Last weekend’s ETA communiqué puts the peace process back on the front lines of the Basque political agenda and, ultimately, gives Basque society the steps it has taken to feed it. Where was this process facing the public? The staging of ETA’s arms delivery took place in February. Symbolically it was a great step, but the unilateral character of the process emerged more clearly than ever: wanting to deliver the weapons and not matter to Estado.Por the eleventh time, the State apparatus and its parties announced that they were expecting nothing but the dissolution of ETA, as has now been done. The PNV put on the table its commitment to support an orderly ending, but assured that it expected more. The Abertzale left demonstrated ETA’s clear will.

Five months later, ETA has taken another two giant steps, depending on where and how it looks, announcing the dismantling of the logistical and operational structure prepared for the armed struggle. At the same time, he suggests that the sealing of weapons is still immature, as to do so he announces that he is “building a technical-logistic structure”.

In the days leading up to the ETA statement, Jonathan Powell and Martin McGuinness have also been in Euskal Herria, giving new impetus to the process and probably trying to solidify the appearance of the statement. There is no doubt that they have succeeded, as the issue of the conflict has reappeared in the first lines of the political agenda. At the same time, a number of vicissitudes in the peace process have been highlighted, the most obvious of which relates to the work of the PNV. If, in February, the PNV and the lehendakari Urkullu were at the forefront of the drive for disarmament, nothing like that has happened and the lehendakari has not taken Powell and McGuinness either. What happened?

It has been pointed out from the ranks of the PNV that, after the photo of the arms of February, he was expecting further steps in the disarmament process. It has been suggested that they felt deceived and that is why Urkullu did not meet with the Powell-McGuinness delegation.

No one knows the relations that exist between those who move the threads in the process, but in any case, although the discussions in these cases are common, it is necessary that these relations be as solid as possible among those who believe in the orderly end of the process. As important as enhancing the technical aspects of the process is to keep the flame of the peace process in society on fire, and to this end, the good relationship between the drivers and the socialization of the symbols of peace is key. In this respect, the symbolic image of the partner has not been sufficiently exploited during the visit by POWELL and McGuinness and the absence of Urkullu has been underlined. McGuinness and Powell symbolize the enemies who have made peace, one representing the British government and the other representing the IRA and the whole Republican movement. This had enough symbolic burden to socialize their image in another way and better feed the flame of peace.

Basque society has clearly opted for an orderly ending of ETA, but if it does not feed properly, citizens who are not directly involved may lose interest in the issue, especially when this process is so long. Some may be interested in this, but the supporters of the orderly ending may not. Discretion is essential in these kinds of processes, but even more so the participation and impulse of society, and there are many doubts as to whether it is being activated correctly. To be clear, in the first step, the trust and good relationship between the NPV and the Abertzale left is key to this task, and in the second step is also that of the PSOE. Talking about the pp wall would be longer, because it is looking only at Spain and not at Euskal Herria.

If society is to be involved, it must be made clearer from all sides. ETA, too, has spread many doubts in the last communiqué. Once the armed struggle is over, doesn't it go away and it's over? What do you want to be in the future? Isn't it logical that it gets rid of? If you want to be present, for what and how? And how long? The last communiqué, in this sense, has left an endless number of questions in the air.