For all their differences over the Rock of Gibraltar, Britain and Spain parallel each other so closely when it comes to politics. The two oldest kingdoms in Europe, both are the result of long histories of dynastic unions, conquests and other comings together that in the latter part of the 20th century began to unravel as the different peoples in the two countries began to reassert their identities. The parallels are compelling: England and Castile the respective dominant partners; Scotland and Catalonia wanting — and gaining — strong measures of autonomy; Wales and its namesake Galicia, along with Andalusia and Valencia, being given less; and, lastly, those two most obvious of parallels — the Basque region and Northern Ireland — with years of carnage and hate and their militant separatist organizations, which in turn more than parallel each other. The IRA and ETA are not run only on the same lines, with political wings pursuing the ballot while the armed organization occupies itself with bomb and bullet, but they have been active partners in terror together, supplying each other with arms, information and new ways to kill.
Yet despite the parallels, Spain and Britain are now thinking very differently about their problem provinces. Madrid has decided to outlaw ETA’s political wing, Batasuna because of its terrorist links, even though it won 10 percent of the vote in last year’s Basque region elections. It is a very different approach to that of London, which has done its utmost to involve the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, in Northern Ireland’s political structures, the theory being that it will not want to lose the real political influence it now enjoys by going back to the armed struggle. The British line can be criticized as the much more devious, although it is paying dividends in terms of an end result: the republicans are slowly being emasculated by their own lust for power. Equally, Madrid’s response may be seen as the more principled: the Spanish are saying that there can be no place in the normal political process for a party that provides members, material and technical assistance to ETA’s terrorists who have killed some 800 people over the past 30 years. They stress that it is intolerable that it should have access to state funding — provided to all political parties — when much of it goes straight into ETA’s coffers. It is hard to disagree with that.
But is Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar letting emotions get the better of his otherwise usually shrewd judgement? Banning Batasuna will not intimidate, let alone stop, ETA. If anything, it will make matters worse. Not only will ETA step up its campaign of violence, there is a real danger that, banned and driven underground, Batasuna will gain mystical appeal in the eyes of young Basques. ETA has been losing support consistently over recent years; this will act as a recruiting call.
It says much that the mainstream conservative Basque Nationalist party which governs the Basque Country and which hates ETA like poison thinks this a seriously bad move. Yet what are Aznar’s alternatives? It is easy to say that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but unlike the IRA, ETA has never shown an inclination to talk. It is wedded to violence. Why should Spain be forced to fund by the backdoor an organization that is intent on its destruction? It is a difficult decision to make.
