Today, 8 April, it is four years since Basque civil society developed its most important initiative in the peace building process: Facilitate the civil disarmament of ETA. Twelve months later, at the Kanbo International Conference, a decisive step was taken to verify the dissolution of ETA.

A dangerous initiative, no doubt. From Ipar Euskal Herria, the Bake Artisauak and Bake Bidea associations (member of the Social Forum) worked as facilitators and were supported by the international community and, in particular, by the International Verification Commission (ICC).

In 2021, the International Conference of Aiete, organized by Lokarri, will be 10 years old and uncovered by the discreet work that many actors have been doing since years ago. It is therefore a good time to focus on the contribution of civil society to this process. This level of involvement of civil society makes this process very special from the point of view of international actors working in conflict resolution.

We are talking about the “peace building process”, a term created by Paul Ríos, as the classic term “peace process” does not generate the necessary consensus. In fact, in most traditional peace processes — the negotiating table, international guarantors and solemn agreements — one of the negative aspects repeated in subsequent balances is the character of spectator given to society. Thus, when these processes have difficulties, the direct consequence is that social agents adopt a passive attitude.

In this sense, today we want to highlight three lessons:

The role of civil society

In the Basque case, once the Aiqa-Oslo process has failed, civil society decides to move from being a spectator to an actor. A first broad political and social agreement was reached on the recommendations of the 2013 Social Forum organized by Lokarri and Bake Bidea. In Ipar Euskal Herria, in 2014, the Baiona Agreement agreed on a roadmap of its own.

If civil society was an active agent that helped to create the objective and subjective conditions for reaching the Aiqa-Oslo process, it has since 2013 become an agent that has helped to resolve the consequences of the cycle of violence.

Thanks to the recommendations of the five Social Forums that have been held, the engine of the process has been able to continue to function, helping to identify at all times when the flu occurred. In short: III. The Social Forum (2016) proposed overcoming the blockade by means of a disarmament that would reach the hands of civil society; Berghof Foundation presented at Gernika this novel proposal that, when we made discreet presentations, surprised international actors and local institutional, political and trade union actors. On the other hand, the II Durango Fair ended with the exhibition of group A. (2014) and IV. (2017-2018) The contribution of the Social Forums was linked to the process of reinsertion of prisoners, exiles and deportees – we have already begun to see the first results – and focused on the construction of democratic coexistence in the Fifth Social Forum. Contribution from the Social Forum (2018)

From bilaterality to multilaterality, through unilaterality

Traditional peace agreements are based on a bilateral agreement with the participation of international guarantors, but here our process has gone through three phases and has taken the form of saw teeth.

The Aiqa-Oslo process was the result of bilaterality, but the blockade that followed pushed one party to take unilateral steps, with the objective of creating the conditions to be able to follow other steps.

And that dynamic has led us to the current paradigm, in the three knots that remain to be liberated: the rights of all victims; prisoners, refugees and deportees; and inclusive critical memory. Today, we are in a multilateral process in which the various institutional, political, social and trade union actors are making a great deal of input. An example of this is the many agreements that have been adopted in the institutions and through public statements in relation to the first two knots mentioned.

From 2017 onwards, other political and trade union sectors that until then remained outside the negotiations have been incorporated into these agreements. An example of this is the contributions we are receiving in the participatory process “Social Commitment”.

From triangulation to microagreements

We live in a complex country, where the backpack everyone has to carry is very heavy, the suspicions cross, and all that makes it very difficult to reach sound agreements.

However, with civil disarmament and, to a lesser extent, with dissolution, the guarantee of success was achieved through the triangulation of agreements between the institutions, civil society and the international community. In this work, the three actors demonstrated that, regardless of their distrust for a moment, they can achieve great things together.

And in this situation, since 2018, the positive method for moving forward is micro-agreements. Four years ago, could anyone imagine that all parties could recognize the rights to truth, justice and reparation to all victims? Or the agreements already made on prisoners? Or the agreements that have now been made on the case of Mikel Zabraise?

We know that there are actors who criticise us for being too optimistic, but, being objective, much progress has been made. More importantly, a method of solution has been established as an appropriate instrument: agreements between institutional, political, trade union and social actors.

The construction of these consensuses has been the result of a textile work of thin, discrete and discrete yarns, away from the foci, both inside and outside the institutions, creating spaces for public and private meetings and dialogue.

These meeting points, despite the difficulties, have created spaces of trust and have been able to value what the agents unite in the face of what distinguishes them. These consensuses have been spaces that have created objective conditions for their staging in a suitable context in different ways.

The Permanent Social Forum has been convinced that, without such rigorous and lengthy “cooking” work, it would be more difficult to reach the current consensus on the above points.

We're not fools. We are aware that the battle of the story continues to condition the process and prevents progress in the third knot, inclusive critical memory. We know from experience that discrepancies have more media coverage than agreements.

But so far we have come precisely because of our perseverance as a society. Let us put our disappointment aside. In 2021, we continue to work for the peace building process to take further steps. Social cohesion demands that of us.