Igor Zulaika, a member of the Basque Parliament for the Basque pro-indepence left party EH Bildu, and head of its International Relations spoke at the ‘International Conference for Peace’ organized by the DEM Party, which is underway in Istanbul.
Zulaika was one of the international witnesses at the ceremony held last July 11th by the Group for Peace and Democratic Society, in which a number of weapons were burned in the Jasana cave.
Zulaika started by reminding the audience that “the Basque Country is a stateless nation divided in two states and several institutional systems. Our country has been divided since the 16th century, and since then every generation has seen some form of conflict and confrontation.
In the modern era, the conflict has taken the form of over 50 years of armed confrontation. This confrontation brought 3 attempts to negotiate a solution and 3 collapsed peace processes. Each of those processes was different, each was developed under a different logic and brought its own lessons.
Algiers was a direct negotiation in which ETA and agents of the Spanish state negotiated directly, without the participation of political parties. Lizarra Garazi, the 2nd attempt, was mainly carried out amongst Basque political parties and finally the Loiola Geneva process, which consisted of two track process, a technical one and a political one, probably as a result of the lessons learned in the 2 previous processes.
I’ve been invited today to speak further on the last process, which started in 2009, when, after the collapse of the 2007 process, the Abertzale Left decided to start a unilateral process to achieve a lasting and just peace.
I will speak about 3 periods (start of the process, after Aiete and the current time) and two points to separate them. Aiete (putting an end to the armed campaign) and Arnaga (ETA melting away).
After the collapse of the 2007 Loiola Geneva process, the pro-independence left faced a complicated strategic crossroads. There was a need for strategic clarification. The new strategy demanded new accumulations of forces, and this necessarily had to set the Abertzale Left on the path towards a non-armed strategy.
The strategy of the patriotic left was based on two main directions: one towards the international community, to achieve the complicity of some external agents in favour of the process opened in Euskal Herria and, on the other hand, towards the Basque sectors that might be in favour of an unarmed liberation process.”
Zulaika added: “Sectors of the state actively tried to boycott this process by arresting our political leadership and trying to keep them out of political life. That is a huge mistake. For things to go well it is important that leadership figures are able to discuss with as many people as possible, to check on their communities’ mood, but also to make pedagogy and discuss with those who may not be convinced. Isolating leadership only creates new problems down the road.
Even though we faced this boycott attempt, the Abertzale Left decided to go from a politico-military strategy to an exclusively political strategy through an internal consultation process.
Abertzale Left defined as unilateralism (as opposed to bilateralism), taking the political initiative and taking advantage of the opportunities generated by the unilateral cessation of the armed struggle on the road to creating new opportunities, new “momentum”.
This concept has often been narrowly understood. Unilateralism did not mean that the Abertzale Left believed that it could do everything on its own. Instead, it was about acting in the same way as when playing billiards; when hitting a ball, the aim is to reposition the ball, creating new scenarios and possibilities. The change of situation could push other agents to take new steps.”
Zulaika continued: “It is important that the solution to the political problems, be it the Basque or the Kurdish and the democratization of state structures, be they in Spain or Turkey, develop within a legal framework to ensure they are healthier, faster, and more successful. It is crucial to learn from the shortcomings of our past experiences.
Peace and democracy are worthy and morally right for all. It is essential that this be achieved in accordance with international law and norms. The Kurdish and Turkish people must not approach this important opportunity with narrow-mindedness, nor should they squander it on limited perspectives, but rather strive for a common, equal, free, and democratic life. Peace and reconciliation benefit everyone. Narrow and selfish approaches, on the other hand, lead to their loss.
I cannot end without stressing the need for Kurdish leader Öcalan to be released so that he can participate in the process, so that he could have been here today. I believe the Turkish government must take immediate legal and political action.
So let everyone who has been here today and those who couldn’t or didn’t want to be here yet, learn from our mistakes and shortcomings and support peace Kurdish and Turkish societies deserve and need peace.”