The political memory of President Ibarretxe is subtitled by Koldo Ordozgoiti’s book Futoa Gurea: “It’s what I wrote, but the thought is of the president, of course. In 1999, Juan José Ibarretxe told me that he wanted to address his political memories, but he didn’t want to do it in the first person. It is a reflection of a specific trajectory from 1994 to 2010. It's not a story, it's a prospective book. We have combined official documents from that time, the voices of politicians and historical facts. Dr. Ibarretxe was born at the time of his dissertation and several reflections are collected from his dissertation through interviews with him on purpose. In them Idoia Zenarruzabeitia, Miren Azkarate, Joseba García Bengoetxea and Xabier Gabilondo have helped me”.

The book was completed on September 11. After the last ETA truce on September 5: “The current thinking of Ibarretxe is wrapped up. It confirms that the decision depends on the Basque society and that it is up to the Basque political forces to channel the conflict. It considers it essential to base the process on human ethical principles. He says that the path of reconciliation must be invariably broken, but that the key is to recognize the right to decide.”

The first part is called “Making President.” However, you begin by recounting the incident of February 1, 2005.

The section begins with the phrase “The future is ours,” the President’s phrase. He said this in Spanish at the Spanish Congress. This concept often appears in the book, which gives substance to the book: “The future depends on the decision of this country.”

How would you summarize the trajectory and political capital of Juan José Ibarretxe?

It is a journey in honesty. From the very beginning he had very clear in his way the concept that politics is for the service of society and that the foundations of politics are in the person. He's had clear ideas since he was vice president. From 1999 to 2009 he held the position of President, a career in which he did not move along the lines that had initially been torn.

This historic event of the Congress took place in the middle of its mandate. Would you remember the moment?

Zapatero was the president. The Basque Government approved the first Statute, the New Political Statute of the Basque Country, called the Ibarretxe Plana. The path provided for in the Constitution was not broken. The President says that another will be used and discussed, whether to accept it or not: “I have come now, others have come before, and others will come in the future,” he says at the Spanish Congress. Because it means: this country will always be waiting for the right to decide its own future to be accepted.

At the beginning of Ibarretxe, the Treaty of Ajuria Enea was in force: “The covenant today would be subversive,” he says in the book.

Ibarretxe reminds us that the Socialist Party and the Popular Party broke the treaty. The PP first follows the PSOE, forced by it. The Treaty distinguishes between violence and political normalization. All the signatories insist that the conflict is political, as well as that the decision must be taken in the political sphere, within the Basque society. That the way to end the violence would be between the state and ETA. However, the PP and the PSOE set out on the path that would lead to the Law of the Parties. Denying the political conflict, suggesting that the ETA issue be ended by victory.

Aznar’s PP later took over the Spanish government. The agreement to support his investiture is worth remembering. There is a certain will of Aznar. Then came the time of the Lizarra-Garazi Agreement.

Ibarretxe, as Vice-President, was tasked with organising the structure of the new government, renewing its functioning in times of crisis. When Aznar came to power, it was up to Ibarretxe to work out a political-economic agreement with the PP – at the request of Arzalluz, head of the EBB of the PNV and President Ardanza – and they agreed to the investiture between the PNV and the PP. There are two concepts: the framework of the economy and the internal assumptions. The deal was closed, but other components were introduced in 20 hours. The technical committee meets, only to be signed, but something else has happened in the powers of the State. Among other things, there are negotiations between Aznar and ETA in 1998. Apparently there are different games in the PP government at the time. However, after the suspension of the ceasefire by ETA, Aznar adopted a concrete policy aimed at removing patriotism from the Government. Up until then, the president and Aznar had spoken, although Aznar had said some things publicly and everyone else in the house.

In the Lizarra-Garazi Agreement, the Union signed the Mitchell Principles. There was no mention of it today...

Imagine when the Mitchell principles are and when they were mentioned in the peace process in the Basque Country. They were signed two years after the agreement between the PNV, EA and EH. The essential ingredient was and is: When ETA cancelled the ceasefire of the Lizarra-Garazi period, using the words of the president, “the delegation of the patriotic left led by Arnaldo Otegi surrendered to these principles.” It was the same in Loyola’s interviews. Unlike now, it seems.

Could it be said that there have been three main political positions to channel the Basque conflict and the future of this country?

There are three positions, but among them Ibarretxe considers ETA’s position to be past, meaningless. What makes all the political sense for him is this: in the future of this country all the Basque forces and social spectrums are concentrated, and at the same time there are authorities. On the one hand there are the Spanish Government and state institutions, and on the other there are the Basque institutions, the Government and the Parliament. The President has always said that “we are not going to Madrid with one of our projects, we have gone to defend projects that had the support of the Government and Parliament”. Although the media have made the New Political Statute of the Basque Country known as the Ibarretxe Plana, the Statute is a political will represented by the majority of Parliament.

Ibarretxe always preferred the Basque Parliament. The tendency of the other parties, especially the PSOE, to gather in hotels is evident in the book.

Ibarretxe publicly criticized the PSOE. From 2002 to 2008 it was very common for their views to appear in the media or in hotel press conferences and not in Parliament. This has to do with the debate on the New Statute, which the socialist party denied. The socialist party did not participate in the debate on the New Statute. Instead, he made several proposals that were forgotten, such as the Statute of Emilio Guevara, which remained there after being presented in a hotel.

For a moment, Ibarrretxe reproaches Patxi López that “denial and rejection have always united the PP and the PSOE, not the affirmation of something”.

These are said at the time of another process: The PSOE-Government-ETA relationship. It should be remembered that the vote on the New Political Statute of the Basque Country took place in Parliament in 2005. Jesús Egiguren and Arnaldo Otegi were violating another path that ended in relations between the government and ETA. The president mentions that the path of the New Statute was not opened, but that Zapatero and the socialist party expanded the Union and the other type of relationship with ETA. At that time very strange statements were made, the names and surnames of the authors are in the Hemeroteca –they are still working in the current policy-; they said: “What the President is proposing does not make sense, but another way can be opened, such as negotiating with the nationalist left.” He also told Aznar and Zapatero what he had said to Lopez. Ibarretxe proposed the road to Downing Street, the need to work on a political solution. Instead of addressing the political issue with the Government, the State Government preferred to address a different path.

While Ibarretxe was working on the democratic consultation, the State preferred to negotiate with ETA.

At certain times, the PSOE and the government have preferred to take another path, not the path between all the forces in Parliament, which should ultimately be negotiated in the Spanish Congress. That had strange moments. The Wings of Loioala by Imanol Murua Uria are very well reflected in the recommended book: the last negotiations were not concluded in Loiola and the ETA ceasefire did not end with the T-4 explosion at Madrid airport. There were other negotiations between the Socialist Party, the Union and ETA. Interviews in Geneva, among others. It should be noted that the Geneva process was broken on the eve of the municipal elections. That also explains other things.

The ones we live in today, in a different way.

The Geneva elections were held on 21 May 2007, and on 28 May 2007 municipal and provincial elections were held. The official breakdown of the ETA ceasefire occurred on June 5, two weeks later, although it was de facto broken earlier. Then Ibarretxe made a reflection to draw a law. However, a new era began in Parliament, which already began in Aznar’s time, when the strategy that Aznar proposed in June 1998 was elaborated through the media. He told the media: “The strategy and goal is to overthrow nationalism.” The strategy was developed with the PSOE to allow the Spanish parties to have a majority and to remove the nationalist parties from the government. With some exceptions, such as La Vanguardia, in most of the mainstream media it is written as follows: “It is not the candle of the fierce that the cura of an immediate but applied form in circumstances that lead us to ...”. All these journalists were present at the same press conference in Hong Kong.

It is curious that the PP used to act on Basque politics during international travel during the government.

This is one of the characteristics. It appears in the strategy between Redondo Terreros and Mayor Oreja. The strategy failed in the UAE elections of 2001, but as a result, in the face of what Ibarretxe proposed, they said:“The Basque society is not mature, but we will improve the alternative.” So they decided to draw up the Law of the Parties, to sue the Parliamentary Bureau and the President and with him Arnaldo Otegi, Fernando Barrena, Patxi López and Rodolfo Ares. This led to the application of the Law of the Parties in different situations. In 2005, for example, to prohibit the candidacy of All Options, but to open the door to the HKSAR. This was the initial path, and for a moment they decided that some lists were legal and others were not, the case of the ANV. These coincide with the time of the negotiations. In the last elections, it was decided that none of them would be present, so that in 2009 the Spanish party would have a majority in the Basque Parliament.

The People’s Consultation proposed by Ibarretxe suffered a failure in some way. He was also a loser in some way.

From where you look. Scotland is on this path. In the case of Scotland, the content of the question was raised. In Scotland it has not materialized and in this year’s elections they will see if they raise it or not. There is a sentence in our country that says “it can’t be done.” The President said that “sooner or later the consultation will take place”. How many years from now? The route is traced in this direction: the future is ours. Here a path was broken and stopped at other points. The New Political Statute of the Basque Country has been approved by an absolute majority in the Basque Parliament. The procedure is not approved in the Spanish Congress, but it is there. The President says that Parliament cannot impose anything on Congress, but neither can the other way around. The consultation has been resolved by the Constitutional Court, but the sentence imposed has to do with the Catalan case, with several sentences handed down on the State. The President said that the road has been blocked for many years, but one day it will be blocked.

Do you see Ibarretxe as president again?

I don't have anything to say about that. At the end of the book he says: “I said things that I needed to say in my home and where I belong, in Parliament.”