COVITE knew, and stated clearly, that the “Conference” was planned and held by the pro-ETA world solely to satisfy that world. We begged the self-appointed “mediators” to take note of this, not to use the expression “conflict” and to make an effort to find out the facts. They did none of these things. These “mediators” stuck to their script of five completely inconsistent points, making clear that it was not a terrorist group whose only objective was to subvert the Rule of Law that was at work in Euskadi but, in their words, “the last armed conflict in Europe.” These people, the extent and source of whose economic income for this act is unknown, have used the term “conflict” as often as they want, and have convinced democratic states such as France and Spain to open a dialogue with ETA and discuss political affairs with those they call “non-violent participants”, i.e. as can be seen from recent events, the political arm of ETA.
It is ridiculous for these people to address us in such terms, and for our Governments, both central and autonomous, to allow it. We will not make any further comment on the matter. By now, we have repeated ourselves too often. If our representatives accept that our Democracy should treat a terrorist group on equal terms, and that its political arm, which they had earlier taken the trouble to legalize, should sit at the same table to debate political affairs, it really is a sign that this country has completely lost its way.
We wish, however, to make clear to these “mediators”, since we did not before, that they should not try to talk to us about reconciliation as the word means bringing together and soothing discordant feelings between at least two adversarial parties; here, in our country, as much as you might wish it were otherwise, in the last fifty years there have never been two adversarial parties to be reconciled. We know that in ETA’s world, fully represented at your “Conference”, they insist on using this terminology, but we reiterate that we beg you not to do the same because doing so involves perverting the truth which you are entirely unsuccessfully trying to present to an unacceptable degree.
We victims might be disheartened but we are also proud. Proud because yesterday, within a climate created by ETA propaganda, ten victims of terrorism had the courage and determination to confront injustice once more, bringing the memory of the 858 murdered people to the fore, and in doing so wielding reasoned argument against those who shoot others in the back of the head; the same people who are today called “non-violent participants”.
It is ridiculous for these people to address us in such terms, and for our Governments, both central and autonomous, to allow it. We will not make any further comment on the matter. By now, we have repeated ourselves too often. If our representatives accept that our Democracy should treat a terrorist group on equal terms, and that its political arm, which they had earlier taken the trouble to legalize, should sit at the same table to debate political affairs, it really is a sign that this country has completely lost its way.
We wish, however, to make clear to these “mediators”, since we did not before, that they should not try to talk to us about reconciliation as the word means bringing together and soothing discordant feelings between at least two adversarial parties; here, in our country, as much as you might wish it were otherwise, in the last fifty years there have never been two adversarial parties to be reconciled. We know that in ETA’s world, fully represented at your “Conference”, they insist on using this terminology, but we reiterate that we beg you not to do the same because doing so involves perverting the truth which you are entirely unsuccessfully trying to present to an unacceptable degree.
We victims might be disheartened but we are also proud. Proud because yesterday, within a climate created by ETA propaganda, ten victims of terrorism had the courage and determination to confront injustice once more, bringing the memory of the 858 murdered people to the fore, and in doing so wielding reasoned argument against those who shoot others in the back of the head; the same people who are today called “non-violent participants”.