argia.eus
INPRIMATU
ANALYSIS
Report
  • The interview by Josu Urrutikoetxea to Berria (16 December) reflects how weak ETA was at the 2006 truce. According to him, when he came to ETA’s management with what was achieved in the talks with the Spanish Government, they were surprised: “Hostile, has this been achieved?”
Xabier Letona Biteri @xletona 2020ko abenduaren 22a
Arg.: Gure Gipuzkoa

He confesses that he believed in the process, but that the environment was negative from the beginning, and that his belief was crumbling with what an organization manager said before leaving for Geneva: “Because I realized that their mindset about negotiation and mine was on one side and on the other. I realized that something had happened in the organization.” And in the same interview he explained that in previous years those who agreed with him fell and that the new directors did not agree with the previous negotiation scheme.

However, he participated in the summer 2006 negotiations with Javier López Peña, a member of ETA’s management. Then he abandoned the process, with a very particular view of his negotiating partner: “I didn’t believe in the process [that].” The whole programme speaks very strongly: "If he went upside down, it wasn't just because of Madrid's attitude. If you don’t want to enter a negotiation and don’t believe, what are you going to do?” ETA broke the ceasefire with the T-4 attack, without formally breaking the truce: “I thought the ceasefire would break,” says Urrutikoetxea, “but not with an action on the ceasefire. In Euskal Herria, much importance has been attached to the word of the organization”.

Arnaldo Otegi was clear that the Spanish Government did not honour its commitments, but also that the Abertzale Left acted with little patience, “because, if in three months it is in crisis [the process], it has very weak bases. And for this we do not enter a process of this kind” (Las Faldas de Loiola). By then, of course, visions that in 2009 would be divergent and based on the continuation or not of the armed struggle were already being consumed.

In other times, the need to end the armed struggle was also strongly heard on the left by Abertzale, as ex-prisoner Karlos Gorrindo reports in his book Funambulista Beldarrain. In all of them, you lose your neck. Time is relentless: now executioner, now victim; today hero, tomorrow traitor. Different conceptions, diverse narratives. That's why what Joseba Sarrionandia says in the prologue to Gorrindo's book is so interesting: “If we want the past not to be understood, we cannot impose a story, we have to listen to other visions (…) Sharing the memory of each and contrasting with others is like cleaning up the entrance of the city.”