Analysis on the "End of ETA"

If you recall, a few posts ago I gave a short history of ETA and Basque separatism. Brush up if you need to, because on Thursday evening, something important happened:

ETA declared an end to its armed conflict. The so-called "last armed conflict in Europe" has come to an "end".

I put "end" in quotes with good reason, and that's the reason I am writing this post right now: the armed conflict is probably not over.

Some context: as of a couple of weeks ago, a group of people got together in San Sebastian (one of the principle cities of the greater Basque Country) and decided to call for an end to the Basque conflict once and for all. This meeting has been attracting some pretty big names: Gerry Adams (former head of the IRA (Irish Republican Army)), Koffi Annan (former Secretary-General of the UN), as well as the attention of people like Jimmy Carter and Tony Blair. They got together (or in the case of the latter two just sent words of encouragement) and have been making proclamations and such calling for the end of ETA. One would be inclined to say that with a group of names like that, you could get some damn important things done. But there's an important piece of the puzzle that wasn't there: the Spanish Government. I.e., despite the fact that it was a meeting of former heads of state, it was not in any way official.

So with this conference calling for the disbanding of ETA, two days ago, ETA issued a press release and a video (interestingly they released both in Spanish, and released them to Basque newspapers and to the BBC and NY Times - not to any Castillian Spanish news outlets (one last "screw you" to Castillian Spain)). In this press release, they said that they would end their armed campaign. And that's pretty much all.

Now we get into a question of immense subtlety. They didn't make any other concessions other than an end to their armed struggle. What, let's ask, were the demands being made of them by the peace conference?

1. An end to the armed campaign - check.
   But then there are the following:
   
2. Apologies to the victims.
3. A handover of all ETA's arms.
4. The permanent disbanding of the organization.

They only did one of the four. Now we get into speculative territory: why not the other three? My educated guess is this: the current ruling part of Spain, the PSOE, is the leftist party, and is seen as far more likely and willing to enter into talks with ETA than the rightist party, the PP, which is expected to win a monumental victory in November's elections.

See where I'm going with this? No worries if not - there are two possible analyses here:

The first is that ETA is feeling pressure. They have less than a month to strike a deal with the lenient and amenable PSOE before they get voted out of office and the hardliner, non-negotiating PSOE comes in, cracks down on ETA and sends them all to prison for life. And although they can't bring themselves to completely give up everything and apologize for their wrongs, they're extending their hand as far out as they can before the PP cuts it off.

The second way to look at it is that ETA is being very savvy and the PSOE is the side under pressure. With this huge, A-list peace conference ongoing, international attention is on Spain to bring about a final resolution to the conflict. In addition the PSOE, about to lose in a huge way, is looking for a way to gain some votes, and bringing an end to a half-century-old conflict is definitely a way to do it. So perhaps ETA, knowing the dire straits in which the PSOE finds itself, is extending its hand just far enough so that the PSOE can try to hold on to it for dear life. In this analysis, ETA finds itself in a strong negotiating position and that is why it's not apologizing, not giving up its weapons, and not completely disbanding - it hopes to walk out of talks with all of that stuff still intact, or at the very least use those terms as negotiating points to stay out of prison.

In all likelihood it's a combination of the two analyses. The peace conference seems to provide the perfect cover for ETA to end its fight and have its surrender be "in the name of democracy" instead of "because we're beaten" and thus they can save a lot of face. And it's common knowledge that the PSOE is done for - possibly forever - unless it can pull off a miracle between now and the elections - and the end of ETA may qualify.

So what happens, then, if PSOE doesn't negotiate on ETA's terms?

Then the armed conflict continues. That's ETA's backup plan, and that is the main reason they're not giving up their weapons.