If ETA had announced its end on May 3rd, 1979, on the eve of the referendum which accepted the Gernika Statute, it would have happened in a very different way, it would have gone down in history in a different way: a historical guerilla organisation, founded to combat the Franco regime set up in 1936 and to recover the Basque nation's rights, members of ETA would have been almost heroes… Well, who knows, but something like that could well have happened. When they killed Carrero Blanco, who was to have been Franco's successor, in 1973, people sang “Voló, voló, Carrero voló” (“He flew, he flew, Carrero flew”) in the streets, and it was no joke.

If ETA has dissolved in 1989, after the Algeria negotiations, it would still have had something of that appearance, and ETA members in prison and exile would have been back home long ago thanks to the results of political negotiation. If the basis of the Lizarra-Garazi agreement of 1999 had not closed the doors to it, perhaps a generous national agreement would have been possible; and if it had stopped during the negotiations at Loiola in 2006, ETA might have been able to run to catch the last train. But what had sprung up as a popular movement had got lost in the avant-garde and completely lost touch with the people.

Political Struggle

During this whole process, and on many other occasions, the Spanish State used the word "never" in connection with speaking with terrorists – the political party being UCD, PSOE or PP – whenever political issues arose. José María Aznar saying “The Basque Liberation Movement”, and with that euphemism admitting that he had given permission for talks with ETA, has its place in history. But the armed organisation lost that bilateral opportunity, and since then it has had to act unilaterally, and without achieving a single one of its objectives. We can at least admit that it has been skilful in doing so: it could have gone much worse, and there are many examples of that around the world.

But now the struggle for how to tell its history will start: were they just terrorists? Good terrorists? Mistaken fighters? Heroes? The winners usually write history, and the Spanish State has often won, although not as much as the PP would like; for instance, in the Basque Country its narrative will be insignificant. The repression it has carried out, on the other hand, is far from insignificant, and it conditions things considerably, particularly when it has allies such as the right-wing Basque party EAJ, which is extremely skilful as swapping political ethics for money, for instance with regard to the suspension of autonomy in Catalonia, and during the gradual Basque peace process.

National Rights

ETA was founding in 1959 in response to violations of national rights, its aim being to enable those rights through armed struggle. It has not achieved that, but that does not mean it has had no influence in that area; seen from today's perspective, it is still too early to say whether it is affecting today's political situation. More time will have to go by before we can say that and, in all probability, the answer will depend on who the history is written by.

ETA has not achieved its historical objectives, but it was founded as the consequence of a political problem, and the problems which Basque society has with the Spanish and French states have not gone away. During the last phase of the armed struggle we have lived through the national problem has been very clear, and just as intense as it was during the 1936 Spanish war and during the 19th century Carlist wars. In the future making sure that such things never happen again will be our greatest challenge and that inevitably requires a political agreement between Basque citizens. That will be followed by agreement with the Spanish and French states, which will have to be based on Basque citizens' democratic will.

Type of Violence

Obviously, it would have been much better for such things never to have happened, but they did, and each one of ETA's steps over the last 60 years will have to seen and examined in its historical context. Violence and violations in no way improve depending on the number of people who are in favour of them happening. Whether they are legal or not (which is the crux for differentiating between war and terrorism), it would have been better for people never to have caused them to happen regardless of whether that violence is legal or not.

But violence is part of us. There will be more opportunities to talk about violence, especially when there are appropriate conditions to do so, but violence used to repress people and nations and trample on their freedom and violence used to obtain freedom are chalk and cheese. Another matter is where each of us categories ETA's violence, but, seeing the world as it is at the moment, and seeing how states are using all sorts of violence, unilateral moral judgements about violence are out of place. Even more so in this case, in which Basque left-wing patriots are the only ones being asked to be self-critical.

Another period for analysis, self-criticism and reflection starts now, and all three of those exercises are necessary. But there are other urgent needs to, and the most important one of all it is to realise that people are still suffering today: prisoners and people in exile, their families, and all sorts of victims of violence. Above all, we should distrust political processes which are not based on people. Now responsibility for those groups of people should be the fundamental basis for politics during negotiations about the Basque statue, during demonstrations, and in all types of political agreements.

Furthermore, the “Problem” has finished, so let problems come as a result of merciless neoliberalism; the problems which standardise us with every other people in Europe.