Ethiopian news and information update

Note from Debteraw:

We reproduce here below a long article written by Jawar Siraj Mohamed assessing the journey of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). Apparently we at Debteraw do not share some of the assertions and conclusions of the writer .Yet, we strongly feel that the article by Jawar breaks the taboo of “no criticism on OLF” and encourages discourse and investigation. With this positive intent in mind, we present the four part article.

Failure to Deliver: The Journey of the Oromo Liberation Front in the Last Two Decades (Part I)

Tuesday, 28 July 2009 17:13 Jawar Mohammed

By writing this article, I understand that I am touching on one of the most closely guarded taboos, the untouchability of the OLF. I also understand that, because so many precious lives were sacrificed under the banner of this organization, emotions run very high at the mention of criticism. But I have the right and the duty to share my views and ideas regarding our movement. I have no intention to inflict any discomfort on any particular individual or group, I have tried to be as impartial as possible but if anyone is personally offended, I hope you will grant me forgiveness. The article touches on some of the most controversial topics in our politics; therefore, I plead with my readers to patiently and soberly look through the entire essay in order to get the overall message: Note: This is not a research or scholarly paper, it is purely based on my understanding of the issue from informal discussion I had with former and current members of the leadership, active and retired members, ex-soldiers in Oromia and abroad,  discussion forums, public gatherings and what I observed in Oromia over the past years. In this article OLF refers to all the three faction that are using the name, and the general criticism is fully applicable to all Diaspora based political organizations.

Introduction

THINK BIG! Wrote one of my heroes, a man who suffered years of incarceration in the notorious Ethiopian prison for the just cause of the Oromo people.  That man is honorable Ibsaa Guutamaa, whose book, “The Prisoner of Conscience” details the moral, psychological and physical degradation inflicted upon Oromo nationalists in Mengistu’s prison, is one of the most moving books I ever read. He recently, published an article appealing to all OLF factions to overcome their division and forge a united front. Although I totally respect his genuine call for unity, I must disagree with this hero of mine by saying that the OLF has been damaged beyond repair. The beloved organization of our people has outlived its purposefulness and continuing to cover up the wounds would cause more harm to the movement than benefit.

It has been years since OLF has ceased to be the pride of the Oromo people and has transformed itself to a source of shame and disappointment by facilitating disintegration, growth of regionalist sentiment and retardation of the movement in general. This essay is not a response to Obbo Ibsaa’s latest article; rather it is an attempt to present a case against wasting time, energy and resources to resuscitate an organization that will not likely benefit the Oromo anymore. I will argue that because of weak, undisciplined and incompetent leadership, through exile politics and a cult-like outdated organizational tradition, the OLF could not produce any result over the past decade, therefore brought its own demise. Furthermore, the destructive internal conflict has intoxicated the organization beyond any repair that plastering it together will further spread the poison into the Oromo public.

This essay is organized in four parts; the first part identifies the primary cause of the problem, which is lack of action, and the second part deals with factors that exacerbated the inefficiency of the front. The third part will make case why reforming the organization may not be possible and the last part contains suggestions for the way forward.

PART I : Misdiagnosing the Root Cause and Dealing with the Symptoms

Lack of Action: Broken Promises, Fabricated Accomplishments and Its Consequence

It’s common to hear words such as “Oromo people and OLF are one in the same”,  “OLF is the vanguard of Oromo people” and “the Oromo struggle is unthinkable without OLF”. These loaded words have been deeply engraved in our psyche that we do not even see how erroneous and misleading they are both to the leaders and supporters of the organization. If we just take away our emotional attachment to the organization and assess its accomplishment vis-a-vis its stated goal, we can see how wrong these words are. An organization, be it a business or political, must be evaluated based on it’s merit and practical accomplishment not based on how articulate its mission statement is, or whether it has taken up the right cause.

There is no question that OLF’s political program effectively reflects the just demand of Oromo people. However, over the past two decades, OLF has been in a downward spiral, despite the unparalleled financial and moral support it received from the Oromo public both at home and abroad, the organization cannot show a single achievement under its belt during this period of time. It has not freed an inch of land in Oromia, or had a single victory against the enemy. But by repeatedly and falsely convincing ourselves about the greatness of the organization, we supporters, failed to demand results from the leadership. Leaders, using slogans and excuses, instead of showing results avoid fulfilling their responsibility and taking accountability for their failures. The insignificant achievement of the organization year after year has produced low expectations. A nation that settles for mediocre gains ends up with no gain at all.

It’s a simple common sense that victory is instrumental in forging unity while lose and underachievement brings shame and disunity. When a company reports gain, stockholders are happy, and the CEO is rewarded a bonus. More investors will be attracted and the company grows. If the company does not make profit, investors withdraw their share which weakens the company and eventually goes bankrupt. The Oromo people heavily invested their property and the lives of their children into OLF, but they have seen no dividend from the organization over the past two decades. Failing to satisfy the public, instead of assessing their problem and coming out with solutions, the leadership of the organization continued to fabricate excuses about the geopolitical hardships, the changing of the international geopolitical dynamic and the uniqueness of the enemy.  Such excuses gradually became unacceptable to the new generation of students who joined the organization in mass in the last decade but to find out that the organization they once revered has been taken hostage by cunning authoritarian state, Eritrea.

When fabrication and exaggeration was not enough to quell the anger and frustration of the members and soldiers the leaders turned into labeling them as regionalists in order to isolate the dissenters and destroy the reformist push.  In turn the sidelined and frustrated officers also began grouping those from their own region as others shunned them under the propaganda of the establishment.  Primordial (preexisting) regional and clan affinities provide fertile ground for this kind of clique formation. Outsiders (Oromos who do not know the inner working of OLF), often make wrong generalization by looking at such clique formation by confusing the symptom, regional grouping, with the cause, lack of action. They fail to understand that to cover his own failure to deliver result, the top leader resorts to surrounding himself with  “yes-men”, who often happens to be from his own area but whose view by no means can represent the general sentiment of that particular region. The dissenters, who are the underdogs of the game, play in the hand of such leaders by creating their own regional power base. The establishment leader often wins the battle of propaganda because not only does he have the first strike advantage but also because he uses the entire backing of the institution, particularly the media. The end is obvious; the opposition leaves and forms its own faction.

For instance, it was quite common few years back to hear people complaining about Wallagaa’s sabotaging the struggle.  Such sentiment, in addition to misidentifying the cause of the failure, misses one critical issue. Those leaders who failed the struggle might happen to be from that region, but they do not represent the people of Wallagaa who never voted to elect them in the first place. In the organization, they represent themselves, but they form cliques to relieve themselves of taking responsibility for their action and inaction. Even if they were true representatives of that region, individuals not the people who voted bears responsibility for failing to fulfill their duty.

The following diagram is an attempt to summarize the life cycle of the crisis within OLF, especially over the past two decades

The diagram shows the wave of problems that develop within an inefficient organization that lacks action. Leaders of such organization often have to fabricate excuses or achievements in order to stay in power. But some members who reject the fabrication begin demanding tangible action from the leaders who respond by suppressing the dissent. As openly airing of dissatisfaction is no longer an option, secret cliques of dissent form.  So far, the problem brews only within active members. However the dissenters, overpowered by institutionally backed establishment, leak the information in order to expose the leaders. They do so to gain support and sympathy for their side. The establishment also leaks information aimed at defaming the dissenters. The public, who usually do not have the full picture of the problem, begin to contemplate conspiracy theories about the problem. Such often unsubstantiated rumors are always taken advantage of by the competing factions to strengthen regional/clan power base bringing the organization into turmoil.

Eventually, the organization splits into factions, followed by intensified competition to dominate the outcome. Although one dominant group finally will emerge, the chaos paves a way for raise of an illegitimate, unelected and polarizing leadership. Pushed out by the leadership, worn out by infighting and being fed up of nasty politics, supporters and members abandon the organization. This, coupled with wasted resources and destroyed lives, weaken the organization making it even more inefficient which brings the beginning of a new cycle.

As the two-way arrow shows in the diagram, lack of action and each state of the crisis are mutually interdependent. For instance, as lack of action leads to dissension, presence of dissension also prolongs inaction because of the time and resources wasted to quell such revolt and because the division weakens performance. Thus, if the leadership brings action, for example, a successful attack on enemy, not only will they satisfy the dissenters; they can also make formation of cliques unattractive and unnecessary. That is why I believe lack of action is the primary cause of the OLF’s perpetual internal turmoil, because action at any stage could prevent the problem from exacerbating. Once the cycle is completed, it is irreversible because the factional climate is so intense and personalized, plus members and supporters so polarized that rational, logical and conciliatory efforts do not have any space. The best that can be done at that stage is, for either of the faction to realize the root cause, lack of action, and produce real, visible and tangible result to prevent another cycle.

However, when this cycle is repeated, the damage to the organization grows exponentially. The OLF has gone through such cycles at least three times (IFLO crisis, the Transitional Authority split, the Change coup), and therefore one has to imagine how much damage and destruction it has suffered.  After these three cycles, I do not see any of the factions understanding and addressing the root cause. Even if they do, it is too late to revive the front, because the organization is so weak, its reputation highly tarnished and its credibility heavily damaged, that it will be impossible to engage in any meaningful action.

Therefore, before we move to cure a disease we must identify the cause, which in the case of OLF’s deterioration is lack of tangible result. Dealing with the symptom could lead us to subscribing the wrong medicine that can worsen the situation. Inaction is the primary cause of OLF’s demise, while regionalism, disintegration and factions are symptoms

Failure to Deliver: The Journey of the Oromo Liberation Front in the Last Two Decades (Part II)

PART II: SOURCES OF INEFFICIENCY

In the first part, I have discussed how lack of action perpetuated the crisis within OLF and damaged it beyond repair. I have suggested that growth of  regionalism and incompetent leadership are mitigating factors that are the by-product  of the chaotic life cycle of an organization that lack action.  Now I must answer the legitimate question. Why did the organization lack such necessary action to avoid the problem in the first place? In this part, I present three major factors that hindered the organization  from delivering the much needed action. The first factor, forces us to look back into the history of the organization and  understand that the front inherited deep and complicated political tradition that prevented the leadership from dealing the root cause. The second and third factors are new phenomenons that the organization faced during the last decade or so.

a) Inherited Destructive Organizational Traditions

OLF is a foster child of the student movement that brought the revolution; as such it shares some common organizational behaviors and characteristics with all other organizations that came out that era, such as the EPRP, TPLF and EPLF. Some of these characteristics are lack of political civility, sense of entitlement and the desire to control everything and everyone within the society they claim to represent. These behaviors are the result of the situation they came out of, therefore we must look at the social and political climate under which the student movement was created, formed and developed into political parties.

After the 1960’s coup attempt blew off the lid of “untouchability” from Harresillassie, students began debating and discussing politics, breaking the taboo of ” zim bala af zimb aygebam”- a mouth that remains shut has no worry for flies. However, the absence of any culture of political dialogue prior to that era means the young students had to deal with the highly charged communist theory without any prior knowledge about political civility that is essential for constructive debates to take place. Thus, it was common for discussions and debates to heat-up and name calling and fighting to ensue. Policy and ideological debates were assumed to be ways of differentiating the winner from the looser which usually led to jubilation and humiliation. Arguments were taken so personally that it usually resulted in the formation of cliques. Character assassination politics that have been too common among Ethiopian politicians has its origin to that era.

The situation got worse when the regime moved to suppress the student movement. To overcome the persecution of the security forces, the discussions and debates went underground, through formation of small cells, where secrecy was crucial. Those underground cells were the breeding ground for the already rife Abyssinian debtera culture of suspicion and conspiracy. The debtera tradition is one that is full of secrecy, conspiracy and backstabbing.  In that world, there are clear winners and losers. Concepts such agreeing to disagree and power sharing are unknown. If a group member disagrees with a view held by the majority, he was excluded from the cell and begins his own defamation campaign against his former friends often by creating new cliques. The underground world made it difficult to differentiate credible information from fabricated vengeful accusations. This created a favorable condition for individuals to falsely accuse those who disagree with them.

Thus, the two political parties that came out of the student movement, MEISON and EPRP, and the later ones such as OLF, were built by individuals who had their first political training on the chaotic campus and the underground world. The revolutionaries were known for fighting over nothing and suspecting everything. It is now clear MEISON and EPRP, although lead by some of the brightest individuals, destroyed each other practically over insignificant differences.

Founders of OLF brought good share of that political tradition with them, that one should not be surprised to find out that the leaders spend most of their time chasing rumors than developing fact based strategy. When the first power struggle broke out, Jaarraa was accused of conspiring with Somalia to spread Islam, and his team in return hit back by labeling OLF as a Protestant organization. If a leader disagrees with a person from Shawa, the accepted tactic was to tie him with the dead Gobana – a sellout, regardless of that person’s merits and records. This has contributed to insignificant participation and representation of Shawa in OLF – despite its numerical and strategic importance.

How people like Lencho Leta were  dealt with is  another example. Although he was one of the founding members of the organization who played critical role, mostly good but some unforgettable mistakes, after 1993, so many rumors, conspiracy theories and accusations were orchestrated about him. Some called him a sleeper agent, other accused of selling the cause to TPLF, and some  swore that he is not even an Oromo. Here is what is interesting, those ridiculous rumors were mostly fabricated by individuals who know the man from childhood, and never raised such issues while working with him for decades. There is no doubt that Lencho’s mistakes have played critical role in the disastrous encampment of the OLA, but he was not solely responsible. The remaining leadership embarked on the defamation campaign in order to  paint Lencho as a sellout and enemy infiltrator, then  blame him for everything that went wrong–so that they can be  relieved of  accountability. This tradition is so widespread within the organization that it has become the most preferred method of covering up issues and discrediting one another. It has also contributed to the infamous extreme negative reaction against critics and the common practice of outsourcing cause of failure by fabricating excuses. Never admitting mistakes and blame-game is a shared characteristic of all those organizations and individuals that came out of the student movement.

Before falling under subjugation, the Oromo had no hierarchical social structure, that all men regardless of their wealth or political role were considered equal. The poor and rich dined together, even the Abba Gada never received a bow from a layman. The Abyssinians were different; strict hierarchical division based on wealth, family and power were enforced.  Sense of entitlement was so strong amongst those rich and powerful.  The youth who established our movement was by large trained under such system that, although they rose against it, they could not completely free themselves from this culture of entitlement. This was clear from the very beginning as the educated were so elitist that they staged a coup against Jaarra Abbagadaa simply because they felt that he was not good enough since he had no “modern” education.

As the organization moved on, education as a source of entitlement was replaced by the years one has spent with organization. Although hundreds of highly skilled soldiers and well qualified intellectuals joined the organization, they were denied the opportunity to utilize their skills and knowledge to benefit the front. This has immensely contributed to the lack of effective leaders the movement desperately needed.

One of the main characteristics of the leftist organizations was their obsession to control every aspect of their society. They are so obsessed with controlling the mind. Such organization, who always claim to be the “vanguard” of the cause regardless of their popularity and strength, work so hard to make sure that their constituency falls under their absolute monopoly. The youth, the women, the elders, the religious institution and business are expected to be organized under the vanguard party. Information flows through tightly controlled, top-to-bottom structure.

The political forces that emerged from the student movement were led by individuals who worshiped Mao Zedong and Stalin , so they embraced such undemocratic, rigid and control freak organizational model. The TPLF today controls the youth, women and farmers associations, the church, the mosque, the media, businesses and almost every aspect of the Ethiopian people.  OLF, which claims to  oppose such totalitarianism, wastes so much time and resource to control the Oromo community association, the scholarly organization, Maccaa Tuulamaa, Waaqeffannaa, churches, mosques,  and the media including the Internet if they can. Unfortunately for OLF, the time when people accepted such control in the name of satisfying the vanguard, has passed as citizens are sick and tired of any kind of dictatorships,  be it individual, party or a state. Unlike Woyane and Shyabia, it had no state power to enforce its desire, therefore every attempt it makes to control civic associations has backfired.

In general, as the product of the 1970’s student movement, OLF has done so much for the Oromo people by challenging and destroying the Abyssinian cultural and political colonialism. Unfortunately it has also inherited all the evils of the Abyssinian hierarchical culture and the totalitarian leftist organizational tradition. As time changed, these inherited organizational and structural norms have contributed to the slow death of the front.

b) Exile Politics: The Reality Gap and Sucking the Energy Out of the Grassroots

When they left the charter in 1992, the OLF leaders abandoned their soldiers and supporters without any notice or guidance. The chaos and confusion that followed caused general breakdown of the command structure where rules and discipline were ignored, and some rogue soldiers committed unspeakable crimes against their own people, especially in Hararge. The disorganized and leaderless soldiers fell pray for the well financed and effectively commanded Shabiya-Woyane coalition that, despite the heroic defense by the field commanders, effectively removed OLA from its liberated zones. The organization that was believed to have some forty thousand soldiers was left with a small fraction of that, as many perished and the majority were rounded up and thrown to jail or just gave up. The blame-game that flared up amongst the leadership, soon after, further disabled the front from regrouping and hitting back.

Although OLF claims to be led by a National Assembly comprised of some forty or so people, since late 1990s, there is no single individual who resides within the Oromian soil. The vast majority of the leadership reside in the Western countries where they wage cyber politics while the remaining few have taken comfortable refuge under the wing of the Eritrean dictator.

An organization that has its leadership in exile cannot lead a struggle because of two simple realities. First, presence of a leader amongst his supporters and soldiers has significant symbolic role both in strengthening party cohesion as well as boosting moral.  It is morally indefensible for a leader of any movement, let alone, an armed front, to sit in a safe and comfortable place and urge oppressed and poor people to die. Soldiers and followers need a leader who can command them by example, by starving and surviving with them. The presence of a leader amongst fighters boosts their confidence, loyalty and commitment.  OLF leaders betrayed their members and the Oromo people by running away when the time got tougher, as a result not only did they lose respect but also numerous conspiracy theories were developed about the true desire of the leadership. Second, an exiled leader faces serious reality gap. Policies and strategies that are developed based on second-hand and heresy information are sure to fail. The political, social, environmental and economic realities of today’s Oromia are dramatically different than they were when OLF leaders left Oromia over a decade ago.

Departure of the leadership moved the center of the struggle from Oromia to the Diaspora. The more the leadership stayed away from the homeland, the more dependent they became on the Diaspora for support, which forced them to cater to their views and demands. Leaders prioritized  the satisfaction of the Diaspora base so the dollar would continue to flow that, they ignored the burning plight of the peasants in Oromia. An interesting evidence of  this  can be observed from the annual display of pictures of soldiers to arouse emotions and convince supporters about victories it had never accomplished.

A rebels’ success depends on how well its structures are intertwined with the people and land it fights to liberate. A rebel that is dependent on its mass has to continue to improve its performance both in expanding its control, and defend the peasant from enemy attack. Thus, the necessity of gaining material and tactical support from the peasants necessitates an insurgent movement to continue delivering tangible results. Since OLF leadership, in the past decade or so, did not really rely on the Oromo peasants, they did not have to fulfill their duty in order to survive. The Diaspora, who do not deal with daily abuse by the oppressive system, do not truly see the fierce urgency someone in Oromia feels. That is why, leaders and supporters of OLF who live outside Oromia rather derail the struggle forever than see their perspective views and faction lose this endless war of words. It is also important to note that even if all Oromo political factions in the Diaspora reconcile and united by some miracle, they cannot produce any result as long as the leadership remains in exile

Oromos must learn from the experience of the Tibetan people, that despite being the most internationally supported independence movement and  led by one of the most famous individuals  on earth ( Dalai Lama) , today they are not any closer to independence than they were fifty years ago.  By establishing an exiled government, the Dalai Lama effectively took life out of the movement, because running away, not fighting at homeland became the norm. In our case the exile- centered movement also made Oromians to wait for the Diaspora to bring freedom, which negatively prevents strong grassroots movements from emerging which could nurture potential future leaders. I strongly believe that he who is truly prepared to sacrifice for the cause must move to Oromian soil before promising any change. The Diaspora plays important role as supporters of the struggle, but must not be allowed to become center of the movement and suck out the energy.

c)       Eritrea: A Safe Haven for Incompetent Leadership and The Movement that Became Hostage

It is a public secret that Shabia played critical role in forcing the OLF out of the transitional government in 1992. After coercing the organization to encamp its soldiers, Shabia joined hand with TPLF to wipe out OLF. The egomaniac Eritrean leader miscalculated the prospect of using Meles Zenawi as a puppet to  build his war wretched state by exploiting Oromian resources. He mistakenly thought that eliminating OLF from the scene would allow him unconstrained access to the resources of the South. His ambitions began to fade away in front of his eyes, because his supposed puppets in Finfinnee turned against him after they consolidated their grip on the empire. Facing a certain defeat at the hand of the supposed puppet, which was using the entire human and material resources of the empire, Eritrea began to look for proxies, and at the same time OLF leaders happen to be in deep disillusionment that they welcomed the invitation to settle in Asmara.

Eritrea’s role in destroying OLA withstanding, there was  no strategic benefit gained by moving to Eritrea, as there was no landmass or water body that connect Oromia and Eritrea. It is common for an insurgent movement to establish a base in a neighboring country across the border but moving to Eritrea is like moving to Uganda.  It’s unthinkable to provide supply and reinforcement for the fighters across the unfriendly state of Sudan as it was proved to be when SPLA and Khartoum sabotaged almost all efforts. Therefore, I argue that there was only one factor that determined the decision to move to Eritrea, the safety of the leaders.

In addition to the strategic difficulty, moving to Eritrea created three major problems to the movement. First, it created disconnect between the leadership and the soldiers at the front. One has to be under constant eminent danger in order to fiercely fight and such quest for survival forces him to develop effective tactics and strategies not only to defend himself but also to expand his strong hold and move to the offensive.  When a rebel leader is on the field thus he is permanently alert and has to be engaged in commanding  and coordinating his force using strategies and tactics that were developed based on real time situations. The OLF leaders who reside in Asmara were not under such threat, and hence their survival did not depend on the success of their army but rather on the Eritrean government. The strategies and policies they devise were based on outdated information that it was often difficult to implement by the commanders in the field.  This greatly contributed to the failure of few attempts to engage the enemy,  that resulted unnecessary loss of life  and deterioration of  morale amongst commanders and soldiers who finally abandoned the field.

The second obstacle OLF faced by being in Eritrea was the fact that it provided the corrupted leaders institutions to suppress their dissenters. It is no secret that several Oromo students, journalists and soldiers who were critical of the leadership were thrown to the Eritrean jail or prevented from leaving the country for years. This was done to prevent such critics from exposing the corruption and inaction of the leadership.  The third yet most crucial effect of locating in Eritrea is that, it made OLF and the Oromo movement hostage to Shabia-Woyane conflict. The Eritrean regime’s wants to use the OLF as a proxy, therefore it had to effectively control the organization in order to manipulate any outcome of OLF-TPLF engagement as it was evidenced when it vetoed almost all of the negotiations, even those where OLF apparently accepted.  A strong, effective and active OLF that has its leaders outside Eritrea would have not allowed Shabia  to undermine the organizations interest. However, OLF’s chairman who needed Shabia’s protection even from his own dissatisfied soldiers was too happy to serve the former in order to survive and remain at the head of the organization.

Therefore, I strongly believe that relocating the headquarters of OLF to Eritrea was the worst strategic blunder committed by OLF leadership, and being in Eritrea heavily contributed towards weakening the front. I do not believe Eritrea will ever allow OLF to leave, and as long as it remains there, it will not serve the interest of the Oromo people

PART III: THE WAY AHEAD, Is Reform Possible? Can the Damage be Undone?

Several Oromos I have spoken to believe that there is still hope for reforming the OLF. But as I will show next, one needs to assess why past efforts aimed at reforming and changing the organization failed. By using the last two breakups as examples of impossibility of reforming the OLF , I will demonstrate that the organization has been damaged beyond repair.

1) Endless Transition: The Ideological Difference that Never Was

About eight years ago OLF split into two factions that became known as Transitional Authority ( TA) and Central Committee ( Shanee Gumii) -which  kept the existing organizational structure.  Although ideological differences were cited as the cause for the split, we now know that was not the case. As mentioned above, the organization suffered devastating defeat at the hand of the enemy during the prior decade because of absent, disorganized and sometimes abortive leadership, who wanting to clear their name from wrong doing began blaming each other.  It was this attempt to avoid responsibility by painting the other that developed into factions.

In attempt to defend their record and maintain dominance within the organization, the top two leaders began surrounding themselves with loyal cadres. Therefore, ideological difference, independent Oromia vis-a-vis Democratizing Ethiopia” was never really big enough to split the organization, it was simply manufactured to give the conflict an ideological face. By their own admission the TA faction  know that from the very beginning Lencho Leta believed in democratizing Ethiopia and hence this issue could not have become a reason for split decades later. They even followed him into the transitional government without any hesitation. The TA group took ideology as a major issue not because they truly believed in it but rather because they assumed that the OLA and the public at large supports the idea of independent Oromia, therefore they wanted to use it to consolidate support.

The fact that, although independent Oromia was a more popular position, the TA lost the battle to the other faction, confirms my believe that the internal conflict was a result of lack of success rather than ideology.  Frustrated by a decade of defeat and humiliation, the burning demand of the soldiers and the public,  who blamed the old leaders for all the mess, there was a change in leadership.  Dawud Ibsa, although a veteran within the organization was a new face, so the members and the public chose to take a chance with him rather than the TA that was dominated by the old guard. Therefore, the TA , despite its populist ideology and highly respected and recognized individuals, failed to gain significant support and eventually died out. Therefore, there is no doubt  that the cause of the 2001 split was neither ideological nor regional but rather a failure of the organization to deliver any results.

2) The Last Chance: The Leader that took  life out of the Front

The victorious Dawud group clearly did not understand neither the cause of the split nor  reason why, despite their unpopular ideology, they won the public support over their formidable foes. Hence they kept repeating the same mistake as their predecessors. Thus OLF under Dawud Ibssa’s leadership continued to fade away without any notable accomplishment. As leaders and cadres channeled their energy into destroying the TA, the true mission of the organization was ignored. However, the group came under pressure from the influx of young students who were eager to fight the enemy that forced them out of schools, but  they were dismayed to find out that the front had neither the structural capability, nor a willing leadership that can channel the energy of the youth towards constructive role. Once they were shipped to Eritrea and completed training their fate was to engage in hard labor at Mr Afeworki’s farm. This was unacceptable to the restless youth who dreamed of joining the vanguard in order to liberate their people. Those who demanded action were systematically silenced  by labeling them as enemy infiltrators  and then  making them disappear by throwing them to jail.

Nevertheless, the pressure on the leadership dramatically increased when hundreds of Oromo soldiers defected from the Ethiopian military and joined them. This had two major effects on the leadership. First, it increased expectation of better performance because, members and supporters hoped that,  addition of such skilled and decorated officers would reinforce and re-energize the organization. Second, the soldiers who came in hundreds have a deeply held personal grudge against the regime in Finfinnee  that they came to immediately engage in a struggle of payback.  Contrary to their statement, about their sympathy for the Oromo mass, and the accusations labeling them as Woyane agents, the primary cause of defect for those soldiers and other OPDO members  were the deep and personal humiliation they suffered under Tigrean domination. Therefore, for them the need for immediate re-engagement was not negotiable.

This fierce urgency of the soldiers strengthened those who were demanding more action. Unfortunately once again, the leadership took this as an offense to their authority.  Here  I would like to stress that, it is not that the leadership does not want to fight but rather they did not appreciate the fact that “outsiders and newcomers”  who do not have years of “jungle credit” within the organization could dare to tell them what to do. The result as we know is that, a new split occurred slicing the already deteriorating organization.

Although this last split was framed and did happen across regional basis, it is wrong to assume that regionalism was the cause of the split. As that of 2001, the 2008 breakup was caused due to lack of any concrete action since the then cabinet took power. The entire leadership was responsible for the failure as each of them were engaged in vilifying the TA group day and night instead of doing the job they were entrusted with.  When blaming the TA leadership for all misdeeds was no longer an option, they had to turn against each other and resorted to the good old OLF tradition of using regional affiliation to strengthen factional power-base and accuse the opposite.

3) Show me the Change! A Timely Slogan, Business As Usual

Last year this time, a grouping calling itself, Change!  emerged and promised to bring tangible result within short period of time. So far they have showed absolutely nothing that resembles change. In fact they continue the same old OLF tradition of fabricating victories, exaggerating reforms and most importantly engaging in a nasty war of words against their former colleagues. Their cadres who spend twenty-four hour on pal talk have been spreading the poison of regionalism just like the group they broke away accusing of domination.

From the outset their overtly hateful campaign against the great people of Wallagaa, whom they do not even know, has undermined their rather appealing call for change. Through their narrow and childish behaviors such ill-mannered cadres have shamed the glorious people of Arsi, whose unforgettable battle against colonizers  at Aanolee is a source of pride for all Oromos. Those cadres understand nothing about the “waadaa and hoodaa” of Sikkoo Mandoo. If they do, they would have known that the Arsi are waiting, praying and crying for that day when they would join their brothers to celebrate the end of subjugation and the return of Kaawoo Oromo. Their counterparts are no better as they shamelessly speak of Arsi without knowing that that generous and respectful people, who would never allow even a stranger drink water but milk in their house, let alone engage in a nasty low blow. Therefore, the Change group has failed to bring the much needed shift  in political culture and continue to make the same mistake as their foes.

The vast majority, if not all,  of the leadership of the Change group, just like the other two faction, still live in exile. Hence, their faction  is as dependent on the Diaspora as before. Therefore, their best accomplishment so far is having larger public meetings and a one-time flow of hard earned dollars. They clearly did not learn any lesson because the large crowd was there as spectator to see the new faces of the old organization, and it was the momentary hope and anger at the old guard that helped them generate such large sum of money. Neither the crowed nor the money will continue as the faction will not be able to deliver what they promised.

As mentioned above Eritrea plays critical role in sabotaging OLF and the Oromo struggle at large. OLF will not be able to effectively engage in fighting the enemy as long as it remains in Eritrea.  If the change group was serious about transforming the dormant organization into an active insurgent movement, the first thing to do would have been to leave Eritrea for the jungle of Oromia. Now their faction is as a prisoner as the faction they broke away from. Their actions, policies and strategies will be subjected to the approval of Eritrea, and from the experience of OLF under Mr Dawud Ibsa,  we know what a leadership that is controlled by Issaias  can produce. Therefore, I conclude that the change group can bring neither political nor practical change to the Oromo cause. They are as destructive and useless as their opponents if not worse.

4) Unity as a Slogan? Is Reconciliation Possible?

Unity is the most abused and deeply misunderstood word by Oromo politicians such that it has developed a negative connotation.  I am always amazed when people who spend so much time spreading false allegations, conspiracy theories and prejudicial assumptions preach about unity.  It is wrongly assumed that unity of the larger Oromo people is dependent up on the unity of political factions.  Such believe comes from the  deeply held dogma about the indivisibility of the front from the people. While consolidations of Oromo forces help strengthen the movement, their fractionalization does not necessarily dismantle the Oromo.

I have no doubt that the internal conflict within the front has traumatized our people especially those who reside abroad. I have heard of numerous stories about families, relatives and lifelong friends, who withstood together the suffering of Sudanese and Somalia refugee camps, whom the 2001 split had broken apart.  Our women who once consoled and gave each other the strength of caring for their family while their spouse were in the field have abandoned each other due to such highly charged, deeply personal and painful split. It’s such a traumatizing experience for children to be told , all of the sudden, that they could not visit childhood friends. It is shameful that disagreement over politics could destroy the bonding that was formed by blood and sweat and stood firm through thick and thin. The sad thing is that OLF leaders either never understood the magnitude of the damage they caused to the Oromo community, or they just did not care as long as their selfish and narrow interest were fulfilled. Hence, it was no surprised they repeated the same crime again in 2008.

I have noticed that those families and relationships that were destroyed in 2001 have gradually healed, often because individuals understood how unnecessary it was to choose factional politics over precious relationships. Many people just gave up politics in favor of family and friends, while others completely stopped discussing political issues.  Thus, I am optimistic that relationships that were ruined in 2008 will be eventually repaired as people realize how wrong it is to shun a dear friend in favor of some useless factional politics.

But, one crucial issue that must be raised here is that it was the incompetence of the leadership to deliver victory that led to the formation of factions, who spread their organizational poison to the larger public. Therefore, there is no doubt that OLF as an organization has been the biggest source of regionalism and other societal poisons. Any attempt to resurrect OLF will further worsen the damage as these leaders will have another chance to split again and fracture our people.

I do not understand why individuals who know very well how the effort of the “shanacha Jaarsummaa” and formation of ULFO could not solve the OLF crisis now call for another round of  phony and even distractive reconciliation effort. I am opposed to the idea of wasting time trying to reconcile OLF because 1) It will be impossible to bring genuine reconciliation due to the deeply held organizational culture, lack of a single concrete issue of disagreement and because Eritrea will never allow a move that makes the organization less reliant on it. 2) What will bring Oromos together, heal the wound and strengthen our unity is action and victory, and this  cannot be expected from the very people who made it impossible. Therefore, anyone who truly wants to unite the Oromo, must make the crucial decision and  move to Oromia;  be it through Bole or Bale. Fight the enemy either in the jungle or streets of Oromia, and I will bet my life that it will take no conference before all Oromos rally behind such movement.

PART IV: The So What Question: My Ten-Cent Recommendations

In this essay I believe I have shown the cause and extent of the OLF’s deterioration, and  how futile any attempt to resurrect it would be. I am sure that even those who agree with me will ask what I  might suggest for a solution. There is no simple and right answer that can be detailed in this piece. However, for a starter, I would like to suggest few.

For those who live abroad, the first step is to understand that their role in the movement is limited to the crucial role of supporting the struggle back home. This could be either in the form of material contribution or by being the voice for their suppressed brethren. But they must refrain from overstepping their duty and sucking out the energy from the home front.

The politics and resources of the Diaspora have been effectively monopolized by the OLF over the past two decades. Despite its failure to deliver any meaningful result, the OLF has used the emotions and aspirations of the people to collect millions of dollars. It’s quite common to see a taxi driver or a janitor give a thousand dollar without any hesitation.  Oromos have to stop investing their hard earned dollar to organizations that bring them no return.  Such investment must be conditional on results, excellence, progress and accountability.

Furthermore, the Diaspora, by funding competing faction, has been fueling forces of disintegration. If the Diaspora is serious about helping the Oromo movement, they must channel their support towards organizations and individuals who are operating at the homeland. In addition to systematic problem, the two Oromo parties in Oromia, remain weak because they have no access to the Diaspora resources that their counterparts heavily benefit from. By monopolizing the Diaspora, the OLF has systematically prevented those parties from tapping into the resources abroad. Who should be supported, one that actually is facing the hardship with the people,  and doing something no matter how small it might be , or those who have shown nothing positive but destruction? If one does not agree with the politics and methods of those organizations, why not finance the education of one Oromo student rather than throw his money into the fire that is destroying the fabrics of his people?

Similarly, those at home must realize that, there is nothing coming from outside to save them from the jaws of the oppressive regime.  No country or people have ever won their freedom by an exiled organization and leadership. The youth have to realize that they must write  their own destiny. No organization holds the key to the future. Organizations come, organizations die, and it is a matter of fact. They must face this reality head-on, and mobilize the public through grassroots movements to defeat the exploitive and ethno-racist regime.

The OLF has sucked in and destroyed the best and the brightest of Oromo student leaders in the past decade, this got to stop. Each young Oromo, both at home and abroad, needs to build him or herself economically and intellectually. This will help avoid the dependency trap many Oromos within OPDO fallen into. Economic security is essential for free thinkers and independent organizations, to this end entrepreneurship must be nurtured to facilitate the emergence of the Oromo middle class that is lacking today. We must get over the one-formula-fits-all thinking as our struggle requires multifaceted approach.

Conclusion

“Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.” Said the forgotten founding father of the United States. Our elders, the generation that drew the program of the OLF, the generation that produced Qubee, the glorious youth of the 70’s who paid the ultimate price to free us  from mental and physical bondage deserves our utmost respect. They will forever be remembered as the generation that saved the beautiful Oromo nation from complete destruction. We are their product, we are proud of being their successors. But it is a serious mistake for our elders to expect us to adhere to the same old ways of doing business, to not challenge and disregard what is inapplicable and unacceptable to the world of our time.  The OLF is clearly an organization of the past, its model, organizational structure and dogma is outdated. The front has outlived its purposefulness and it has been allowed to derail and distract the movement for too long.

My generation must write  its own destiny.  We can learn from our elders’ wisdom and experience, but this generation shall not be held hostage to the old days. This generation must free our people from dependency on exiled politics, a hostage organization, and incompetent leadership. Our enemy is weak, morally bankrupt, uses the most fractured military and bureaucratic structures.  It’s life is dependent on the cooperation of our people. We must make such cooperation impossible, one way or the other. Most importantly, our people today expects nothing less than excellence from their organizations, in this fast moving world, we must make our movement compatible, flexible and efficient as to utilize all opportunities to satisfy the expectations of the mass. Our people’s pride has been deeply injured by the incompetency of leaders who exposed the nation to laughs and ridicules. We will and we can change that, because today, Oromos from all angles of the land have been fully alert and ready to retake their rights back. Today, Oromos are sending their kids to school in millions and are leaving none behind. We, Oromos, have the culture, resources and determination not only to solve our problem, but also we can and we shall play the leading role in democratizing, stabilizing and developing the entire East Africa.  We must believe in ourselves, be true to our conscious and loyal to our people nothing and no one else!

Jawar Siraj Mohammed

Stanford University

July 27, 2009

Comments on: "THE FAILED JOURNEY OF THE OLF" (12)

  1. I am not an Oromo,
    In 1991or 92 , labor day holiday i had an argument with one of the Oromo supporter (a Ph .D) student of Chemistry at a University
    I said that in near future TPLF will round up your leaders and put them in jail and they will disarm OLF soldiers., He answered to me that i don’t respect the Oromo people. I told him that The issue is not about respect or not to respect. The issue is strategic mistakes that was committed by the OLF leadership. There were two things they could have done at that time to save themselves.
    1 To make sure all Ethiopian groups joined the transitional government than ethnic based groups only (TPLF, EPLF and OLF). TPLF lied at that time.
    2 They should have not brought their fighting force in the camp to be surrounded
    Solomon
    .

  2. Germame Neway said:

    It is very interesting article. I noticed the same theme even this writer repeats..bastardizing the Ethiopian student movement in general an the “radical left” in particular.
    The other thing the writer pointed out as the failure of OLF is not the fundamental flaw of its “colonial question” but its inaction,failure of , from the much needed action, delivering victory. What victory? the failure to create an independent Oromia?

    It is an eye opening piece despite all the detailed and seemingly anti OLF vanguardist politics, its ethnocentric tone and sentiment is OLFite.
    The writer surely will please so many neocons and neo-Liberals by daring to put the blame at the door steps of The Abyssinians culture and the Ethiopian student movement. The so called “Liberation Fronts”.(TPLF/EPLF) turned the country and people from the frying pan to the fire. Can OLF be different if it come to power? are they genetically different not to carry the virus of oppressing other ethnic groups. Or is it uniquely Abyssinian?
    In spite of some of its shortcomings which I do not agree, I enjoyed his candour and courage to write what he believes and proposes what course of action to follow.

    ETHIOPIA SHALL PREVAIL!!

  3. TewodrosGebrye said:

    Period of Great Confusion
    “Yerasua Eyarere Yesew Tamaslalech”. Really, I do not know the differece between the so called Opposition parties & the so called government of Ethiopia. All of them are almost “two faces of the same coin”. Primarily, all of them have orginated from the same school of thought. Secondly, almost all of the party or government heads are leaders for life. As my knowledge is concerned ours Ethiopia needs new generation who will sacrifies for the well being of others other than cheap personal gains or wealth. The last but not the least do not complain among yourselves. Anyways we all of us, the socalled opposition & self selected government of Ethiopia are in a period of great confusion.

  4. Demise Hailu said:

    The article is very flawed though a good input into the criticism of the OLF a movement that missed the the train first of all with its bankrupt settle colonilaosm thoey and rabid hatred for ASmharas. The person admired by the writer, Ibsa Gutema, is a narrow nationalist fanatic who wrote a sad book arguing that oromos should have benefitted if they had been colonized by Italy or the West!Lencho Letta nwas a stooge of Meles and Isayas just as Daoud (Frew) ibsa is now the tool of isaias Afewerki.I agree the OLF is dead.

  5. Aba Jaffar Aba Gobbu said:

    I think it is good to breake the “taboo” and say as it is.Even if some individuals, due to their own interest and problems run in to the jungle and declare war that is not “just” it does not function. If someone is jailed by the DERG or thebutcher of Addis, the woyane, no one could declare for independence of the Oromos.

    Oromos are independent like the others. The whole Ethiopia is occupied by mercenaries.All must be united to fight the sole enemy of all. NO one can liberate the Oromos. Oromos are not minority group. They are the largest in Ethiopia.

    Oromos can not exist without Ethiopia surrounded by foreign enemies. Oromos and others need more unity now than any other time. The unity among all Ethiopians is the only means of their survival.

    The individual who talk about separate organization only helps the enemy. OLF, if exists, must give up its dream and join other political oppostions build a modern democratic Ethiopia, under the rule of law, respect for each other. Oromos, amharas and others need each other for their survival.

    Ethiopia Prevails

  6. Suleiman Nassir said:

    Jawar is admitting the obvious and bring the show back to stage that we already watched the other day before. Its awesome when looking at unbending arrogance fall apart in the face of cyclic humilation. The writer stopped short of telling the truth – the madness that sought an independent Oromiya in the first place. I say he shall admit it and the truth will set him free.
    Ethiopia prevails

  7. The article is the antithesis for the possible Amhara-Oromo-Co-operation. Enjoy the following article:

    “Co-operation of Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters against fascist Weyane

    It was already written that Weyane’s leader, Meles Zenawi, has said: Amhara-Oromo conflict, i.e the historical face-off between Oromo and Amhara, is a unique historical advantage for Weyane to perpetuate its rule. He also said regarding the dialogue between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts within AFD, seemingly rightly, that it is a marriage between “fire and straw (isat ina ciid)”. It is really pity that these two BIG nations live in conflict against each other just caused by the hitherto ruling class of the empire and the sponsors of the ruling class aka European colonizers, the effect being the fate of both nations to live now under subjugation by minority group of Tigrean ruling class.

    Disregarding the hitherto Abesha ruling class, actually both Amhara and Oromo peoples were victims of European colonizers. The main conflict and imbalance of power between Amharas and Oromos started at the end of 19th century at which time Europeans had their programm of scramble for Africa. It is said that French colonizers used to move horizontal between Dakar and Djibouti, whereas British colonizers’ move was vertical between Cape town and Cairo. These two forces were about to confront each other in the Horn of Africa. To avoid the confrontation the British colonizers had to do their usual manipulation in Africa: choosing one ethnic group as a “superior”, and using it to suppress the others which they consider as the “inferiors”. They told the Amharas that they are “superior” semitics and christians who had to “civilize” the “inferior animist” Oromos and others in the south. They gave them weapons and helped them by giving military advice. So they controlled indirectly the area without confronting the French army. With such manipulation, both Amharas and Oromos became victims, since then both are not free. Amhara rulers being the ex-servants of the British (as suppressors of Oromos), both Amharas as a people and Oromos as the the suppressed subjects were/are still lacking freedom.

    Now a days Tegarus’ ruling class plays similar role as servant of American imperialists again to suppress Oromos and of course at the moment Amharas are as oppressed as Oromos. Theoretically now there is nothing which can hinder the alliance of Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo pro-freedom fronts to come together and fight for their freedom and democracy as they attempted in AFD, but still there are practical problems. Both need yet to learn to stop their striving for mere unconditional Ethiopian unity and mere Oromian independence without a union respectively. Amhara pro-democracy forces pushing for unconditional unity makes the Oromo freedom fighters only be sceptical for they know what the pro-democracy forces want to achieve with this pretext. At the same time the attempt of some of Oromo freedom fighters to forge independence without giving the possibility for a union and without giving a value for the benefit of a union among neighbouring nations makes Amhara pro-democracy forces to panic for they think that they will be driven out of Oromia. Such move of certain part of Oromo freedom fighters seems to be as counter-productive as the vehement wish of Amhara pro-democracy forces for unconditional unity.

    Beside that, Weyanes do manipulate this “difference” between the two BIG nations to creat more discord and make them fight each other. In order to neutralize such deed of Weyane, very important now for the two is to concentrate on the common agenda: freedom and democracy. If both come to their senses and rally behind these two ideals, the other two virtues they want to realize will be fullfilled indirectly: independent Oromia in an integrated (united) Ethiopia. Is this impossible? NO! It is possible if all nations in the empire will be free from tyranny, killing, and looting like what is happening under Weyane now. So our main problem now a days is the lording, killing and looting that all the nations in the empire do suffer under Weyane. The victims from the two BIG nations need to wake up and say together: NO to fascist Weyane!

    To achieve the durable alliance of the two forces against Weyane, the two BIGs need to forge one common ground as a common goal. I do recommend as a common goal: union of independent nations aka independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia as a result of a self-determination of each nation. Till now, it was very difficult to get a common purpose on which Oromo pro-freedom fronts and Amhara pro-democracy forces could agree. Oromo freedom fighters argue that Oromos must be free from colonization by any meanse and then build a union based on free will. Very few smart part of Amhara pro-unity forces argue that Abeshas are the semiticized Oromos and Agews speaking Amharinya and Tigrinya, so that Oromos don’t have to separate from their own, but they should bring the semitized Oromos back to their lost origin and Oromos should have an appropriate position in the politics of the country.

    Further more most of Amhara pro-democracy forces do fear the disintegration of the empire they did build. So they seem to do every thing possible so that Oromo freedom fighters never have an upper hand in Ethiopian politics for they fear that these fronts may opt for independence of Oromia. On the contrary, Oromo freedom fighters do all things possible to hinder the come back of Amhara pro-democracy forces to power, for they know what these pro-democracy forces are going to do: amharinization of the whole nations in the empire. The two BIGs simply sabotage each other’s succeess. As an example we can look at the political moves during and after election 2005. As CUD which is dominated by Amhara pro-democracy forces was almost on the verge of coming to power, almost all Oromo freedom fighters didn’t give support. As OLF was in its highest point of influence and forged AFD to be an alternative for power in Finfinne, it was Amhara pro-democracy forces in UEDF and other similar parties who vehemently opposed the alliance.

    This mistrust between Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters is the God-given opportunity that Weyane is using to rule over the country as long as possible. Unless these two groups come to term and cooperate against Weyane, all nations in the empire have to settle for the rule of Weyane not only for few years, but for many decades. I think the union of independent nations based on the right of nations to self-determination is a middle ground and can be used as a common purpose on which the two groups aka the two giant nations of the region can agree. Union of independent Amhara, Tigrai, Afar, Oromia, Ogadenia, Sidama, Gurage…..etc as a result of their respective self-determination and even the union including Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia (if they agree based on free will) is the noble cause for which all can fight together. Not accepting this model meanse unconditional separation of these independent nations as an alternative.

    The question to be asked is: do Amhara pro-unity forces choose to settle for this last alternative or should they be compelled to accept such fact as alternative to their refusal of recogning a union based on self-determination? I know Weyanes will accept such alternative of separation as soon as they sense that they may loose power in Finfinne palace. To compell Amhara pro-democracy forces to accept such a union based on national self-determination, we just have to demote Amharinya to be used only in Amhara region and promote Afaan Oromo to be federal language. Then they will see that Ethiopianity will not be equivalent to Amharanet (as it is now), but it will be the same to Oromummaa. In such a scenario of Oromummaa being equivalent to Ethiopianity, the freedom fighters will definetly start to be pro Ethiopianity against “ethnicity” and the pro-democracy forces will begin to defend their identity by opting for self-determination of Amhara people, so that they support “ethnicity” and reject Ethiopianity aka Oromummaa. This way, they can comprehend what it meanse to struggle for national independence with or without regional union.

    Till now certain steps have been taken by OLF to forge the common ground with Amhara pro-democracy forces and to kill Weyane in Ethiopian political history. The short sighted Weyanes who are good at winning battles, but can never win the war, think that Weyane is killing OLF by persecuting and massacring Oromos who do support OLF. But these measures of Weyane gave OLF even more mass support of Oromos, which it didn’t have till 1991. Further more interesting is that OLF killed not supporters of Weyane, but it took away the existence of Weyane in Ethiopia in a long run. OLF did this by taking two very important measures. In 1992 OLF denied Weyane the legitimacy it needed in Oromia. With this Weyane became the eternal enemy of Oromos. Weyane could have made OLF its partner and would have enjoyed support of all Oromos, but it formed OPDO and made its self alien to Oromo people. In 2006 OLF formed AFD together with Amhara pro-democracy parties like CUD and with that it took away the very important instrument Weyane used to rule over Ethiopians: designating Amhara forces as centeralist chauvinists and Oromos as separatists so that these two groups fight each other instead of struggling together against Weyane. Now this instrument is dead and Weyane is under attack from both Amharas and Oromos. Surely take it only 1 year or as long as 10 years, Weyane will die away like Isepa of derg. After loosing power, Weyane will be remembered in Ethiopia as bad regime as the Naizi is now remembered in Germany. The coming Tegaru generation will distance its self from Weyane and will be ashamed of this Weyane`s history just like the new generation of Germany is doing now regarding its forefather’s deed.

    Actually I do appreciate the effort of few pro-democracy Amhara forces, who are trying to foster the democratic unity of the region called Ethiopia. It is not bad to advocate such unity. As I understood from their hitherto writings, they do use both religious and poletical methods to promote and keep the unity. This is actually very dangerous combination, specially when used by one and the same individual. I advice them as individuals to leave one method and persue the other. The problem is that as a politician, one can persue the interest of the group he/she does support, e.g an interest of Amhara pro-democracy forces to keep the empire intact against an interest of Oromo freedom fighters to dismantle the empire and build a union. As a religous person, one is morally obliged to think inclusive, trying to satisfy both Amhara democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters, which will bring him/her in to difficult position. Otherwise in order to know what type of unity Amhara pro-democracy forces do advocate, they need to see the difference between an empire and a union. Amhara pro-democracy forces use the euphemy, unity, to mean keeping the empire intact. Just to put the difference in short, empire is “unity per force” and union is “unity per free will”. If Amhara pro-democracy forces are the believers of this second premise, then they also do risk that “the free will” of the people to be expressed in a referendum can lead to independence of nations without a union instead of only to the unconditional unity which they want to achieve.

    Other wise, it is good to see that there is also a difference between a unity and a union. The first is pre-modern, whereas the second is post-modern. In summary here is the difference between the pre-modern unity and the post-modern union. I don’t remember his name, but certain English scholar classified countries in the world in to three: 1- pre-modern chaotic states like the artificial constructs/countries in Africa, such as the Ethiopian empire, which Amhara pro-democracy forces seem to love, 2- modern nation-states like some mono-national-states in Asia and Latine America and 3- post-modern union of free nations like those in European union. So, Amhara pro-democracy forces should see that African nations, including those in the empire, are kept as pre-modern due to the arrangement made by European colonizers and this is still being perpetuated further by AU-dictators, who are dedicated not to change it. But we Africans need to leave the artificial nations like Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Djibouti, Somaliland, Somalia and Kenya behind and forge the productive natural nation-states like Tigrai, Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Hausa, Yoruba, Somalia…etc in order to be transformed from our present position (pre-modern), passing through the stage of modern status like an independent Oromia without a union further to the post-modern situation like an independent Oromia in a union with neighbouring independent nations, the most beneficial status which the Europeans them selves are enjoying now.

    I hope Amhara pro-democracy forces do not misunderstand my position by reading my point of view here. I am not a representative of OLF as some accuse me oft, but I am a simple private person who tries to think independently. There can be certain views of mine which may be the same to that of OLF, but not always. Supporting OLF unconditionally and helping it to be on power is not my goal. My goal is self-determination of Oromos which can lead to an independent republic of Oromia with a union of nations in the empire/region or to independence of all nations in the empire without a union. I know few Amhara pro-democracy forces do accept this first option, but many of them do reject the second goal. They do want larger unitary Ethiopia than the “inferior mini states” such as Amharai and Oromia. I am also for the larger Ethiopian union based on the free will of Oromos, which can be the result of a referendum. But I don’t agree with the idea of some Amhara pro-democracy forces, who do advocate for the unconditional unity of the empire, which is dictatorial unity. To forge the common goal aka a democratic union based on self-determination, we need the alliance of all Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo pro-liberty fronts in the empire against Weyane. I hope this is also the status, which some of Amhara pro-democracy forces want to achieve. This form of the alliance between Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters is the meanse to get rid of the dictator and the alliance can struggle for the union of nations in the empire as an END, i.e. as the goal to fight for.

    Some Amhara pro-democracy forces even, at least theoretically, do believe that the destiny of the Oromo people should be decided by only the Oromo people who live in Ethiopia and “who are also Ethiopians”. If they really believe in what they some times write, that meanse they are ready to leave the decision on Oromo destiny for Oromos. Then the question to be asked is: what will happen if the very Oromos they do mention as part of Ethiopians do decide against the unity which they want, but opt to build the independent state of Oromia without a union? Do Amhara pro-democracy forces accept it and move on or do they fight against it? Further more, the pro-democracy forces should be clear on the type of unity they want to forge. Union based on free will or unity based on force? Those who do advocate unity by force have their own arguements. Specially it is interesting to read that some of them are trying to instrumentalize the present American politics in order to push for the success of their own type of unity, which is again an euphemy for keeping the empire. They do say just as American union was saved by force, we will struggle to save Ethiopian union. Can’t their “intellectual” mind grasp the difference between the two “unions”? America is the land of immigrants being melted together to take the American identity speaking only English. Do they want all the native “Ethiopian” nationalities be melted to take such uniformity and speak only Amharinya?

    As far as I know, even the most liberal movement aka Ginbot-7 advocates unconditional Ethiopian unity, which is not the goal of the Oromo freedom fighters and not the wish of other oppressed people who do fight for self-determination of nations. I am not against Ethiopian union based on free will of all nations, but I am against forced unity of any kind, which disregards the free will of nations like Oromo. If Ginbot-7 wants an alliance of purpose with Oromo freedom fighters like OLF, I just suggest that it accepts a union based on self-determination of nations as a common denominator, instead of talking about the unconditional unity. I also read that G.-7 is calling for an alliance of all Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo pro-liberty fronts as a meanse to get rid of Weyane. I do accept this attempt, but my concern and the question I would like to ask is: alliance of whom against Weyane?

    As I understood till now, Ethiopian politics is kept in balance due to a fighting between the following three blocs: 1- the bloc of the governing Weyane domination force; 2- the bloc of the so called “unity forces”, who do fight to keep the empire intact. This bloc does use different tactics in the name of democracy, but its message is simple and clear: save the empire from disintegration; 3- the bloc of freedom fighters of all oppressed nations in the empire, who do first want to be liberated from the system of domination before trying to talk about unity. For this group, Ethiopian union must be only the result of self-determination of all nations in the empire. When Amhara pro-democracy forces do talk about alliance against Weyane, do they mean alliance of only political and civic organizations in the second bloc? Or do they also want to include those in the third block? As I understood from the rhetoric of G-7 leaders till now, they already put a precondition for the alliance to be forged against the first bloc aka Weyane: i.e accepting Ethiopian unity unconditionally! With this precondition, they seem to exclude those in the third bloc such as OLF, ONLF SLF…etc, who want to achieve a self-determination for their respective nations. In order to include the third bloc in to the alliance they want to forge against Weyane, G-7 people need to change this precondition and they should try to find a common denominator with the third bloc.

    I think the only common denominator can be acceptance of a union based on self-determination of nations. If G-7 activists are democrats in practice as they do say always, I hope they will accept this. Nations should decide on their own destiny based on free will, be it for an independence with in a union or for an independence without a union. Does their rhetoric about democracy include such demand of peoples to decide on their destiny? Or are they the smart unitarist foxes in sheep’s skin? Or are some of them just naive poleticians, being instrumentalized to fullfill the intention of the extremists, who want to restore their domination at any cost? I hope Amhara pro-democracy people will think and act independently from the hitherto extremist minded chauvinist conservatives.

    The two positions, i.e the position of Amhara pro-democracy forces (unconditional unity) vs the position of Oromo pro-liberty fronts (union based on free will) should be discussed and debated before attempting to forge an alliance against Weyane. Even when nations give their vote to independence with in a union, then it is mandatory to decide secondly on which type of federal arrangement to be accepted as suitable. Amhara pro-democracy forces are advocators of geography based federalism in contrast to a language based federalism (“ethnic federalism”), which is preferred by most of the freedom fighters. As “democrats”, all of them can live accepting the winner per public verdict. This is what UDJ wanted to achieve in Medrek (FDD) . Actually UDJ got what it intended to achieve: §39 is rejected and if Medrek wins the next election, the issue of the type of federation will be decided by the public verdict. Here it seems the federalist Oromo parties in Medrek lost in the compromise solution. They didn’t insist to achieve the right of Oromo nation to self-determination and even they compromised the further existence of Oromia because of the fact that if geography based federation wins, Oromia will be dismantled.

    The acceptance of unconditional Ethiopian unity by federalist Oromo parties in Medrek is like making a compromise on one’s own wife, who is being raped daily by a neighbour bully. If a certain bully from a neighbour goes in to some body’s hause and rape daily the wife of his helpless neighbour infront of her husband, the helpless man can only beg the bully to reduce the rape action to help his wife get less pain. If the bully agrees to come every other day instead of every day, that is the success for the helpless man. That is what Oromo parties in Medrek did achieve by not insisting on the right of Oromo nation to self-determination, but just only accepting the demand of Abeshas for unconditional Ethiopian unity. They are simply helpless vis a vis the well armoured Abesha domination forces.

    Now the question to be directed to Amhara pro-democracy forces is: can’t they extend this philosophy they do apply for deciding on which type of federation, based on public verdit as agreed in Medrek, also to the arguement: independence with in a union vs independence without a union? Doesn’t this require self-determination of nations to decide on which type of sovereignity peoples/nations can have? Can’t they imagine that the public can also decide on this issue per a referendum (public verdict)? Doesn’t their democracy rhetoric include this option? Can’t they accept and live, if certain public decides for independence without a union? Or do they go to the forest and fight for the union they want to see? As I heard till now, G.-7 didn’t even decide on the issue regarding which type of federation to support.

    Amhara pro-democracy forces should not understand me as if I am against a union. I do support a union, when it is based on free will. My question to them is again just as UDJ accepted the principle of public verdict on the decision regarding geography based federation vs language based federation, can’t they just in principle accept that people also should decide regarding the type of sovereignity they want to have aka independence with in a union or independence without a union? Concerning the benefit/cost discussion in cmparing the two types of sovereignities, all the stakeholders of course can try to convince the public so that the majority do accept their respective wish before voting. Amhara pro-democracy forces can advertise for the advantage of a union and the pro-liberty fronts can talk about the importance of an independence. Of cource the compromise and the common ground for both groups can be national independence with in regional union, which can be advocated by both forces if they make a consensus on it. Then the alliance of both forces can try to convince the public about the importance and benefit of this common goal aka union of independent nations. At last the public should decide which to prefer.

    Yet interesting is to read that some of Amhara pro-democracy forces fear that peoples can be brain washed and vote against their own interest. It is simply wrong to think that peoples decide against their own interest. If they do mistakenly vote against their own interset like the Americans elected Mr Bush by mistake, let it be. That is also part of democracy! Do Amhara pro-democracy people want that certain force should have been raised and prevented this election of Mr Bush or do they want that, just like Meles Zenawi did, certain forcefull person would have taken away the victory and declare him self the winner? During elections, informing the public before making the decision is some thing good, but just taking away this possibility of decision making from the people is undemocratic. So my message to Amhara pro-democracy forces is that there is no half backed democracy. Either they accept it as it is, including the right of nations to self-determination or they just stop acting like a pope of democracy and they should stop condemning those who are undemocratic, for it is known that they can be also the same or even worse if they get the chance to be in power. If they do reject such simple right of nations being an oppostiion, it is imaginable what they can do if they get power: they may do worse than what Meles is doing now.

    That the concerned people may be brain washed by interest groups to vote against their own interest is the reality we have to live with. All nations do have our own interest and each of us want to convince people that our respective position is right. By the way, why should we call it brain washing instead of calling it convincing? It is about influencing people, be it this way or that way. In America, the evangelicals were convinced and were successfull with Mr Bush and now the quasi-socialists are successfull with Mr Obama. Where is brain washing? It is about convincing the majority. The one who won the hearts and minds of the majority was the victor. In the free and fair competition, for Amhara pro-democracy forces who struggle for unity, there is the same chance to that of Oromo pro-liberty fronts (advocators of a union as a result of self-determination). Their freedom of choice is mutually respected.

    But regarding those dictatorial unifiers who are advocating unconditional unity without the option for a public verdict, it should be known that they do take the freedom of Oromo pro-liberty fronts by advocating their position. For example, when they say “be Ethiopia andinet lay anideraderim!”, they are sending the message: you either accept this andinet or we will deal with you. They don’t say, we advocate for Ethiopian unity and then let the public decide. Their approach is arrogant, dictatorial and uncompromising! To such people, Oromo pro-liberty fronts also should say: “be Oromia netsanet lay anideraderim”. Now how can two groups who say “anideraderim” deal with each other democratically? The only solution will be bullet, as it has been till now. Till now the pro-unconditional-unity dictatorial forces won for the last 150 years and they “united” us by force. The freedom fighters call this as colonization, for it is not a union based on free will. Some people with similar ideology (Weyane seems to be so) do now want to continue the status quo at gun point. That is why others dare to say: such forces are not open for the lasting solution, but they are still the causes for the misery in the Horn region.

    The question yet to be answered is again: do we see any possibility and any common denominator for an eventual alliance between the above mentioned bloc of unity forces and bloc of freedom fighters against Weyane’s camp? I suggested that the only common denominator is acceptance of a common strategical goal aka a union based on nations’ right to self-determination.

    In relation to this common denominator, we can classify the current political organizations in Ethiopia in to the following three roups: 1- on the right side are ethio-nationalists, who want to see Ethiopia with uniformily amharanized one people; they are geogeraphy based federalists who do advocate for democratic federal Ethiopia where there will be no visible danger for future distintegation, they actually plan to get rid of national areas like Oromia; 2- in middle are ethno-federalists aka language based federalists, who are usually known as ethnic federalists. They want to see autonomous nations like Oromia determining their fate in their national area, but this group does exclude the right of nations to self-determination per a referendum; 3- on the left side are ethno-nationalists, who want to excercise the right of nations to self-determination to forge a sovereign, independent republics of their national areas like independent gadaa republic of Oromia with in a union or without a union of nations in the empire/region.

    I think the position of OLF is the third one i.e self-determination of Oromo people per a referendum which can lead either to language based federation (a union of independent nations) or to independent gadaa republic of Oromia without a union. Now coming to the call for alliance by G-7, I think it is the alliance of all these three groups, who can agree on establishing federal democratic Ethiopia per public verdict to decide firstly on the type of sovereignity: YES to a union vs NO to a union and then if the choice is YES, secondly to decide on the type of federation: language based federation vs geography based federation. OLF can be part of such alliance for its vision of Oromo’s right to self-determination leading to an independence with in a union or to an independence without a union based on a referendum among Oromos will be accepted and respected.

    Also in the Oromo liberation camp now a days there are three tendencies or directions: 1- ethiopianist Oromos rallying behind UDJ/G-7 seem to claim that Ethiopia belongs to Oromos or Oromos belong to Ethiopia and they say we have to fight for freedom of all Ethiopians from any sort of domination, exploitation and subjugation. They are not against Afaan Oromo beside Amhyarinya to be a working language of federal government as it is a language of the majority. This group of Oromos are smart to claim some of Oromos’ right in a diplomatic way. 2- federalist Oromos like those rallying behind OFC (OFDM & OPC) are supporters of the language based federation, they want to see Oromia having its autonomy and its limited sovereignity, but this group don’t dare to push for the right of Oromos to self-determination, instead they seem to accept the unconditional unity of the empire. Other wise they say other regions can be devided if they want to forge geography based federalism, but this is not the vision of Oromos and should not be the fate of Oromia. They look at the geography based federalism as a plot to dismantle Oromia. That is why I do ask: can G-7 get support of this group? 3- oromianist national Oromos include all Oromos rallying behind their different liberation fronts, specially behind OLF and they want to achieve a self-determination of Oromo people leading to either an independence of Oromia with in a union or an independence without a union based on the outcome of a referendum among Oromos.

    I hope the right oriented ethio-nationalists, who want to stablish Ethiopia with geography based federalism and the middle positioned ethno-federalists, who want to establish a democratic Ethiopia with language based federalism or with the assymetric federalism (having both mononational states like Oromia and multinational states like SNNP at a time) will give up their respective positions and they join the left oriented ethno-nationalists, who want to liberate their respective national area and simultaneously forge a union of independent nations based on free will expressed in their self-determination. To be clear, neither the vision to dismantle Oromia nor the intention to dismember Ethiopia per force can lead to the lasting unity, which Amhara pro-democracy forces want to see. So I hope we can bring all the stakeholders to rally behind the common goal of building language based federation or a union of independent nations based on self-determination as a compromise solution.

    Just as some of Amhara pro-democracy forces seem to love the name Ethiopia, some Oromos do suspect that this group does hate to see Oromia existing. When I do hear and read the persistent rhetoric of G-7 leaders talking that acceptance of Ethiopian unity is the precondition for the alliance they want to forge, I can just conclude that G-7 is simply an araada version of the notorious chauvinists! They do exhibit the arrogant stand of “my way or high way”, which doesn’t promot the Ethiopian unity they actually want to realize. I do believe that the only viable Ethiopian unity should come from the free will of nations in the empire through self-determination. Otherwise these people in G-7 can strive as long as they want, they can never win the hearts and minds of Oromos and all other self-concsious oppressed nations (excluding the mental slaves who are already acting to be more Abesha than the native Abeshas).

    Good is that G-7 fights against Weyane, but it seems to make no constructive compromise to build an alliance with Oromo freedom fighters. With that it already made a big obstacle even for unity forces. Intentionally or unintentionally it is against the cause it seems to fight for. Sure is that its bloc of unity forces can not win against both the first (Weyane forces) and the third blocs (bloc of freedom fighters), who actually do have a potential to build a strategical alliance against the second bloc of unity forces. Those forces in the second bloc should remember that they lost the struggle in 2005 not only because of the action of Weyane, but also because of the support they lost from Oromos and other oppressed nations. As an e.g OFDM and UEDF abandoned the alliance at the last minute, as they observed the danger CUD might bring even by reversing the fake language based federation of Weyane, in which at least a limited cultural autonomy of nations is respected, if it comes to power.

    Now G-7 seems to do the same mistake. That is why I dare to say, these people in G-7 are either naive politicians or implants to sabotage the intention of Amhara unitiy forces, for their approach at last leads not to Ethiopian unity. If they realy want a lasting Ethiopian unity, they have to agree to accept the verdict of the people. When the time comes, they can advocate for the unity they do believe in, others will advertise the independence of their respective nation, then let us leave the result for the people to decide. That is what we call the right to self-determination. Further more if the parties in the alliance make a consensus to forge a union of independent nations from the very beginning, all can propagate together their common vision and allow the public to either accept or reject it. If this is the view of Amhara pro-democracy forces, there will be nothing to quarell on with Oromo freedom fighters. Let the people decide firstly on the type of sovereignity regarding independece with in a union vs independence without a union and then secondly after deciding for independece with in a union based on free will, people can yet decide on the type of federation we will have: language based federalism vs geography based federalism. If this is the view of the bloc of unity forces, there is no hinderance for the possible alliance with the bloc of liberation fronts against the bloc of the ruling party aka fascist Weyane.

    Other names for the language based federalism used by different autors on this topic are: internal self-determination, national independence with regional union, self rule with shared rule, national self determination with multi-national democracy, unity with liberty, union of independent nations, united states of Ethiopia, genuine ethnic federalism, autonomous nations in a federated Ethiopia, independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia…etc. Can this independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia be fact or it remains to be fancy? To comprehend this, let’s look at the following facts.

    Concentrating only on Oromo nation, Oromos’ political move against Weyane is to be grouped roughly in to three: 1- the struggle for individual freedom and democracy in Ethiopia disregarding the national self-determination of Oromos. Amharanized Oromos like those rallying behind UDJ/G-7 belong to this group; 2- the struggle for freedom and democracy including internal self-determination of Oromos (autonomous Oromia) in Ethiopian context, i.e accepting Ethiopian unity unconditionally. Oromos in OFDM and OPC seem to belong to this categorie; 3- the struggle for independent gadaa republic of Oromia (external self-determination of Oromos) either with a union or without a union of nations, which is represented by Oromos supporting OLF and ULFO. After many years of struggle, now the trend is towards consolidating the struggle in a coordinated move of the three groups. People in the first group started to recognize that ignoring the right of Oromos to self-determination is no more possible because of the irreversible growth of Oromo nationalism to demand self-rule of Oromia. Politicians in the second group started to believe that they can not make elite-determination on the fate of the nation, at last self-determination will be demanded by Oromo people be it this way or that way, what ever time it may take. Those in the third group have learned to accept the second option as the temporary compromise solution, of course leading lately to self-determination deciding on an independence of Oromia, whether to be with in a union or without a union.

    If rightly excercised, the genuine ethnic federalism aka the independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia based on free will is the good common ground for both Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters. Therefore if G-7 gives up its stand of having Ethiopian unity as a precondition for the possible alliance, the move of G-7 and OLF to struggle together for freedom and democracy in Ethiopia is very smart and timely. Yet the two organizations need to build a middle way compromise solution to their apparently irreconcilable goals (OLF struggles for independent Oromia and G-7 wants to achieve an integrated Ethiopia). I think any alliance similar to AFD is the best way to self-determination of Oromos as a nation and to the democratization as well integration of the resulting union of nations in Ethiopia/Horn as a region (national independence with in regional union). The result will be independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia. This is not just a fancy, but a fact which can be realized

    Last but not least, I would like to say: no empire in history has ever changed through reforms. It was only the fall of empires that could set nations free. For democratic Oromia and union of nations in Ethiopia to be realized, the Ethiopian empire must end and then Ethiopian union can be forged. Sovereignty of Oromians over their country should be recognized. All nations in the empire, big or small, should have equal rights to national self determination. It is only if they are free that they can decide on their destiny. At the end, peoples of the empire and many more can join in a union if they want so. There should be no other nation to decide on the fate of the others, as Amharas tend to do. The same is true for all nations in Africa. Then even there will be a possibility for a united sate of Africa to be established based on the free will of its entire nations and peoples. Even the two Abasha nations, that have never had a say in the way they were governed, will get the opportunity to excercise their own self-determination and elect leaders of their own choice freely. As long as national domination persists, the struggle to liberate the dominated nations and peoples of Africa shall continue.”

  8. Co-operation of Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters against fascist Weyane

    It was already written that Weyane’s leader, Meles Zenawi, has said: Amhara-Oromo conflict, i.e the historical face-off between Oromo and Amhara, is a unique historical advantage for Weyane to perpetuate its rule. He also said regarding the dialogue between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts within AFD, seemingly rightly, that it is a marriage between “fire and straw (isat ina ciid)”. It is really pity that these two BIG nations live in a conflict against each other just caused by the hitherto ruling class of the empire and by the sponsors of the ruling class aka the European colonizers, the effect being the fate of both nations to live now under the subjugation by minority group of the Tigrean ruling class.

    Disregarding the hitherto Abesha ruling class, actually both the Amhara and Oromo peoples were victims of the European colonizers. The main conflict and imbalance of power between the Amharas and Oromos started at the end of 19th century at which time the Europeans had their programm of scramble for Africa. It is said that the French colonizers used to move horizontal between Dakar and Djibouti, whereas the British colonizers’ move was vertical between Cape town and Cairo. These two forces were about to confront each other in the Horn of Africa. To avoid the confrontation the British colonizers had to do their usual manipulation in Africa: choosing one ethnic group as a “superior”, and using it to suppress the others which they consider as the “inferiors”. They told the Amharas that they are “superior” semitics and christians who had to “civilize” the “inferior animist” Oromos and others in the south. They gave them weapons and helped them by giving military advice. So they controlled indirectly the area without confronting the French army. With such manipulation, both the Amharas and the Oromos became victims, since then both are not free. The Amhara rulers being the ex-servants of the British (as suppressors of the Oromos), both the Amharas as a people and the Oromos as the the suppressed subjects were/are still lacking freedom.

    Now a days the Tegarus’ ruling class plays similar role as servant of the American imperialists again to suppress the Oromos and of course at the moment the Amharas are as oppressed as the Oromos. Theoretically now there is nothing which can hinder the alliance of the Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo pro-freedom fronts to come together and fight for their freedom and democracy as they attempted in AFD, but still there are practical problems. Both need yet to learn to stop their striving for mere unconditional Ethiopian unity and mere Oromian independence without a union respectively. The Amhara pro-democracy forces pushing for unconditional unity makes the Oromo freedom fighters only to be sceptical for they know what the pro-democracy forces want to achieve with this pretext. At the same time the attempt of some of Oromo freedom fighters to forge independence without giving the possibility for a union and without giving a value for the benefit of a union among neighbouring nations makes the Amhara pro-democracy forces to panic because of their thinking that they will be driven out of Oromia. Such move of certain part of the Oromo freedom fighters seems to be as counter-productive as the vehement wish of the Amhara pro-democracy forces for unconditional unity.

    Beside that, Weyanes do manipulate this “difference” between the two BIG nations to creat more discord and make them fight each other. In order to neutralize such deed of Weyane, very important now for the two nations is to concentrate on the common agenda: freedom and democracy. If both of them come to their senses and do rally behind these two ideals, the other two virtues they want to realize aka independent Oromia in an integrated (united) Ethiopia will be fullfilled indirectly. Is this impossible? NO! It is possible if all nations in the empire will be free from tyranny, killing, and looting like what is happening under Weyane now. So our main problem now a days is the lording, killing and looting that all the nations in the empire do suffer under Weyane. The victims from the two BIG nations need to wake up and say together: NO to fascist Weyane!

    Read the rest in: posting.php?mode=edit&f=1&p=527795

  9. Co-operation of Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters against fascist Weyane

    It was already written that Weyane’s leader, Meles Zenawi, has said: Amhara-Oromo conflict, i.e the historical face-off between Oromo and Amhara, is a unique historical advantage for Weyane to perpetuate its rule. He also said regarding the dialogue between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts within AFD, seemingly rightly, that it is a marriage between “fire and straw (isat ina ciid)”. It is really pity that these two BIG nations live in a conflict against each other just caused by the hitherto ruling class of the empire and by the sponsors of the ruling class aka the European colonizers, the effect being the fate of both nations to live now under the subjugation by minority group of the Tigrean ruling class.

    Disregarding the hitherto Abesha ruling class, actually both the Amhara and Oromo peoples were victims of the European colonizers. The main conflict and imbalance of power between the Amharas and Oromos started at the end of 19th century at which time the Europeans had their programm of scramble for Africa. It is said that the French colonizers used to move horizontal between Dakar and Djibouti, whereas the British colonizers’ move was vertical between Cape town and Cairo. These two forces were about to confront each other in the Horn of Africa. To avoid the confrontation the British colonizers had to do their usual manipulation in Africa: choosing one ethnic group as a “superior”, and using it to suppress the others which they consider as the “inferiors”. They told the Amharas that they are “superior” semitics and christians who had to “civilize” the “inferior animist” Oromos and others in the south. They gave them weapons and helped them by giving military advice. So they controlled indirectly the area without confronting the French army. With such manipulation, both the Amharas and the Oromos became victims, since then both are not free. The Amhara rulers being the ex-servants of the British (as suppressors of the Oromos), both the Amharas as a people and the Oromos as the the suppressed subjects were/are still lacking freedom.

    Now a days the Tegarus’ ruling class plays similar role as servant of the American imperialists again to suppress the Oromos and of course at the moment the Amharas are as oppressed as the Oromos. Theoretically now there is nothing which can hinder the alliance of the Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo pro-freedom fronts to come together and fight for their freedom and democracy as they attempted in AFD, but still there are practical problems. Both need yet to learn to stop their striving for mere unconditional Ethiopian unity and mere Oromian independence without a union respectively. The Amhara pro-democracy forces pushing for unconditional unity makes the Oromo freedom fighters only to be sceptical for they know what the pro-democracy forces want to achieve with this pretext. At the same time the attempt of some of Oromo freedom fighters to forge independence without giving the possibility for a union and without giving a value for the benefit of a union among neighbouring nations makes the Amhara pro-democracy forces to panic because of their thinking that they will be driven out of Oromia. Such move of certain part of the Oromo freedom fighters seems to be as counter-productive as the vehement wish of the Amhara pro-democracy forces for unconditional unity.

    Beside that, Weyanes do manipulate this “difference” between the two BIG nations to creat more discord and make them fight each other. In order to neutralize such deed of Weyane, very important now for the two nations is to concentrate on the common agenda: freedom and democracy. If both of them come to their senses and do rally behind these two ideals, the other two virtues they want to realize aka independent Oromia in an integrated (united) Ethiopia will be fullfilled indirectly. Is this impossible? NO! It is possible if all nations in the empire will be free from tyranny, killing, and looting like what is happening under Weyane now. So our main problem now a days is the lording, killing and looting that all the nations in the empire do suffer under Weyane. The victims from the two BIG nations need to wake up and say together: NO to fascist Weyane!

    Read the rest on: http://www.ethioplanet.com/medrek/viewpoint.php?f=1&t=71742

  10. It is a good read. The author has put some effort to prepare this. As Aba Jiffar mentioned none of the Ethiopian people can succeed alone and have a durable peace and economic development. Unity based on equality (big or small) and brotherhood could take us out of the misery we find ourselves today. I feel very saddened to see a peasant (illiterate) leaving his farm and struggle to adjust in a Western country, where every aspect of life is foreign. A quick victory is at hand if all Ethiopian organizations of all sorts could sit down and agree on basic democratic principles and unify their struggle.
    The author tried to be civil and impartial as he mentioned in his introduction. But, I found it contradictory to read “HARRESILASIE” instead of Hailesilasie. He understands the meaning of the earlier spelling in Oromiffa. If deliberate it erodes his declared civility, I believe.
    AmaRomo

  11. OneEthiopia said:

    Fayyisa is a hopelessly ethnic-brainwashed Oromo, and what a lie he is spreading here.
    First we,the majority of Ethiopians do not recognize the entity called Oromia in its present borders, we would not have much problem if that entity was in Borena where most “pure-Oromos” are to be found. In the rest of what is called “Oromia” are however people who are oromigna speakers but not ethnically Oromos,at least most of them. And within what is called Oromia are also several other non-Oromo tribes(please dont use the term people to refer a tribe, also not an empire, all those are terms from the ethno-fascists OLF). So rest assured that we will not allow our land to be turned into an Oromoland. The only way to go is under the framework of Ethiopia and under non-ethnic provinces that were present prior to woyanes. There never was an entity called “Oromia” in Ethiopia, and Ethiopians are not prepared to give up their land so that the dream of ethno-fascist Oromos could be a reality.
    So if you are for one Ethiopia,and non-ethnically based provinces as were the pre-woyane provinces, we would be happy and ready to work with you to oust Woyanes.

    peace

  12. Recently Meles Zenawi said my advice to diaspora stop abetting the people that live in Ethiopia for which the diaspora themselves do not want to get involved. I am not a supporter of Meles, but I totally agree with his answer. Most of the OLF leadership live in exile and do not get involved in a direct struggle except some who try to resolve the Oromo problem with diplomacy. As the writer mentioned the first thing to do would have been to leave Eritrea for the jungle of Oromia.
    Great Article..

Leave a comment