This is a secret page in the sense that there is not a general link here.  It is meant for a posting of items as this committee works through various issues.  Please use your discretion.

Global Basque Association general page for all

Possible name?	Nombre de entidad?
"Zortziak Bat"
Zazpiak Bat is a motto coined by the Basque explorer Antoine-Thomson d'Abbadie in the nineteenth century, from the Basque words zazpiak meaning "the seven ones" and bat meaning "one", translates as "the seven ones [are] one" and refers to the seven Basque Country traditional provinces.  Don't you think that for the 21st century, we need an updated motto?  Many people of Basque descent live outside the Basque Country in the Basque Diaspora.  However, they are not usually associated with most Basque references; this popular phrase only embraces the seven historical regions. How about creating a symbol of seeing things not only vertically (us looking to the Basque Country) but horizontally (looking also to the Diaspora).  The Basque subtitle could be Euskal Erakundeen Elkartea (Federation of Basque Entities). This name and the concept would be readily understood by most Basques, thus requiring less translation and/or explanation and we could make an effort to raise greater awareness of the Diaspora's connection with "Basqueness."	Zazpiak Bat es un lema acuñado por el explorador vasco-Antoine Thomson d'Abbadie en el siglo XIX, a partir de las palabras vascas Zazpiak que significa "los siete pequeños" y 'bat' que significa "uno", se traduce como "los siete son una" y se refiere a las siete provincias del País Vasco tradicionales. ¿No te parece que para el siglo 21, tenemos un lema actualizado? Muchas personas de ascendencia vasca viven fuera del País Vasco en la diáspora vasca. Sin embargo, no se asocian generalmente con referencia vasca; esta frase popular sólo abarca las siete regiones históricas. ¿Qué hay de la creación de un símbolo de ver las cosas, no sólo en sentido vertical (nosotros mirar hacia el País Vasco), pero en posición horizontal (a  mirar también hacia a la diáspora). El subtítulo podría ser  Euskal Erakundeen Elkartea (Federación de Entidades Vascas). Este nombre y el concepto sería fácilmente comprensible por la mayoría de los vascos, y podríamos hacer un esfuerzo para lograr una mayor concienciación de la conexión de la diáspora con "lo vasco".

3/3/2010.  John Ysursa followup

Pres. Valerie Arrechea email message with a summary of the Argentina meeting:


Hello everyone!
 
Forgive me if this email doesn´t make much sense.  I will give a full report when I come back, but wanted to jot down some impressions and let you know what was happening.
 
The meeting was all day yesterday, with 7 countries participating:  NABO, Mexico, Canada, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay (individual club), Uruguay (the federation), FEVA.
 
We were alerted to some disconnect the night before when Uru (FIVU) began to tell us how this has been actively talked about and in the works since 2007, and we should know because NABO has always been involved.  Evidently some countries confused willingness to talk with this being a done deal.
 
The day of the meeting, Sosa pretty much wanted to run with the proposed federation (the one propoed by the bylaws he had sent).  Some confusion - many countries did not have much information in advance.  Most countries (including some of Argentina) feel as we do and were wary of that document.
 
We started by going around the table and talking about programs and issues in each country.  imagine a NABO meeting but in spanish.  Everyone has the same issues - focus on youth, problems involving young adults, influence of outside culture, etc.  Sosa summed it up and said essentially, so now we move on to the federation.  (side note:  John - he was ready to hand out the explanation you gave the delegates in SLC and what you have on the web as the official statement of NABO, saying that the agreement was that you would write the intro and they would write the bylaws.  We didn´t let him hand it out, saying that although there were some good ideas in that document, it was not the official position.)  We stopped and said - wait:  first discussion should be "is there a need for this, and how does creating something not repeat what we already have."   This was followed by a round table discussion on need, etc.
 
Broke for lunch.  Interesting observation:  everyone only drank water, with only a handful sipping wine.  I think Quebec was the only one to finish his glass.
 
Came back.  Again, Sosa wanted to assume the question was answered and move on to approving the bylaws.  We stopped again and said we couldn't agree to anything, and that the form of the entity would be crucial to if we could sign on or not.  This had much support from the rest of the countries.  Pretty much everyone had the same concerns, saying they were too rigid, that wasn't what they wanted and the courtship was going too fast - they weren't ready to sign anything.  (except FIVU and brazil, and sosa's team)  Were stuck at an impasse between those who wanted to move forward gungho, and those who wanted to know how this would happen before they could say yes or no. 
 
NABO decided that we better be the ones setting the stage instead of reacting and made the motion (seconded by brazil, expanded by Uruguay Hego Haize) that those here were in favor of forming an entity that would promote and facilitate the exchange of ideas between Basque entities and promote that which is Basque.  The world regions (divided into 4) would each work together to draft what kind of association they would be willing to participate in.  That information will be compiled, and another meeting will happen in the spring of 2010 to compromise and put it together based on what everyone is thinking.  No commitment to sign the finished product, only to agree to discuss and work further.  (regions:  south amer, north amer, central amer, and we insisted on Europe as well.  Sosa and Felipe were ready to leave Europe out.)
 
Everyone seems cautiously happy with this.  It is following the mission statement we discussion on the NABO level, but with now bringing everyone´s opinion in to how it should be formed.  FEVA wanted to be the ones to collect and distribute the info, but NABO, Mexico and Peru said no -- hitting reply all was enough.  We don´t need one country in charge of putting all the info together.  Speaking with people, we are all on the same boat.  Loose association, no money involved, NO POLITICS.  Membership will be an interesting issue, as some countries (URU for example) can´t come together.
 
The meeting ended with Celaya speaking to the assembly.  (they weren´t present for the meeting before and didn´t eat lunch with us either)  Interesting points:  he doesn´t forsee more than a 7% cut in grants to Basque centers.  Change in name to be directorate of collectivities and citizens.  Grants should go through delegations.  Rules will change for grants.  Had no opposition to the meeting that was taking place, but please make sure we were following the laws.  Spoke highly of his trip to the US and the armth of the people he met there.  Noted that US doesn´t ask for much money even though they are a large federation.

Preface.  At the Seattle meeting, Joe Lasuen of Mtn. Home correctly noted that I share responsibility for this predicament that we find ourselves in vis-a-vis NABO and FEVA. That is correct, and that is why I feel a degree of responsibility in trying to amicably resolve this.  After we informed FEVA (following the Reno meeting) that NABO was not prepared to move forward at this time with the association initiative, it appears that FEVA has decided to unilaterally move forward.  We have no real idea from them as to what they are imagining this new association to be (its purpose be it cultural or otherwise, how it will not represent needless duplication, etc.).
     I am pleased that NABO is sending a delegation to this upcoming meeting because I believe there are more plusses than minuses in this approach; if nothing else this represents a fact-finding mission on our part.  Instead of relying on indirect third-party sources for information, and various conjectures as to FEVA is planning, we have an opportunity to find out more and thus as NABO make a more informed choice of what to decide on this matter. 
     Unfortunately, it was problematical for me to take part in this Argentina delegation, but I am confident that our three women will do just fine.  I have prepared this overview below to provide context.

Timeline of NABO-FEVA communication:

2007
_Feb. initial discussion with former FEVA president Mariluz Artetxe about the possibility of some joint initiatives; each agreed to check off with membership.
_NABO prior to the World Congress proposed several possibilities including dance and Euskara; FEVA responded with the proposal to include the re-creation of CEVA or Federation of Basque Entities of the Americas. 
_July. announcement at the World Basque Congress of an intent to work together on some initiatives; at the Congress a meeting was held with Americas delegations about the CEVA proposal and some show interest.
__remainder of the year nothing else comes of this

2008
_After a long pause with no activity, NABO reconnects with FEVA and its new President Felipe about the possibility of meeting together in Argentina to follow-up with some concrete proposals of what might be done together; fall meeting is pushed to winter because of scheduling.
_NABO's focus remains on possible shared cultural initiatives; plans move forward to arrange a joint meeting

2009
__ Jan. meeting in Mar del Plata, delegates develop a plan of action proposal with the understanding that each would then return to membership for confirmation; at the meeting the narrowed focus of CEVA just to the Americas is questioned by NABO; counter-proposal is to widen it to all clubs around the world; the fast track for the association entailed getting together in Bahia Blanca (pending members approval). To read more click on FEVA & NABO Collaboration

__First NABO meeting (Salt Lake City) after the Argentina meeting the message is sent out to inquire about the level of interest among our members in the global association initiative.  There is no overall positive response though some express a willingness to explore the idea.  A teleconference makes some recommendations.  What remains noticeable is little or no interest in promoting this; instead there emerges more questions and concerns.
__FEVA sends proposed bylaws (see below) for this federation; awaits NABOs response.  NABO members response to the bylaws is one of caution if not rejection.
__Second NABO meeting (Reno) shows hesitation, and delegates move to refrain from participating in the October meeting in Argentina.

__Correspondence was between John Ysursa and Felipe Eiheragibel, the FEVA President.  Nothing in this correspondence hints at anything out of the ordinary; i.e., no news about what FEVA's response is until we find via third parties that FEVA has decided to move ahead with a meeting on this matter in Bahia Blanca. 
__Second (and third) request to NABO to send a participant to the meeting.
__Seattle meeting.  Delegates officially reject the bylaw proposal (at least at this stage until something more is known about what this is supposed to be about).  NABO agrees to send a delegation to Bahia Blanca.

GALBIDEGARRI: Potential wrong road?  There are many potential benefits to an international association of Basque entities, but there are also potential problem areas.  One such problem became very apparent with the recent N.A.B.O. foray to Bahia Blanca, Argentina, as it seems there was a dedicated group of people that wanted to rush through some kind of organization as of yesterday.  That confusion whether intentional or not, demonstrated a real problem that needs to be addressed vis-a-vis clarity of communications which was clearly not the case in this matter. 

Back in January 2009 then NABO President Mary Gaztambide & NABO Faciliatator John Ysursa agreed to return and sound-out members about the viability of a global association, to then follow up; the same was not understood by some folks of FEVA.  Succinctly, NABO operates from the bottom-up whereas FEVA operates more-so top down.  Some there in Argentina thought that since they submitted the bylaws, the next step was to vote on them.  After discussion in Bahia Blanca, the "slow-down" school prevailed and the matter was again re-directed to the initial inquiry stage.  We have returned to the two immediate essential items:  1) do we really need such an association, and 2) if so, to do what?

Another potential problem area is that this association might well be a lucrative target.  An umbrella organization such as this--if it were to come into existence--is going to be a magnet for some kinds of folks who would love to have a central mouthpiece for all the Diaspora Basques.  NABO has already received requests to make this or that statement, most all of which have been rejected stating that if one of our member organizations wants to make a particular statement, they can do that on their own.  Furthermore, as was noted at our last N.A.B.O. meeting, something like this appeals to some people's sense of gaining power.

Accordingly, it might be beneficial to consider some checks and balances to address these and other potential wrong roads.  Some possibilities might be to make this organization purely volunteer; i.e., no money or dues are charged.  Also stipulating that any such organization will not/cannot make statements on behalf of Diaspora Basques might be another necessary precaution.
 

ZERGATIK: Why a global federation?  Why not? Why not have an institution or apparatus that might be able to help provide access and integration: access to beneficial ideas from throughout the Basque Diaspora--from the local to the global--and a means of integrating and maintaining a consistent and strong means of communication. 

“You need a few people to keep the [Basque] fire lit, to keep it going, so that later on somebody else can pick it up.” –Jean Leon Iribarren

There are many people living outside the Basque country in the Basque Diaspora, who self-identify as being Basque.  It was this sentiment that inspired the creation of the many Basque clubs around the world.  Some of these clubs came together to create national or regional federations.  The proposal now is to take this same sort of solidarity to a global level. 

This potential association can be a place where those who choose, can go to light their torch--as stated in the quote above by Jean Leon Iribarren.  It can also be the means to integrate communications along the lines of the hub, spokes and wheel analogy below.

HUB, SPOKES & WHEEL ANALOGY This is not an exact description but it might help to explain the overall concept. The hub or center of the wheel represents the Basque Country (the historic seven Basque regions, the various governmental and cultural institutions there, etc.) The spokes represent the interaction back and forth between the Basque Country and Basques in the Diaspora (local Basque clubs and federations). The outside wheel is what the confederation would primarily work to strengthen and develop.

ZERTARAKO: What should this federation take as its objectives?  There's no point in re-inventing or duplicating existing institutions, but there is a logic to better integrating some of these and filling the gaps and pooling resources. 

NABO has previously joined with other organizations and federations in pursuit of common causes (e.g., NABO is a member of 1) the International Pilota Federation to promote handball; 2) the International Mus Federation in promotion of mus; 3)  Eusko Ikaskuntza to promote Basque education, etc.).  The scope of this involvement with these other federations is limited; the same is being proposed for this global federation.  Like these other associations, it provides an avenue for contact for those who are interested in that particular aspect of Basque culture.

This global federation could serve as a body of communicators; i.e., people in Basque clubs around the world who want to participate in the exchange of information and ideas, and the promotion of Basque events at both the local and global levels.   

NOLA: How would this operate? In an earlier time because of access and communication limitations, the only viable path to form a Basque organization was through local contacts.  Granted that distances remain the same, and the scope of interaction among Basques scattered around the world will remain limited, there remains some areas where a few shared initiatives could serve to animate Basqueness at different levels and among different ages.  Now with new communication technologies (e.g., cell phones, email, Skype, Facebook, etc.)  there are new possibilities of greater interaction and sharing of resources.  

There is an existing means of actually "hosting" this virtual community, and that is the EuskalEtxeak.net website which is by and for the Basque clubs of the world.

There are currently several initiatives in one way or another on the Internet.  It is our view that the world of Euskal Etxea not to waste energy or duplicate the same work.  We must coordinate efforts, and as far as possible, act to optimize our efforts.

The potential objectives would have to be modest in scope because of the logistical limitations, but within reason some initiatives could go far to strengthen local, regional, national and international relations among Basques--a boost in "Basqueness."  Some of these could be sponsoring an International Junior Mus Tournament on a periodic, rotating basis; sustaining efforts to arrange youth exchanges of dancers, pala players, musicians, etc.; sharing Euskara teaching materials and joint Internet events; shared educational materials, etc.

The President of FEVA (Mariluz Artetxe) and NABO (Mary Gaztambide) presenting at the IV World Basque Congress (July 2007) their intent to jointly explore some possible shared initiatives.   The original five areas of shared interest announced at the Congress were:  confederation of world Basque entities, education, youth, Euskara & dance.  At the follow-up meeting (Jan. 2009) in Argentina specific proposals were then formulated. Then these were discussed, and another meeting was held (Oct. 2009) to continue discussions.

Bylaws proposed by FEVA as a point to begin discussions about how to potentially organize an association; counter-proposals are for something less centralized and more loose.