In previous post I tried to analyze the violence of ETA only from an ethical point of view, accepting the fact that for the radical left violence should not be lawful rather than a means of self-defense, and never aggressive. But also indicated that such an analysis does not matter if we the fact that ETA violence arises only as a strategic means to achieve a political goal: to compel the State to recognize the right of Basque self-determination. It is clear that from that point of view of ethical considerations go into the background.
But my purpose today is to analyze precisely the violence of ETA from a purely strategic point of view. because it could happen that the violence, although it can not be ethically justifiable, it may be strategically or politically : the use of ETA violence on their targets more than a purely peaceful strategy?
We recognize that it is very logical think that a certain pressure on a state it tends to get some concessions, especially when the pressure is manifold: political, social and economic. ETA's violence is putting pressure on these three areas, because it is a political problem that causes suffering in society and economic losses. We also know, on the other hand, that the State has granted to negotiate with ETA on several occasions. It appears, therefore, that violent strategy pays off . However
appearance differs significantly from reality. All negotiations attacks to date, featuring the governments of Gonzalez, Aznar Rodriguez Zapatero, have suffered from a manifest bad faith on the part of the state (something known from the Left wing nationalists), which seem to regard as a mere bargaining weapon to weaken ETA and its political . That was true even in times when the armed organization killed hundreds of people a year, so there is no reason to believe that the current level of ETA violence (with a few murders a year) will force the State to take negotiations more seriously.
Keep in mind also that the violence of ETA over the years has achieved the opposite effect on English citizenship: not just this is not wanting a negotiated solution to the conflict, but also is radically opposed to the same (something that has been actively involved state propaganda). So much so that it is suicidal for any English government to raise even that option. Moreover, the very existence of ETA for about 50 years has finally create or strengthen certain state sectors that feed on the existence of the organization or fight the , and of course never will welcome its demise: People's Party, National Court, journalists, police, private security, counterterrorism police ... How point these industries will lead to an eventual stop negotiating strategy of the state?
course ETA violence has other side effects. Your expression gets put on the table always crude Basque conflict, and it is permanently present. ETA says the news and drink, both nationally and internationally, there is a Basque conflict in Spain territorial problem that remains unresolved, for which the legal channels seem insufficient.
But all this we must add other effects as positive if we consider that in the XXI century the majority of society, and especially the left, the fight does not accept army as a political method valid. ETA's violent strategy succeeds, then, away from itself to broad popular Basque, English and international organizations that could help push the state toward solving the problem. This should be a growing concern for an organization that sees the long run, is losing support among its political base.
Finally, the persistence of ETA violence success has helped the state propaganda has managed to move the debate between "vs. Basque nationalism. English nationalism" and focus on "violent vs. Non-violent, something that has helped a substantial reduction of state violence in recent years, but now endures torture and violation of civil and political rights.
Thus, it appears that the strategy causes violent positive and negative effects for the political ends they seek, and ETA should reflect on them and decide which are more prominent. But I insist that this assessment can not fail to take into account the ethical, in my opinion are the most should weigh .
But my purpose today is to analyze precisely the violence of ETA from a purely strategic point of view. because it could happen that the violence, although it can not be ethically justifiable, it may be strategically or politically : the use of ETA violence on their targets more than a purely peaceful strategy?
We recognize that it is very logical think that a certain pressure on a state it tends to get some concessions, especially when the pressure is manifold: political, social and economic. ETA's violence is putting pressure on these three areas, because it is a political problem that causes suffering in society and economic losses. We also know, on the other hand, that the State has granted to negotiate with ETA on several occasions. It appears, therefore, that violent strategy pays off . However
appearance differs significantly from reality. All negotiations attacks to date, featuring the governments of Gonzalez, Aznar Rodriguez Zapatero, have suffered from a manifest bad faith on the part of the state (something known from the Left wing nationalists), which seem to regard as a mere bargaining weapon to weaken ETA and its political . That was true even in times when the armed organization killed hundreds of people a year, so there is no reason to believe that the current level of ETA violence (with a few murders a year) will force the State to take negotiations more seriously.
Keep in mind also that the violence of ETA over the years has achieved the opposite effect on English citizenship: not just this is not wanting a negotiated solution to the conflict, but also is radically opposed to the same (something that has been actively involved state propaganda). So much so that it is suicidal for any English government to raise even that option. Moreover, the very existence of ETA for about 50 years has finally create or strengthen certain state sectors that feed on the existence of the organization or fight the , and of course never will welcome its demise: People's Party, National Court, journalists, police, private security, counterterrorism police ... How point these industries will lead to an eventual stop negotiating strategy of the state?
course ETA violence has other side effects. Your expression gets put on the table always crude Basque conflict, and it is permanently present. ETA says the news and drink, both nationally and internationally, there is a Basque conflict in Spain territorial problem that remains unresolved, for which the legal channels seem insufficient.
But all this we must add other effects as positive if we consider that in the XXI century the majority of society, and especially the left, the fight does not accept army as a political method valid. ETA's violent strategy succeeds, then, away from itself to broad popular Basque, English and international organizations that could help push the state toward solving the problem. This should be a growing concern for an organization that sees the long run, is losing support among its political base.
Finally, the persistence of ETA violence success has helped the state propaganda has managed to move the debate between "vs. Basque nationalism. English nationalism" and focus on "violent vs. Non-violent, something that has helped a substantial reduction of state violence in recent years, but now endures torture and violation of civil and political rights.
Thus, it appears that the strategy causes violent positive and negative effects for the political ends they seek, and ETA should reflect on them and decide which are more prominent. But I insist that this assessment can not fail to take into account the ethical, in my opinion are the most should weigh .
0 comments:
Post a Comment