than a couple of thousand of Basque people).

Comment from Edith
Time: March 17, 2008, 1:33 pm

Yesterday, I read a post by some anonymous sicko who called the Dalai Lama a ‘terrorist’. Used in this way, the word becomes an empty epithet and an insult rather than a description of people who use random violence against passers-by to achieve their goals.