![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldIn yesterday's blog post on the failure of terrorism in Québec to survive through the 1970s, I mentioned that a major reason for the failure of the Front de Libération du Quec to survive was the fact that the people of Québec regarded their institutions as legitimate and democratic, and viewed violence directed towards people as abhorrent. Most members of most cells of the FLQ have been rehabilitated in public opinion, as my post illustrated, but not the ones responsible for murdering Pierre Laporte. Without a good motive, no terrorism.
But what about places where there is a good motive? I'm thinking particularly of ETA's assassination in 1973 of Spain's prime minister Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco. His death came about as the result of a massive bomb blast, so spectacular that it was joked that Blanco became "Spain's first astronaut", blowing him over a five-story building. What was the result? ETA's words are below.
And actually, ETA does seem to have been right. At the time, Time observed that "Carrero Blanco's assassination came as a severe shock to Franco, who for years had counted on him as his right-hand man. The Generalissimo had expected the dour admiral to keep Spain on a rightward course when he himself died and to make certain that his successor as chief of state, Prince Juan Carlos, did not fall prey to liberal ideas. But Carrero Blanco's rigid orthodoxy had made the possibility of violence as predictable as his timetable." As a result of this, Spain's transition to democracy could occur under King Juan Carlos, without a unified Francoist faction under an established leader like Blanco to complicate things unnecessarily and perhaps fatally, especially in regards to the nationalities. We all remember how the other soft-totalitarian multinational southern European state came apart so nastily after Tito went and no one was allowed by the establishment to lead that country into a peaceful post-Communist transition, right?
Might one agree with Martin Amis, then, that ETA's assassination of Blanco was a good thing, for Spain and by extension the rest of the world? It's tempting.
More, if you accept the above argument, do you think that there are other cases where acts of terrorism are not only justifiable but actually good for someone? Blowing up Hitler, say, comes to mind, or Stalin, or ...
Thoughts?
But what about places where there is a good motive? I'm thinking particularly of ETA's assassination in 1973 of Spain's prime minister Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco. His death came about as the result of a massive bomb blast, so spectacular that it was joked that Blanco became "Spain's first astronaut", blowing him over a five-story building. What was the result? ETA's words are below.
"The execution in itself had an order and some clear objectives. From the beginning of 1951 Carrero Blanco practically occupied the government headquarters in the regime. Carrero Blanco symbolized better than anyone else the figure of "pure Francoism" and without totally linking himself to any of the Francoist tendencies, he covertly attempted to push Opus Dei into power. A man without scruples conscientiously mounted his own State within the State: he created a network of informers within the Ministries, in the Army, in the Falange, and also in Opus Dei. His police managed to put themselves into all the Francoist apparatus. Thus he made himself the key element of the system and a fundamental piece of the oligarchy's political game. On the other hand, he came to be irreplaceable for his experience and capacity to maneuver and because nobody managed as he did to maintain the internal equilibrium of Francoism [...]".
And actually, ETA does seem to have been right. At the time, Time observed that "Carrero Blanco's assassination came as a severe shock to Franco, who for years had counted on him as his right-hand man. The Generalissimo had expected the dour admiral to keep Spain on a rightward course when he himself died and to make certain that his successor as chief of state, Prince Juan Carlos, did not fall prey to liberal ideas. But Carrero Blanco's rigid orthodoxy had made the possibility of violence as predictable as his timetable." As a result of this, Spain's transition to democracy could occur under King Juan Carlos, without a unified Francoist faction under an established leader like Blanco to complicate things unnecessarily and perhaps fatally, especially in regards to the nationalities. We all remember how the other soft-totalitarian multinational southern European state came apart so nastily after Tito went and no one was allowed by the establishment to lead that country into a peaceful post-Communist transition, right?
Might one agree with Martin Amis, then, that ETA's assassination of Blanco was a good thing, for Spain and by extension the rest of the world? It's tempting.
More, if you accept the above argument, do you think that there are other cases where acts of terrorism are not only justifiable but actually good for someone? Blowing up Hitler, say, comes to mind, or Stalin, or ...
Thoughts?
