What´s up in Spain

"I don´t know how long I´m going to live. I´m 38 now, and I´d like to become 68 at least. But I can´t count on that, I can´t be sure of it. I´d like to be old, to see my girls grow up and have grandchildren, so if you offer me now to be 68 and to have had a fulfilling life, I´d sign right now. I´m not ashamed of becoming older, don´t understand why anyone would be.

On the other hand, if the Bigger Guy Up There decides to do me the honour of calling me to him sooner, I can´t be unhappy about it either. It´s such a big honour and an undeserved favor, that I wouldn´t be able to say no or complain. But I guess if I´m still here it´s because I have to soften some of my hard edges".

I heard that yesterday from a man I´m quite fond of. His two-month-old baby girl, born in early July after a complicated pregnancy, is now in hospital, probably with a case of whooping-cough. But he´s dealing quite ok with it, and as a matter of fact we were joking lightly: a friend of mine, a priest, was teasing me about being 40 (am actually 24) and I was complaining about the "cruelty", when the first man became very intense and gave us that whole speach without realizing it.

Later, he explained us how his faith had helped him through the difficult summer he´s having, and how those very problems had helped him grow in his faith, but he really didn´t need to. We just knew it from his testimony about facing his own death.

I just hope that same faith could also help his wife, who´s having a much more difficult time.

Those out there who believe, please pray for them.

Saw that on a very old rerun on TV:

"I´d give my life for my niece, but not my principles"

(JAG 2X01, We the people)

Good food for thought, isn´t it?

As I see it, there are three kinds of people, depending on how strong is their faith in their ideas. In two cases, their beliefs aren´t strong enough:

- Some of them, at least unconsciously, feel their ideas can´t compete with others in equal conditions, so they feel threatened, and usually fight back, violently. That, taken to the extreme, leads them to kill, even at the cost of getting killed too. Since their mistake is the same, the only difference is how far they´ll go, although they tend to escalate too. In short, I include in this group terrorists, religious fundamentalists, some nationalists, and everyone with a totalitarian political view, even in a democratic system. The end justifies the means.

- Others, under a misunderstood tolerance, don´t have a strong faith in any ideas, and despise people who do. It´s easy not to defend your ideas with the argument that no one should. And even easier when tagging your opponent´s ideas as totalitarian seems to inmediately legitimate your own. Nothing is right or wrong, so the end justifies the means. Spanish Government has been a great example this last weekend, criticizing victims of terrorism and their supporters, around one million people, who peacefully demonstrated in Madrid against negotiation with ETA murderers. They don´t seem to understand that some people would rather be killed by terrorists than live in a treacherous peace at the cost of giving in to the terrorists totalitarian goals.

This two positions aren´t as far apart as it seems. Some people even combine them: you shouldn´t have strong ideas if they´re different from mine, but I have every right to impose mine. That´s what do some of the nationalists in Spain, especially Basque and Catalan ones. Their very narrow view of the world is the following: Everyone against nationalism is a "dictatorial fascist", but they are entitled to say who is/isn´t a true Basque/Catalan based on their political ideas, impose a language in a bilingual region, verbally and physically attack their oponents, and so on.

- The third group of people, the one we´d all like to belong to, or the one we fight to belong to (we´re human and usually fall to one or both of the temptations above), it´s the people who have such faith in what they defend that they think it almost defends itself. Well, of course you have to defend it, and don´t hesitate to do such, but you don´t have to do it "against" anyone. You strongly believe it´s the truth and know that, in the end, truth shall prevail. So you don´t worry if you´re attacked, discriminated, killed... And you don´t go to extreme means like those to defend it because you are sure your ideas are true and right enough not to need it. Examples? Well, everyone who ever gave their life for a cause in an innocent way, everyone who thinks it could happen and are ready, and everyone (like me) who likes to think they´d be ready.

Wow, look what a drabble from such a small idea!

"I´ll listen to the people" must be one of the most common quotes among not-in-power politicians. Mr. Zapatero said it too, of course, while fighting to become our Prime Minister. It usually doesn´t happen, and now is no exception.

Now it´s a little more ironical ´cause getting people on the streets was the main weapon Zapatero used against Mr. Aznar: demonstrations against Irak war, against Government´s role in the oil accident in front of the Galician cost, against the "lies" about the 11-M attacks the day before the elections...

Well, last Saturday there was a demonstration. Yeah, I know, last one was in February, it was pouring and cold, and in this one it was around 30ºC. Shouldn´t there be a Demonstration Season b/w March and May, and September and October, or something like that?

Anyways, it was against the Government´s negotiation with ETA. It was the FOURTH against that in less than two years. The third one in a little over a year, and also the third one allegedly attended by around a million people according to the organisation and some police sources (other police sources claim a little less than 300.000 people). I don´t know, all I can say is that it was pretty crowded. And that there may have been that "few" people in the square itself, but some streets nearby were just as crowded.

But those four demonstrations haven´t been the only ones in Zapatero´s two years in power:

- Juni 18th last year, another million people demonstrated in Madrid against the law calling gay couples "marriage" and giving them the right to adopt children.

- November 12th last year, over a million people demonstrated in Madrid asking for (among others) freedom to choose any school for their children and for a treatment of Religion class equal to any of the other subjects.

However, the streets aren´t the only way to be completely ignored by the government. Gathering signatures and presenting them to the Congress/Government has proved just as useless:

- Three million signatures were taken to Mr. Zapatero official residence to support Religion teaching in equal conditions as other subjects. Mr. Zapatero didn´t find a minute to even go out, say hello, and get them to the trash bin himself.

- One and a half million "special" signatures against the word "marriage" for gay couples and gay adoption were presented to the Congress. Why special? They were a so-called People´s Bill: Any group of people, if supported by 500.000 signatures of registered voters, can present a Bill and ask for it to be approved. 1,5 Million, besides being three times as much as required, is the biggest People´s Bill in the 30 years of democracy.

- The opposition party PP presented some months ago its own bill asking for a national referendum about whether all Spaniards should keep having the same rights, duties and social assistance, all three things threatened, according to them, by the new Catalonian Autonomy Law. It wasn´t necessary, but they presented also four million signatures supporting the referendum. Only a way of advertising? Probably, but they still were backed up by four million people.

One more thing: except this last one, all the other initiatives were organised by civil organisations and asociations, not by any political party (at the most, in some of them PP showed only its support, or offered a little last-minute help), no matter what the Government propaganda say. It´s their easy way to dismise the opinion of critical citizens.

I´m not clear about what role should demonstrations, signatures gatherings and such play in politicians´ decisions, but what I can´t stand is hypocrisy.

Today´s post was going to be about the Basque nationalism Anschluss attempt over neighbour region Navarra. Left some notes at the office (bad luck).

So I´ll use my time to Benedict XVI, who celebrated today his first year at Holy See and as head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Aside from my believes, I find him a fascinating character. Presented by sensationalist newspapers as Nazi-friendly in the first few days after his election, we´ve later known that he deserted from Nazi-army, something many didn´t have the courage to do, although they won´t want to remember it now.

He´d been head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for many years, and thus responsible for keeping the Church´s teachings orthodox. I think many have mixed that with his personality.

During his first year, he has met both with lefebvrians (an ultra-conservative group separated from the Church) and people like the theologian Hans Küng, whose very progresist ideas separate them from Catholic Church. He´s trying non-stop to improve the relationship with China, and is keeping JPII´s efforts to make strong advances in ecumenism.

When many people expected a very theoretical first encyclical, he winds up with one about love, charity, solidarity...

As for personality, he´s been right to be himself, boring as he may look at the beginning. He couldn´t have copied JPII´s charisma. In that aspect, he is a good teacher: has a deep knowledge but conveys it in a very simple way without losing depth. He showed that in WYD in Cologne.

A friend of mine told me something that makes all that all the more precious: he´s not used to that many people, he´s shy and quite afraid of it. As a matter of fact, she (who was quite near him a couple of weeks ago) said that he "carries popularity like a cross, but always with a smile".

I have been talking with an expert on Basque nationalism and terrorism who teaches at my former university.

He told me about the very different profiles from ETA members in the beginning of democracy (when it killed someone aproximately every two or three days) and nowadays.

- The first generations were highly specialized workers with a medium-high life standard.

- The present generation comes from teenagers from problematic neighbourhoods, with almost no culture/preparation and very well known to the Police, since they started as teens to take part in "kale borroka", what they call street fight and is nothing more than pure vandalism. They have no real interest whatsoever in politics, their only ideology consists in a few ideas tattooed in their brains.

The man who told that to me, also explained that old ETA members had trouble if they tried to talk some sense into them. They were accused of being fascists!!

How is that important?

The older generations, if/when they wanted to leave terrorism, they could find a nice job and their place into society.

What would the newer generations do, even if they were looking forward to really leave that life behind? Underground activities, hatred and violence (at least in a social level) is all they know, they don´t know how to do anything else. They also have been getting quite a good salary from ETA and are used to it and all it gets them.

Can they give up all that? Will they be able to quit for good, accept a job with a much lower wage than the one they have now, and don´t miss what they lost?

How can we be sure they won´t turn to other crime branches? There are plenty blossoming in Spain in recent years.

What is going to be done with all that people?

Maybe we should think about that before we stop arresting them and/or start freeing them.

Wanted to write this post on Sunday but my server didn´t agree.

Sunday was one year since the death of my much admired John Paul II. I was at home when it happened, although the day before I had spent the night in the city with a friend, in a prayer gathering, and daydreaming about taking the first flight to Rom.

Two days after he died I had to go back to Germany, and there I had a unique experience, ´cause my church there was run by Poles, and the people in my Bible group were all Polish. I could share with them all the memories from the times where Catholicism was persecuted; the role of the Pope, even in his days as priest and bishop, in fighting dictatorship; the depth and variety of their faith.

The priest who ran the group told us how they made a pilgrimage to Rom when he was young, fooling the government to get a visa, hitchhiking in little groups (they were about 20 people) to get there, and how the Pope received them.

He also told us that, since JPII had died, he needed to go walking to the forest everyday to listen to the birds, as he had done when his own father had died. Despite all that, underneath lied the stoicism, the faith and the hope that I so admire in the Polish people. They felt orphan, but knew they weren´t. Their pain was sharper, but their hope in the future of the Church was bigger. We had wonderful conversations abot pain, loss, hope, future...

In a couple of months, the pain was eased, and sustituted by a deep gratitute for this man who kept true to his Master, for this Steward who kept true to his King. I´m sure he is close to God now, and that he intercedes for the Church he served for 26 years (and many before). When I face a particulary difficult problem, I turn to him, who went through so many difficulties, much bigger than mine.

Dear Karol, you were like a father for many. You were like a stern but loving grandfather for my generation. Keep protecting us.

There´s little doubt now we´re already in the middle of a negotiation process which has been going on for some time.

I´ve been quite confused about one question: what should we be ready to give up and what not in order to stop violence (from terrorism to blackmail to street-vandalism, all by ETA)?

I think I found my answer. It is a matter of whether you should allow people to use violent and criminal means to get what they want. A very clever guy said once that if you are too involved in something to be objective about making up your mind about it, create an hypothetical case with similar characteristics.

Let´s say there was a right-wing terrorist group in Spain that, since Franco´s death, had killed almost 700 people (lower than 850 killed by ETA because it´s been killing longer) in order to prevent an authonomical organisation of the State. Let´s say some region and/or the national government were preparing a law to decrease regions´ rights, and, seeing this historical opportunity, they proclaim a cease-fire and start a negotation, proclaiming beforehand they haven´t given up any of its claims, don´t regret the use of violence and don´t ask for forgiveness.

Mr. Zapatero: give ETA no more than you would give them.

As you all probably know by now, ETA has already begun a "permanent cease-fire" scarcely half an hour ago. I thank all the people who are probably happy for Spain. I share their hope, but not their optimism.

I´m a weird kind of optimist: I do believe everything will be all right in the end, but it needn´t be while we´re still alive to see it.

It´s way too early to have a well formed view on all this, so take it like brain-storming, will ya?

- The "cease-fire" choice of words is bad news:
a) ETA keeps using war vocabulary as if there were two sides killing each other.
b) How can we be sure it´s going to be permanent if they don´t give up the weapons?

- During the last months, the Government seemed so eager and happy about the proximity of such an announcement. Yesterday though, I got the impression (and I wasn´t alone) that they weren´t as happy as I should have expected. And they seem to be walking on egg-shells this last thirty-something hours, which isn´t bad at all, only schocking

- Everybody is speaking much more openly about a possible already on-going negotiation between the socialist and ETA. It might even have been going on for up to four years. That places us in Aznar´s second government, when Zapatero signed with him the Agreement against Terrorism, Zapatero´s own idea.

- May the text broadcasted yesterday by ETA be agreed on by both sides, as suggested by the government-friendly newspaper El País? If the negotiation has been already going on, what was the point of asking the Parliament last spring for permission to negotiate with ETA only after they stopped violence?

- There have been more than ten cease-fires or truces before this one. There were two big ones, one during Gonzalez´s government and one during Aznar´s. I was too young during the first one, and during the second one, I had no doubt no too high a price would be paid to ETA. I´d like to be as sure now.

- ETA doesn´t seem to be willing to give up any of its goals. Is the government in such a strong position?

- Will ETA stop street-violence and black-mail against those busineesmen who have been lately receiving pictures of their children?

- ETA doesn´t seem to have stopped getting the material they need:
a) Barely hours ago, a van was stolen in Cantal, France. ETA is a suspect because the plates of the robbers´ own van was false.
b) Also, the French Police have found in southern France 700 Kgs of explosives in a county were ETA is supposed to have been active lately, and French Police suspects the explosives may be from some recent explosives stealings by ETA.
c) ETA is also the main suspect of the robbery of 20.000 blank plates and a plate-printer less than 10 days ago.
What´s the point?

- For the negotiation to be fair, victims should play a role in it too. If ETA is going to be paid back for having stopped killing, they should get something too, for NEVER having taken matters in their own hands, shouldn´t they?

Many more ideas boiling in my head. But the rest of my body is sleepy

Sorry, guys. A three-day-long weekend full of family gatherings has kept me from the blog longer than I expected.

In the days after 11-M bombs in Madrid two years ago, it was much insinuated (at the least) that there were clear connections between the bombs and Al Qaeda. Most of the time it hasn´t been said so clearly, but some people were very interested in getting us to have that impression.

Here there are some aspects of the terrorists MO that don´t fit in that theory:

1.- There were no kamikazes like in NYC, London, Yemen, Casablanca...

2.- It´s not common among islamic integrist terrorist to use non-muslim people, or to work with them, during the preparation of the attacks. But here, all the people who supposedly sold them the material were Spanish.

3.- Many suspects and people involved have no relation with muslim integrism, and/or are police informers.

4.- It doesn´t fit Al Qaeda so well to employ other criminals (drug and stolen cars delaers), who may endanger the “mission“ or be involved in something else at the same time.

5.- The bombs in Madrid were quite clearly intended to change the election result. If Al Qaeda hates everything related to western countries, democracy and liberalism, why would they prefer a party over other? Wouldn´t have they done the same in London, where, just by attacking a few weeks early, it would have been in the middle of the campaign?

6.- In other attacks, like NYC and London, the terrorists have had no problem in giving away as much money as needed in order to take in risks. They buy or rent a car, not steal it. But in Madrid, some of the most important vehicles were stolen. In the same way, Al Qaeda´d rather make its own explosives with common-use stuff, than buy explosives that can be easily traced.

7.- Last, but not least, in London for instance it´s been pretty clear shortly after the attacks what happened. Here, two years later, there are yet many unanswered questions, hidden by a desinformation campaign planned probably by the same people who prepared the bombs: what clues and evidence should be found in what order to create an official version that change the election results and which isn´t as clearly cut as it seems.