Most of us are involved in the structures that have faced the summit, but this text has been debated and written on our behalf. Instead of saying and saying our mistakes or weaknesses, and trying to rewrite history, we prefer to consider what we have experienced as a lesson that will help our future commitments.

The day after the summit, the G7 NO! Alternatives G7 platforms released a statement. They then made a rather positive reading of the summit. However, the meeting between the institutions and the people who have participated in the platform in the Basque Country is not so positive. It's much more irregular. In order to understand our position and to understand the absence of more massive and fighting dynamics at the opposite summit, we will mention in particular three reasons that have influenced the results: Creation and development of the Euskal Herria platform and its relationship with the French platform, relations with the administration and agreements with it, and the real situation of the different forms of militancy. It should also be taken into account that the conflicts that currently exist in the different leftist movements of the Basque Country have not contributed to creating a climate that is not constructive, either inside or outside the platform. Finally, we will highlight the positive points that have been experienced in this adventure.

1. Different principles and objectives

First of all, let's say we've failed the diagnosis. In Euskal Herria there is a fast network of militants, in France social movements are gathering strength, and seeing the peaks against the previous one, we believed that all together and each on their side, we could effectively fight the G7.

From the very beginning, the decision was made to create a comprehensive platform. However, there were many unknown elements to us: for example, the lack of such a precedent (recourse to control and protection of the summit). And we underestimate a lot of things: for example, the time it takes to mount a counter summit. In addition, we had no experience with the creation and encouragement of an instrument specifically geared towards the accumulation of forces. We believed that if basic operating rules were adopted and discussions on the objectives and modes of action deepened, our differences would disappear. But this has not been the case, mainly because of the usual tendency of each organization to position its decisions and its commitment to maintaining unity (albeit superficial and with very different approaches within the platform).

G7 NO! In the general platform it has been built and guided to the naked eye. Within the platform, the relations of force have been variable. The direction has been marked by them. Knowing also that half of the signatory organisations have not effectively participated in the platform. Thus, the issue of money, the level of confrontation to be chosen, the communication and the organization of the camp have been managed without great anticipation. We, on the other hand, have not wanted to shake up the corners every time there was a point of conflict, so that the minimum commitments made were met and the work undertaken was not suddenly lost.

Therefore, renounce the aims of blocking the summit (one of the forms of action agreed at the beginning of the platform) or, at the last moment, an action that was not that of the platform in the field of the summit

recognition of the "consensus on modes of action" which made all kinds impossible, was not compatible with the plurality of groups on the platform. In addition, this type of decision increased the discrepancies between the teams. And the conclusions are now well known: the counter-summit has mainly confined itself to showing alternatives and symbolic mobilisations, the G7 has taken place unhindered and the distances between some militant sectors that have collaborated in those days have increased.

2nd Advantages for all or state educational trap?

Power knows our corners well. He has worked on strategic neutralisation using techniques of deterrence and negotiation with the organisers of the fight against the G7. And these have been important factors that our platform has had to fix the directorates-general. With the pretension and the limited ability to promote a peak contrary to the limits imposed by law, we have drowned in a lot of measures that the prefecture has imposed on us. And that has given rise to media propaganda. An environment of psychosis has been created. Many officials, elected officials and local institutions have activated the climate of fear. And so the arrival of ten thousand policemen and gendarmes has been perfectly prepared. They were prepared to silence any attempt at resistance against the law.

Elsewhere, the analysis has been very satisfactory. From the moment we began to negotiate places and events, power has made every effort to turn our desires into a dark ambition. To this end, it has a large number of effective instruments and resources: it has made countless incursions into the organisation of our events, to the point of opposing the summit, in the case of discrepancies or disrespect for the agreements, it has made omissions, threats and lies, it has publicly stated on several occasions that the summit and the summit shared the same interests, it has coerced the 'serious and responsible' interlocutors. In view of all these techniques, we have not put red lines and we have not kept them. And the truth is that some organizations, both in Euskal Herria and in France, have not wanted to go down the road of confrontation against the State (nor by disobedience).

Why has consensus and an unbalanced solution been sought with the command? We think that from the very beginning there was a discrepancy in the expectations of each of the organizations that made up the platform. And, among other things, the consequence of this was that some exposed their ongoing concerns and doubts about the acts of civil disobedience on Sunday, 25 August. Consequently, some organizations have not organized these activities. And in the end, they've had to cancel.

Other perverse behaviors have been verticality in decision-making, low trust in the militant base, rejection of structures that are outside of its core... Consequently, alliances have been created between organizations that have been the origin of strong tensions. Some Basque organizations have feared violent confrontations, as they feared that they would be accused of being responsible for them. There have also been fears that local alliances will be given on the boat for the peace process or for other demands. And they wanted to appear as 'serious and responsible' interlocutors. On the other hand, several French non-governmental organisations have participated in the platform, both in the fight against the summit and in the SUD coordination (coordination of non-governmental organisations with connections with the organisers of the G7). That marked the last few months of the G7, against the preparation of the summit. And in the end, with some of the platform members who have been considered disturbing marginators, the separation has been remarkable, as the latter wanted a determined fight against the G7 through blocking and disobedience actions. It is true that the fact that we have chosen a profitable private place to organise the speeches and debates of the anti-capitalist summit against it has revealed our contradictions.

But it would be unfair to criticize others without criticizing ourselves. For the people and collectives that we strive to awaken consciences and forces to attack the G7, in general the disillusion has been great.

3. Undervalued functions and militant standards

Firstly, the diversity of groups has weakened our internal cohesion. Consequently, we have not managed to present a clear and continuous action plan. But what did we really want? Speaking openly, our objectives have been obscure and confusing, without entering into the debate on the legitimacy of our objectives. We have not made our objectives known. We have not made them understand. And we haven't convinced the members of the platform. What has not been said, the setbacks of some and the projections of both have exceeded. We have given way to interpretations and we have not made clear our objectives to other sectors that worked with us, inside and outside the platform.

Secondly, we have not been able to make an objective observation of the tools and resources that power would use for the enjoyment of the summit. We have underestimated the capacity of the land occupation authority. It has extraordinary human, logistical and ideological resources. We said that he had chosen a bad place and date, and that that was going to be to his detriment. No! The government has been able to use all the tricks. It has framed the event in an international context, in which the police have stopped. And he has shown strength in the face of the French non-conformist movement. I couldn't let it go that way. The information services have done a great job, they have gradually implemented exceptional measures, he has repeatedly said that he would respond to abuses, he has called to protect cities from the possible violence of protesters, he has established alliances with local voters and companies, he has promised economic consequences to overcome the demoralization and concerns of some agents, he has coerced the citizens… Thus, the government has been the owner and master of our territory. The participating states have cooperated with each other. And also neighboring states. The government has built a wall that seemed insurmountable, especially because we had not prepared enough for it…

We didn't completely believe. And to hide our weakness, we've drawn a movie. We wanted to believe that other forces would come in large numbers (militants of Hego Euskal Herria, yellow jackets, trade unionists and altermondialists, militant currents…), they would find their place, balance their trend and return it perhaps… Knowing that the local inhabitants began to complain clearly. But the reality has been another: The cities in the area of Biarritz have been emptied of life, tourists have drawn the Basque coast, and, contrary to forecasts, the support of the militants who have come has not been sufficient to organise massive demonstrations that have blocked the summit. Moreover, to bring self-criticism to the end and to raise all the questions, it is perhaps worth knowing if it had happened in a city in the southern G7 of the Basque Country, the response of the people would have been more decisive and massive.

We, internally with the platform and externally with the administration, have gone from one meeting, from committees and from one appointment to another. We have done everything we could do: we have tried to guarantee minimum reception facilities and we have not had the strength to build anything else. And we've also not had the ability to provide adequate spaces for all the people who come to fight and inform and exchange unknown lands. The camp was in a secluded corner, far from everything and abandoned by the command. We wanted to explain the objectives of the platform and the local situation. Blocking and disobedience actions were intended to be carried out with others. But all of this has failed. We wanted to believe that the different objectives and actions were complementary. But those differences have become profound discrepancies. And we felt welcomed as a stoke, between the orders issued by some members of the platform organizations and the people who wanted to fight the system at all costs. The Urruña camp welcomed a large number of people from different backgrounds. As camp organizers, we were immersed in daily technical management. And we were fully committed to the political follow-up of the entire programme defined by both platforms. It has been difficult to bring together the necessary self-management spaces and the desire for fair self-organization. Not enough explanation has been given on the 'consensus on ways of action'.

Debates of the European Parliament It was limited to the activities organized by the platform and hasty writing did not allow the diversity of tactics. That has increased misunderstandings. They clash with political cultures and political strategies. Pressure has risen and conflicts have finally broken out. Some have had violent attitudes and behaviors, in the name of maximum radicalism.

We have tried. And we have not succeeded. Absolutely none. But we have made the way. This will serve to doubt ourselves, first of all. There is still a lot to learn and to do. And we cannot forget all the positive aspects of these days. In fact, the summit and the crest against it have been decisive for everyone.

Macron's success has been impressive. However, it has shown the face of a State that needs disproportionate means to be able to meet its friends and friends in a relaxed atmosphere: Repressive forces that have occupied Euskal Herria, hundreds of unjustly controlled people, 150 arrested, dozens of people brought to court… It is a totalitarian state that disguises itself as a democracy. And anyone who wants to open their eyes has seen that the local elected officials have chosen one side or the other. This clearly shows what your worldview is and what and who protects it.

In spite of the difficulties, in many places of the summit we have made great meetings against, we have worked quickly and there have been many discoveries. We would like to thank all the people who have helped us here. We have the feeling of living a quick moment. We ended that chapter with this feeling.

In the future, we will have questions and debates on the value of the cimas. In our case, we could not imagine that we would be quiet at home, while the Heads of State, who beat each day, predicted to be near our house. We have tried. But the unification of the struggles that many of us expected has been very limited. There were no conditions for this.

But this has not disappointed us. Without going into global thinking, we want to fight and act on our territory. Capitalism destroys us more and more and generates inequalities and injustice. Capitalism, increasingly popular, is unfair. Here the situation is special. We have had a lot of fights. But, to date, what avenues of protest and what alternative proposals do we want to develop? That is the fundamental question that is being put to us all openly.

Signatories (in alphabetical order): Jakes Bortayrou, Dominika Daguerre, Tomax Elgorriaga, Paxi Etchepare, Iraitz Gesalaga, Izaskun Goienetxea, K. Hellias, Haizea Isasa, Bertrand Lataillade, Hartu Lopez, Martine Mailfert, Danielle Mesple, Julen Rodriguez, Laurent Thieulle (members of the G7 EZ platform).