Three masked members of the Basque separatist group ETA said on Wednesday they were declaring a permanent ceasefire to promote a "democratic process" in the northern Spanish region. The group has pursued a policy of terror since the 1960's with the aim of achieving Basque independence. The result has been some 800 deaths and an estimated $15.5 billion in damages. "The end of this conflict is possible today and now. This is wish and will of ETA," one of the men declared. Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero cautiously greeted the statement, but said before talks could take place, the group had to swear off violence and end their armed struggle for good. ETA has been weakened in recent years following several arrests of high-ranking members in Spain and France. Support for bombings has also fallen after the deadly terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists in Madrid in 2004.

Many German commentators on Thursday welcomed the news of the ceasefire, however, several warned it was far too early to celebrate. 

For the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, talking of a "ceasefire" is ridiculous as it indicates a fight between two sides. "That is not the case," writes the commentator. "In the 30 years since the end of Franco's dictatorship, there was only one side which did the murdering and blackmailing." The paper expresses disgust for the fact that the masked terrorists' "message to the Basque people" contained no words of regret or admission of guilt for the 800 people killed in the violence. Instead there were calls for a push towards democratization, "as if the Spanish state weren't already a stable democracy," notes the paper. Nevertheless, the promised break in the violence is a relief for all Spaniards.

The leftist daily Die Tageszeitung believes that, while the news is optimistic, the Spanish government will now have to be even more adept in its negotiation skills than before. "ETA will demand a high price for having to destroy its weapons. After all, Basque independence from Spain and France was until now the aim. And there is nothing which indicates that this has been renounced." The commentator goes on to mention the comparison with the peace process in Northern Ireland, which ETA cites as a role model. "We remember well how for years (Northern Ireland) went through highs and lows, including continued bombings. Although the paper also sees the reconciliation as a triumph for Zapatero, it believes that peace with ETA is a dangerous basis for popularity. "Alone the threat of a bomb on the eve of an election would be enough to throw Zapatero's government into fear and panic." The paper concludes by calling for a united front in the Spanish government against the terrorists.

The right-wing daily Die Welt is clear about its attitude towards the terrorist organization: "ETA is not to be trusted," screams the headline of its editorial. The commentator draws attention to the fact that the separatist group has called a ceasefire more than a dozen times so far, only to later take up arms again. "ETA is still there. It may be weakened, but there is the danger here of unpredictability. Zapatero's government is doing well by keeping a low profile and not celebrating the offer as a success of their policy of communication." It is dangerous, the commentator believes, to draw positive conclusions from the announcements made by terrorists.

The center- left Süddeutsche Zeitung similarly asks if this announcement will be just another deceptive break followed by more violence, suggesting there will be a price for the Spanish government to pay. "Even though ETA has been weakened by the arrest of its activists and the banning of its supporting political party, the organization still has enough power to spread fear and terror." The commentator, however, does recognize that a chance for peace with the separatist organization has never been so realistic "even if permanent peace will, like in Northern Ireland, take a long time."

-- Damien McGuinness, 12:15 p.m. CET

__________________________________________________

Afghanistan's Duty

The religious beliefs of one man threaten are threatening to upset an already delicate situation in Afghanistan. Abdul Rahman could face execution under the country's sharia law for rejecting Islam and converting to Christianity. Rahman became Christian 16 years ago while working as an aid worker in Pakistan. His case was brought to the court's attention during a custody battle with his estranged family over his two children. Since then, Rahman's mental health has been called into question -- a suspicion not helped by statements he has made saying he accepts the death sentence.

United States President Bush has said that he is "deeply troubled" about the case, while Germany, Italy and Canada have all voiced concern about Rahman's situation, saying an execution would violate human rights conventions. It would also be a sign of an extremely conservative shift within Afghanistan, raising the question, some believe, of how much aid should still be going to Kabul. German commentators are divided on the issue.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung admits that threatening a man with the death penalty for becoming Christian is an uncivilized act and is hard for Westerners understand. However the commentator sees this as no reason to stop supporting the country with financial aid. "The West will profit much more by transforming a threatening terror state into a partner which can be counted on. This is a tough process, which will suffer setbacks and will have to overcome obstacles -- obstacles such as the trial of the Christian Abdul Rahman." The paper agrees that this is a provocation, but not just to the West, but also to the Afghan government. "The legal system is in the hands of the fundamentalists, who aim to swing public opinion against foreign influences. Extreme anger just plays into their hands by helping to weaken the government."

According to the financial daily Handelsblatt the uproar over the case is perfectly understandable, especially in view of the money and soldiers invested in stabilizing the country. However, the commentator goes on to say that our outrage shouldn't be too self-righteous. "Under the eyes of Western observers and advisors, it was explicitly decided that the constitution-forming Loya Jirga, or grand council, would use the sharia Islamic law as a base for its legal system" -- which allows such situations to occur, "whether that suits us or not," adds the paper. "But the case shows even more clearly how problematic and time-consuming the export of democracy actually is. Achieving democracy and respect for human rights is not something which can be decreed from above. Afghan society has to understand and want these rights." This is the only way to ensure that protests take place on the streets of Kabul, rather than in Berlin and London, concludes the paper.

The Financial Times Deutschland is much more blunt in its criticisms of the case, describing the sentencing as a scandal and a "slap in the face" for the West -- especially considering the money spent and lives lost in the Afghan democratization process. The paper views the situation as particularly difficult because any attempts made by Western countries to interfere will be a coup for Islamist propaganda, especially if "the West preaches principles like the freedom of the press and legal system on the one hand, but then wants to vociferously boss everyone in Kabul around on the other." And cutting back on aid is also problematic because keeping Afghanistan free is important for international security. "To pull out is a bit different than cutting back an unruly teenager's allowance." However this particular issue is resolved, the problem remains that "certain ways of interpreting Islam are simply incompatible with the principles behind most human rights. Punishment for turning away from Islam goes against all ideas of religious freedom; while the death sentence for homosexuality, as was recently called for in Iraq by the highly esteemed Ayatollah Sistani, cannot simply be put down to 'different strokes for different folks.'" The commentator concludes by saying that no matter how uncomfortable a process it may be, the West has no choice but to foster modernization in Afghanistan.