Sincerely, I say, the reflection on prisoners is one of the best that I have read since the beginning of the post-ETA era, if it is not the best, and that is why, although I have not read the novel yet, I want to address some of the fundamental ideas that appear in the dialogue, in the hope that it will be enriching for a Basque community that is undergoing reflection and does not find peace.

First, Sánchez Bakaikoa exposes from the beginning of the interview the idea of discomfort: “At the same time, about seven years ago, I had the impulse to draw from the inside another concern that the Basque conflict had left me.” With these lines the author wants to communicate a certain sadness and I want to make a first reflection on this point, especially in the Basque society, and on the left Abertzale, because there is a lot of fear to talk about these issues and you do not want to see the subject of suffering in all its crudeness. Yeah, I've been having a big worry in me for a long time, and I want to do a little bit here. What is going to happen to the prisoners and exiles to whom we have on many occasions so hastily called the consequences of the conflict and to whom Sánchez Bakaikoa calls the remnants of the conflict? Nobody knows what is going to happen to them and, worst of all, it seems to me that much of the Basque community does not care too much. It is true that the sector of the Abertzale left is a little more concerned, but, on many occasions, I would say, the prisoners are symbols of struggle for the Abertzale left and act with great triumphalism when dealing with the issue and presenting struggles for them. Of course, it is good that we have illusions, but we must never forget the reality, what is that reality? For, as Rubén Sánchez explains perfectly, “I would say that in the sector around me most of us are left with a confused feeling. On the one hand, the relief, on the other, the heaviness, also a ‘and now, what?’, and a ‘and for this’… Now, I have more and more distance from those feelings over time. The remains of the conflict remain, and I am faithful to them.” The writer speaks perfectly and honestly, and I really do not think I should add anything to his words. I will just comment on this paragraph: fidelity to the remains of the conflict. Yes, fidelity is a very noble behavior and those good feelings and nobility I will never deny them to Rubén Sánchez Bakaikoa, but the fact that it is honest from the point of view of ethics – and I do not doubt that Rubén will act like this – however fundamental it may be, does not mean that we have always been right. After all, if the prisoners are the remnants of a conflict, it is clear that in order for that reality to cease to be a waste, we should prioritise the resolution of that problem, and that is not what we are doing today in Basque society, nor what the Basque left does.

Secondly, I would like to stress that with the cycle before the armed struggle the Basque community did not achieve its objectives. I shall give the floor again to Reuben, who speaks perfectly of this: “At the end of the armed struggle, we realized that it was the outcome of the conflict that had not been negotiated. But the struggle had begun to negotiate. So… (the flow slows down in the search for the right words) you have not achieved anything…”. If these beautiful revolutionary objectives of the wrestlers were not achieved, should we not be self-critical? Where is the KAS alternative? Does anyone remember the talks in Algeria today? If that strategy failed, and it is clear that it failed, who is going to give Euskal Herria some explanation of what really happened? As always, the people, after suffering a lot, still do not know what really happened.

To conclude, I will join a few nice paragraphs of the book and of Reuben, to point out and underline the core of the article. One paragraph of the first novel: Tupa back in the room: “We stay here as the fossil of a struggle. The old enemy of the other sides and the rest of our sides. Lateral injury.” The statements made by Rubén in the interview are now as follows: “I see it like this. And I don't want to blame anyone for that, I think it's a very collective thing, and you can't customize it. But the consequence is that some end up paying for the damage of a collective struggle. Prisoners and exiles have been left as damages to a strategic collective error. It is a problem that has remained unsolved in the family of the Abertzale left, and that does not seem to be solved much today.”

Truly, I can hardly add anything, because Sánchez Bakaikoa explains so well what has happened in Euskal Herria for years and decades. I just make a couple of nuances: first of all, yes, there was a collective solution, certainly the struggle for the Basque Country, but, despite this community, there are those responsible and people who designed a certain strategy. It is not a question of judging the behaviour of specific people, but the leaders of the Abertzale left saw that the armed struggle strategy does not take us anywhere, like the drafters of Olds’ report, why did they not tell the young and the prisoners? If action had been taken otherwise, would it not have been easier to solve the problem of prisoners and fleeing? Of course, we can never guess what could happen, but as hypotheses remain these reflections; secondly, I agree with Rubén, it was a collective strategic tactical error, but I would add to the phrase another point: it was not only a strategic and tactical error, but also an ethical error, because ETA’s armed actions, far from mysticism and idealism in past times, did not deserve the penalty of cruelty.

Ricardo Cruz-López

Translator