Basque Book Clash

international | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis Saturday August 30, 2003 14:34 by Cllr O'Broin - Sinn Féin eoinobroin at hotmail dot com

Steven King & Eoin Ó Broin Clash Over New Basque Book

The following is an exchange between UUP advisor to David Trimble, Steven King and Sinn Féin Councillor Eoin Ó Broin on Ó Broin's new book on Basque Nationalism. Kings piece was published by the Belfast Telegraph on August 24th.

BASQUEING IN THE GLORY OF TERROR

By Steven King

EOIN O Broin is an up-and-coming Sinn Fein figure. This North Belfast councillor comes across as young, bright - even affable.

He is author of a new book on Basque nationalism and radical Basque youth movements. Apart from revealing republicans' continued international dalliance with terrorism, it demonstrates how tactical the republican embrace of democratic structures appears to be.

The book's title is Matxinada which apparently is Basque for "revolution" or "revolt". Although Eoin apparently does not speak either Basque or Spanish, he does not hesitate to correct the Basque dictionary whose English translation he claims does not adequately cover the full meaning of the word. This he tells us was that it best expressed the Basques' hundreds of years fighting for independence from the Spanish and French states "irrespective of the cost or consequences".
In fact, it is just because of the cost and consequences of the activities of violent Basque nationalists that the majority of Basques are opposed to the terrorist organisation ETA and its various political, trade union and youth front organisations.

Eoin's Basque comrades claim a "homeland" which includes the three Spanish provinces which elect an autonomous Basque parliament, another province - Navarre - plus two regions in the south of France.

Of these six areas, nationalists are in a majority. In the Basque parliament elections in 2001, Herri Batasuna, ETA's political wing, got only 10% of the vote.

Eoin also displays that contempt for basic democratic rights and values that was used to legitimise 30 years of "armed struggle" in Northern Ireland.

He dismisses any reference to the more than 800 people killed by ETA since 1968 as a "mantra". In 1997 ETA kidnapped and murdered Miguel Angel Blanco a local councillor for the ruling Popular Party. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain's main cities, including those in the Basque country, to protest at his murder.

Eoin cannot ignore this massive manifestation of opposition to ETA and its political apologists but finds it startling and "ugly" that nobody turned out to protest when in the same year the body of a young ETA member on-the-run was found.

Part of the reason might be that most people accepted that the death was suicide- something Eoin predictably dismisses as a lie peddled by Spanish "securocrats". It might also have something to do with the atrocities committed by ETA. These are airbrushed out of Eoin's history.
He does mention an attack on a Civil Guard barracks in Zaragoza in 1987 which he writes "caused concern in Madrid". Eleven died, six of them children.

He ignores ETA's own "Enniskillen" in the same year when it placed a car bomb in the underground car park of the Hipercor supermarket in Barcelona, murdering nineteen. At least the families of the victims of this atrocity have been able to see its perpetrators sent to prison for long terms, unlike the Enniskillen families.

The book's real heroes are the members of the radical Basque youth movement, members of which are frequent visitors to republican events here.
These youth movements' most important manifestation is Kale Borroka: street violence. Although Eoin depicts this as a spontaneous expression of youthful rage at the "repressive" Spanish state, the Irish journalist Paddy Woodworth, someone with a profound knowledge of the Basque country, correctly depicts Kale Borroka as part of an ETA strategy.

Apart from terrorising the streets with attacks by dozens of masked youths on banks, shops, and police-stations there is an even more sinister strategy of intimidating ETA's political opponents and critics. Ironically for a supposedly "radical" movement, many of its victims have been members of the Spanish Socialist Party and their families.
Party premises have been attacked, left-wing bookshops burnt down and the homes of socialists daubed with threatening slogans and some have been petrol-bombed. Journalists, intellectuals, trade unionists and lecturers have all been attacked as part of Kale Borroka, which one Spanish academic has termed "ethnic cleansing".

For those who refuse to be intimidated the price can be fatal. In May 2000, a former communist activist jailed under Franco, Jose Luiz Lopez de la Calle, was shot dead by ETA gunmen. Eoin mentions the death and "explains" it by referring to the victim's column for 'the right wing Spanish paper El Mundo' and quoting from his murderers' justification that he "manipulated the truth".
In that one paragraph, there was a chilling echo of Provoism at its fascist worst that also had no scruples about killing socialists.

Eoin's comrades in the republican movement may have begun the process of replacing armed struggle with populist electioneering.
If this book is symptomatic of their underlying values they still have a long way to go in breaking with the mindset that made terrorism acceptable.


BASQUEING IN IGNORNCE

Eoin Ó Broin: Reply to Steven King

I want to thank Steven King for taking the time to respond to the recent publication of my book on Basque nationalism and radical youth movements. It is always interesting when ones political opponents are energised enough to spend time and effort responding to your arguments. I also want to thank Steven for taking time in reading sections of the book, even if he clearly misunderstands them. It doesn't surprise me that he misses some of the central discussions which run through the book, nor that he tries to misrepresent my views in order to score anti Sinn Féin points. After all, this is the stuff of politics.

Steven’s main concern with my book is that it apparently ‘demonstrates how tactical the republican embrace of democratic structures appears to be’. His main line of argument is that I either justify ETA violence or airbrush it from my narrative.

When starting out to write the book I took a conscious decision to allow political actors from the Spanish and Basque political parties comment on them. After almost every act of violence detailed, wiether by ETA or the Spanish state, I quote political spokespeople whose views are diametrically opposed. Condemnations and justifications sit side by side whether by the ruling Popular Party, the Socialists, the conservative Basque Nationalist Party or Herri Batasuna. I studiously avoid making direct comment on individual acts, and allow Basque and Spanish political actors to do the speaking. This is not justification, but simply good writing.

Steven is troubled by my discussion of the killings of Miguel Angel Blanco and Josu Zabala in 1997 and cites this as a justification of ETA . His reading is absurd in the extreme. I include in my commentary reports of the enormous demonstrations in Madrid and the Basque Country in opposition to the ETA killing of Blanco. I also quote Spanish and Basque politicians who condemned this act. However, I also comment on the fact that the same level of condemnation was not evident when Josu Zabala was killed by the Spanish police. This is an important point which Steven ignores. The reality is that many people who oppose ETA violence support state violence, even when it is outside the law.

I would accuse Steven of exactly this, and ask him how he can assume such a morally superior posture while at the same time evading criticism of state sponsored killing in the same way he critics the killings of ETA.

I could make the same point with regard to Steven’s deliberate misreadings of my commentary on Hipercore or the killing of Jose Luiz Lopez de la Calle. Some people will just see what the want to see, no matter what is in front of them, and Steven is no exception.

At no point in Matxinada do I justify or excuse or avoid any act of violence by any group.

In terms of my attitude to violence, my position through the book is consistent. I believe that all of the violence, whether pro- or anti-State is a consequence of a particular set of political conditions. For those interested in seeing the violence end, there is a need to identify what these political conditions are and promote a political process aimed at resolving the underlying causes. When ETA called their cease fire in 1998 I believe this is what they were trying to achieve. When Basque nationalists from a variety of positions signed the Lizarra-Garazi declaration in the same year, I believe they were trying to do the same thing. The real question is, why did the Spanish and French government reject the most substantive opportunity to develop a peace process in over a decade. And for me this is the real nub of the problem. Not surprisingly Steven ignores this aspect of the book.

Steven makes brief mention of the main focus of my book, that is radical Basque youth movements. He then goes on to suggest that the most important manifestation of these youth movements is ‘Kale Borrkoa’ or street struggle. This is simply factually incorrect. The radical youth movements are a plural network of youth organisations, expression and activities involving tens of thousands of people, in a wide array of political, social and cultural initiatives. Kale Borroka was a phenomenon which erupted in the early 1990s, and again in a particular context. It cannot be denied that its emergence was linked to a wave of repression against the youth movements. In my view, ETA couldn't have coordinated this even if they wanted to.

However, Steven is guilty of a narrow minded politics of criminalisation when he reduces these plural and popular youth movements to one expression. And again he avoids discussion of the violence of the state which in this case lead directly to a violent backlash by groups of young people.

What is most remarkable in Steven’s commentary, is the underlying double standards which are evident in every paragraph. He presents himself as a democrat yet turns a blind eye to the anti democratic practices of the Spanish state. He accuses me of justifying terrorism while at the same time legitimising state terror. And he deliberately and mischievously misrepresents sections of the book while at the same time accusing me of misrepresenting the current situation in the Basque Country.

I often get the impression, when reading between the lines of articles like Steven’s that Irish unionists have a sneaking admiration for the policies of Jose Maria Aznar. As they watch him ban political parties, arrest, imprison and torture political activists, close news papers and magazines, undermine freedoms of speech and assembly, and introduce states of exception, do they sit and think: if only the British government had the guts to do that to Irish republicans we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Steven’s dalliance with anti-democratic and repressive right wing politicians is hardly surprising. After all that is his home territory. The real test of a democrat, however, is not the phony standards set by right wing unionists like Steven or his Spanish counterparts, but whether universally accepted human and civil rights standards are respected. Clearly Steven has some distance to travel before he can embrace a truly democratic culture, as opposed to the tactical, skewed and abused form of democracy peddled by Irish unionists and Spanish nationalists for the last number of decades.