Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can someone explain the Spain/ETA conflict for me?

  1. Mar 10, 2005 #1
    I'm really ignorant about this whole thing; what the ETA stands for, why they want independence, why Spain won't grant it even with the terrorist attacks they perpetrate, everything about it.

    Can anyone enlighten me?

    Thanks,
    Jacob
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2005 #2
    This is could be the most unbiased source:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA


    Also you can find more information here :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/flash/0,5543,191251,00.html

    Areas populated by the ethnic Basques are divided between France and Spain. The areas are composed of seven provinces: three under French administration, Iparraldea or Northern Basque Country, and four under Spanish administration, Hegoaldea or Southern Basque Country.

    In 1901, the founder of the Basque Nationalist Party, Sabino Arana, coined the term, Euzkadi (also spelled Euskadi) to describe a hypothetical Basque confederated state comprised of the seven Basque provinces.

    Basque Fatherland and Liberty a.k.a Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) was founded in 1959 with the aim of creating an independent homeland in Spain's Basque region. It has a muted commitment to Marxism.

    The size and strength of the ETA is unknown though it may have hundreds of members, plus supporters.

    The ETA operates primarily in the Basque autonomous regions of northern Spain and southwestern France, but it also has bombed Spanish and French interests elsewhere.

    The ETA has established relations with the Irish Republican Army, and with the Algerian Islamic Group, for which it has provided training in the production of explosives, guerrilla warfare and urban terrorism. ETA has obtained weapons, safe houses, and other logistics support from Islamic networks in Europe. ETA groups may receive training in Iranian and Lebanese camps. It has received training at various times in the past in Libya, Lebanon, and Nicaragua. Some ETA members allegedly have received sanctuary in Cuba.

    Primarily involved in bombings and assassinations of Spanish Government officials, especially security and military forces, politicians, and judicial figures. In response to French operations against the group, ETA also has targeted French interests. Finances its activities through kidnappings, robberies, and extortion. ETA has killed over 800 persons since it began lethal attacks in the early 1960s; responsible for murdering 13 persons in 1997.

    In December 2002, however, ETA reiterated its intention to target Spanish tourist areas. In 2002, ETA killed five persons, including a child, a notable decrease from 2001’s death toll of 15, and wounded approximately 90 persons.

    In March of 2003 the Spanish Supreme Court banned the Basque Batasuna party from participating in national or municipal elections, citing ties to the ETA. Later that year in May, a car bomb was exploded in Madrid killing three people, the bomb was reportedly attributed to the ETA.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/eta.htm
     
  4. Mar 10, 2005 #3
    Wasn't the ETA also responcible for the train bombing on March 11th 2004 in Madrid Spain? I remember hearing about it and the Spainish government was calling it "Spain's 9/11".

    This is getting ridiculous with all these extremist groups demanding their own countries. We have the Kurdish, the Irish (who I thought had their own country before England invaded), and now the ETA, amoung others.
     
  5. Mar 10, 2005 #4
    The ETA is about 100 years old, it's not a new thing.

    misskitty, what I think is ridiculous is why these extremist groups aren't getting their way. If you have a small part of your country, from which unrest and violence comes, and they want to govern themselves, what is the point of holding on to them? The Revolutionaries in Colonial America were considered extremists by England - but with America I can understand why England wanted to keep it, because of it's huge natural resources. Unless the ETA people are like sitting on some hugely valuable natural resources and the governments of Spain and France want to keep these resources within their control, I can't see why Spain or France's governments would want to keep a group of people who have been killing government officials and citizens of both countries, when it seems that they just want independnece. Relinquishing control of these regions would seem to both get rid of a huge problem to Spain and France, but also make a group of people who don't feel represented by the government they're currently under happy by giving them self-determination.
     
  6. Mar 11, 2005 #5

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, this links well to the discussion about when to give away sovereignty to a part of a county. These things seem to be prolonged for some weird fear of giving in, losing face and so on. Why hang yourself in to a non-working construct when it's costing lives and overall messing things up in the process ... a feat often exercised by those having the upper hand.
     
  7. Mar 11, 2005 #6
    It's not ridculous that these groups want their own countries. What's ridculous is how they are going about it. I understand that these groups are trying to get noticed and get the attention of their governments. It seems like they are going to kill of the entire population of the country they inhabit to get their way. Its not ok to go around killing people to get what you want.
     
  8. Mar 13, 2005 #7

    ethnic Basque are the original people of that land much like american INDIANS
    they were there FIRST
    later peoples invaded their lands and have oppressed them
    FRANKO forbid them to speak or teach their own language to their kids
    the cause is just the rights are on their side
    BUT the way they DO IT [BOMBS} is wrong
     
  9. Mar 14, 2005 #8
    Most of the people in Northern Ireland prefer to be part of Britain, as they are ancestrally English or Scottish (the protestants). The catholics generally would prefer to be part of Ireland. They are the descendents of the British immigrants, just as modern day immigrants are immigrating across the world and sometimes moving from being a minority group to a majority such as the mexicans in USA or arabs in France.

    And ETA were not responsible for the train bombing in Spain. Moroccan muslim extremists have been found guilty.
     
  10. Mar 15, 2005 #9
    Ah! Alright, I wasn't sure who was the ulitmate guilty party. Thanks for setting me straight, I mean it sincerly not as a crack on you.

    As far as Ireland goes, what would ulitmately be better for the Irish as a group? Would it be better for them to stay part of Britain or wuld it be better for them to strike out on there own?

    My personal feeling, it would be better for the Irish to stay with Britain. They have been part of Britain so long that for them to strike out on their own would be bad economically and politically not to mention it wouldn't do much for their current Religious situation.

    Its scary to see how poorly Protestants and Catholics get along. There is so much anomsity between the two I bet it even makes God sick.

    I'm curious to see how relations between the two groups plays out and I'd like to see if they can form some kind of truce. The Irish cause definitely wasn't helped any by Sinead O'Conner, although she was one of the people who made the world aware of Ireland's war wounds and battle scars.

    Relating this back to the topic, I think it would be prudent for Ireland to remain part of Britain unlike the Kurdish people, or the Palestinians or the members of the ETA, who would probably benefit from having a soverign state. I would be curious to see whether they get what they want and what they have to bring to the world economically and politically. I definitely think we would see a decrease in world tensions and violence if these groups got what they are asking for.
     
  11. Mar 15, 2005 #10
    No actualy that was why Aznar lost the reelection. The day of the bombings, with no proof aznar and the media inmediatly blame ETA, the day after Al queda claim the terrorist atacs and proofs where find against alqueda..
     
  12. Mar 15, 2005 #11
    Yeah. The media is always the first group to start pointing fingers and placing blame where there is no proof. They are famous for stunts like that. The media LIVES for a great contraversy.

    For kicks: :rollseyes:A history teacher of mine has an ackronym for the word "Media":

    Most
    Educated
    Dudes
    In
    America
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Can someone explain the Spain/ETA conflict for me?
  1. Attack on Spain (Replies: 30)

  2. Resolving conflict (Replies: 0)

Loading...