Statement on ETA is reminder of differing approaches to terror

The terrorist group for years killed people in its bid to gain independence for the Basque region in northern Spain, until it called a ceasefire.

The clerics are reported to have said that men and women of the church had “given their best” in response to the conflict, some of them “heroically”, but recognised that “there have also been complicities, ambiguities, omissions for which we sincerely ask for forgiveness”.

They go on to say it is “important that the return of the ex-prisoners to their places of origin be carried out in such a way that the victims of terrorism do not feel humiliated”.

This is a welcome statement that will, it is to be hoped, help the region move on from its grim past. Such candour is sorely needed in a post conflict environment.

It is also a reminder of the dramatically different way that Spain responded to the terrorism of ETA and Britain responded to the IRA. From the end of internment in 1975, the UK response to such violence was cautious. There are, looking back, powerful arguments to be made that the security response was far too cautious, but also strong arguments that it was the apt response, and did not inflame the situation.

However, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement London has been positively weak (a fact barely mentioned on the 20th anniversary of that accord). No republican crime, from spying at Stormont to the Northern Bank heist, was ever punished politically. Everyone had to suffer as the institutions fell.

The same applies now. Sinn Fein eulogise murderers, and show none of the sensitivity to victims that the Spanish clerics seem to think appropriate. The party is allowed to bring down Stormont, and yet there is neither a penalty to pay nor a whisper of criticism from London. In fact, Stormont will only return if their political ransom is paid in concessions.

Madrid would be unlikely to be so spineless.