By Messay Kebede (Ph.D.) 7 September 2009 — I am reacting to Jawar Siraj Mohammed’s article, titled “The Failed Journey of the OLF,” in which he mercilessly dissects the inner impediments of the organization and declares it dead for all practical purposes (see http://www.debteraw.com/). The article delivers the deep disappointments of a committed member forced to admit that “the OLF has been damaged beyond repair.” It argues that the present shabby state of the organization, mainly manifested by internal divisions, originates from the lack of tangible results both in the military and political fields, which lack reflects the incompetence and irresolution of its leadership.
While Jawar’s criticisms are both surprising and refreshing, yet they are not bold and insightful enough to bring about new directions of thought. The main reason for this lack of boldness and insight is that Jawar criticizes everything except the most important issue, namely, the ideological guidance of the OLF. Nowhere does he connect the political and military failures of the organization with the ideology that it is pursuing. Still less does he suggest that the failures could result from the insolvency of the ideology whose core demand, we know, is the right to self-determination, including secession.
The lack of a bold analysis of the inadequacies of the OLF leads the author to suggest solutions that fall short of tackling the main issue. He thus wants to contain the political influence of the Oromo Diaspora; he also appeals for a renewed faith in the cause. But because he never questions the ideological goal, these suggestions are hardly up to the depth of the problem. Aware of their inefficiency, but also reluctant to challenge the ideology, the author prefers to pronounce the OLF dead in a desperate attempt to salvage the secessionist agenda by convincing himself and others that the failures originate from the leadership, not from the ideology. I contend that an approach focusing on ideology better explains the failures by showing that the incompetence and irresolution of the leadership are simply products of a crippling thinking.
The Legacy of Radicalism
To begin with, Jawar criticizes some members for weakening the organization by creating factions while he himself could be accused of doing just that. Such a criticism would be unfair, however, for the fact that he has given up the project of reforming the organization proves that the criticisms are not meant to create another faction. Since he is convinced that the organization can no longer be repaired, his intention is to awaken the Oromo to its demise.
What is definitely untenable is a critique of the leadership that stops short of challenging the ideology. Yet, in several places, Jawar comes close to the ideological issue but only to back down by diverting his attention to effects rather than causes. For instance, he assertively shows how the OLF originated from the Ethiopian student movement and inherited the undemocratic and conspiratory mindset inherent in the movement. He writes: “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.” Further, he adds: “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.”
Seeing the nauseating state of Ethiopia and Eritrea under the TPLF and EPLF, it is inconsistent to expect that an organization born of the same root would disseminate anything other than hatred, war, and famine. What else could worshippers of Stalin come up with but ideas suppressing democracy and spreading national disunity? If what the TPLF and EPLF realized is wrong for Ethiopia as well as for the ethnic groups that they claim to represent, then it is naive to assume that their brother, that is, the OLF, would bring about a better result. What needs to be questioned here is the culture of hatred and disunity that Stalin veiled under the morally loaded language of self-determination up to secession.
In denouncing the undemocratic nature of the leadership, Jawar forgets that the behavior is only part and parcel of an ideological package inherited from the radicalization of the 60s. Unless the whole package is thrown away, there is no way of implanting a new democratic behavior. Since the undemocratic nature of the organization is inseparable from its ideology, the inescapable conclusion is that an ideology fomented by worshippers of Stalin cannot be good for the Oromo. If a new organization is indeed desired, changing the people without changing the ideology will get you nowhere.
Far from focusing on the ideological issue, Jawar dismisses it by stressing the unity of purpose within the OLF. Speaking of the faction that argues for the democratization of Ethiopia rather than secession, he notes that said ideological difference “was never really big enough to split the organization,” as the support for “independent Oromia” was “a more popular position.” Why is secession more popular than democratization? The question makes sense because what appears obvious is actually derived from a Stalinist analysis that the author should have denounced.
Armed Struggle and Secession
The truth is that the lack of democracy is closely linked with the secessionist agenda. The latter leads to the choice of armed struggle as the only feasible method, with the consequence that the subsequent militarization of the struggle becomes incompatible with the maintenance of democracy. Military priorities and leaders take the upper hand over democratic concerns. Contrary to a peaceful form of struggle, the condition of military successes becomes the sacrifices of democracy so that it is inconsistent to want military gains and democracy at the same time. Witness: it is the emphasis on military efficiency that progressively divested the EPLF and TPLF of their original democratic intent.
The secessionist goal is inconsistent with the complaint about the lack of democracy for another reason. When an organization that claims to represent the largest ethnic group opts for secession, clearly it is empowering extremists to the detriment of moderates. So that, militarization and ideological extremism combine to make democratic practices anything but relevant to the ongoing struggle.
Worst yet, the military option induced by the ideology of secession brought the movement under the tutelage of the Eritrean regime. Jawar speaks of the OLF as a “hostage” and attributes many of its faults to the intervention of the Eritrean regime. Put otherwise, the OLF has lost its independence and has become a pawn in the Eritrean pursuit of regional hegemony. The sad thing, Jawar admits, is that the subordination has no appreciable military gains, since Eritrea does not neighbor Oromia and so cannot provide sanctuaries for Oromo fighters.
The subordination to a regime that has regional ambition is fraught with deep adverse consequences. A good example is the TPLF: its support for the Eritrean struggle for independence, in the name of military necessity, empowered a pro-Eritrean and anti-Ethiopian leadership. As a result, not only the original goal of the movement was diverted, but also the empowered anti-Ethiopian clique is working hard to set Tigreans against Ethiopians through favored treatments whose outcome can only be the spread of suspicion and animosity. The price for military victory through an abnormal alliance was thus the empowerment of a clique that does not even represent Tigray, given that the best and long term interest of Tigray is its full integration into a prosperous Ethiopia.
The drive for secession through military means actually intensifies internal divisions, since together with the demise of democratic practices it raises the question of knowing which faction will become the dominant force in independent Oromia. The more the Oromo elite aspires to create a monoethnic state, the more its internal divisions, especially the religious ones, will stand out. One of the positive qualities of large multiethnic countries is the propensity to diffuse differences by displaying diversity as a normal feature of social life. By contrast, in monoethnic countries differences are perceived as abnormal and quickly generate battling factions, as shown by the example of Lebanon and Somalia.
Jawar knows that the absence of environmental conditions appropriate for guerrilla warfare, such as mountainous areas and helpful neighboring countries, contributes to the dearth of military success. In the face of this formidable obstacle one would expect that the OLF is actively seeking an alternative strategy compensating the inappropriateness of the environment by vast alliances with other ethnic groups, some of whom even possess the required geographical conditions. Unfortunately, the policy of dispersing the TPLF military machine by multiplying centers of military resistance cannot be considered as it comes up against the secessionist agenda.
Let us go further: what prevents the OLF from seeing that military struggle is not the only way to get rid of the regime is the secessionist goal. If unity of purpose could join the Oromo with other ethnic groups, especially the Amhara, then peaceful means of struggle would be enough to topple the Woyanne regime. I do not see how a clique with such a narrow base could suppress for long an overwhelming majority using the strategy of noncooperation. Let us not forget that what brought down the imperial regime was unity, and not military means. In a word, in undermining unity, the secessionist agenda greatly reduces the power of peaceful struggle and, by the same token, remove a much greater prospect of generating a democratic government.
Secession and Self-Mutilation
For Jawar, independent Oromia “shall play the leading role in democratizing, stabilizing and developing the entire East Africa.” This thought overlooks that the secession of an ethnic group that claims to be the largest group both in terms of territory and population is a much more complicated process than the secession of Eritrea and that it is fraught with unpredictable consequences. The secession of Oromia is not a mere amputation; it is a major dismemberment that adversely affects all ethnic groups in Ethiopia as well as neighboring countries. Who can stay that the secession will result in a peaceful outcome? In light of the recent horrible carnage caused by the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, one can confidently states that the secession will create such a chaotic and highly explosive situation that the whole region will turn into a battlefield.
In addition to nurturing a reckless thought, the secessionist goal induces a self-mutilating culture. When the largest ethnic group decides to split, it is behaving as a minority group. In so doing, it degrades itself and loses sight of what it can be. What cripples the OLF is thus the secessionist goal: the latter limits its horizon, the means at its disposal and, therefore, its will. Jawar begins his article by asking the Oromo to “think big”; secession, however, is to think small, and hence to be small. Organizations grow and become efficient when they espouse challenging goals, not when they fail to be what they can be. One should seriously reflect on the possibility that the political and military failures of the OLF may be connected with the self-demeaning image enshrined in the secessionist ideology.
Oromo leaders claim to uplift the Oromo people by defending secession. They are actually doing the opposite, given that the Oromo could become the force that democratizes and consolidates Ethiopia instead of dismembering it. The distorting impact of the secessionist ideology is such that Oromo elites do not even recognize greatness. Take the case of Ras Gobena: though in alliance with Menelik he created a formidable empire that even colonial powers feared, he is seen as a sellout and secessionists as authentic Oromo.
To say that a large ethnic group curtails itself when it stoops to the level of a minority group by opting for secession means that the discrepancy between the great potential of the Oromo people and the narrow goal of its elite explains the failures of the OLF. Since the leadership is not up to the potential of the people it claims to represent, like a big load led into a narrow path, the movement naturally goes nowhere. I thus say to the Oromo elite: think big indeed, that is, become what you can be, builder and not wrecker.
—-
The writer, Messay Kebede is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dayton, Ohio. He previously taught philosophy at Addis Ababa University. He is the author of Meaning and Development (Rodopi, 1994) and Survival and Modernization (Red Sea Press, 1999). For comments, he can be reached at Messay.Kebede@notes.udayton.edu.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Dr Messay is clearly doing the thinking for OLF. Where is the boundary of Oromia? Amhara? South? Who drew the borders? When? Why? There are at least three versions of Oromo history that I read. If the clearly known Italian occupied border of Eritrea creates 20+ years of border problem, what would be the future of East Africa? Obviously there will be no East Africa for the next 200 years.
“For Jawar, independent Oromia “shall play the leading role in democratizing, stabilizing and developing the entire East Africa.” This thought overlooks that the secession of an ethnic group that claims to be the largest group both in terms of territory and population is a much more complicated process than the secession of Eritrea and that it is fraught with unpredictable consequences. The secession of Oromia is not a mere amputation; it is a major dismemberment that adversely affects all ethnic groups in Ethiopia as well as neighboring countries. Who can stay that the secession will result in a peaceful outcome? In light of the recent horrible carnage caused by the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, one can confidently states that the secession will create such a chaotic and highly explosive situation that the whole region will turn into a battlefield.”
September 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Wow, what an incisive piece!
May God bless you Dr. Mesay.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Great article, Keep on writing such an inspiring piece.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
OLF as a Trinity (one and three at a time)!!
This short essay is just presented as a clarification for Oromo foes like Ato Robele and Prof Messay, who are nowadays delighting by “percieving” a division of the Oromo liberation vanguard in to “three”. To their information OLF has got from the very beginning only one Kaayoo (goal), which also at the same time can be interpreted as three Kayyos, in a pocket and it played with the three cards based on the objective reality it is in, aka according to the “here and now” of the situations. Even though the only one Kayyoo is self-determination, the 3 interpretations of the Kaayoo are:
- independence without a union
- referendum on the issue: independence without a union vs independence within a union
- independence within a union.
OLF permanently advocated that it fights for Oromian independence, for Oromos’ right to self-determination and for a union of nations in the empire/region. It emphasizes one of the three interpretations according to the condition of the time (Zeitgeist). Whenever Abyssinians become arrogant and start to sing about the unconditional unity of their empire with supression of Oromos’ right, it streses independence of Oromia from Abyssinian colonialism underming the possible union. The logic behind this is, where ever there is supression, there will be a move for separation. When reasonable politicians from different nations in the empire start to recognize the God given right of the great Oromo nation to self-determination, it starts to play the card of self-determination (decision per referendum either for independence within a union or for independence without a union).
Now the one structural OLF we Oromos had seems to have been devided in to three, each of them just taking as a goal one of the three interpretations of the Kaayyo:
- OLF1 of Ob Galaassa seems to make no compromise on independence without a union.
- OLF2 of Ob Daud has self-determination as its goal (being open for both independence within a union and independence without a union as far as Oromo people decide for one of the two).
- OLF3 of Ob Hassan (the new) seems to have decided for the independence within a union of nations in the empire/region so that it sympathizes with and seems to seek an alliance with Oromos in the ruling party aka OPDO and strives for an understanding from the reasonable “pro unity” Abesha forces. Here I must say, it is not yet clear whether this group moves to the position of OLF1 for it wants to consolidate all members of ULFO who do stress independence without a union under one structural organization. Time will tell us, whether this group will be either pro OPDO or pro ULFO. Or is there any association between the two (OPDO and ULFO)?
Any ways a Merdo to the foes of Oromo Liberation Movement is that the one/three OLF(s) will never give up the struggle for the right of Oromos to self-determination till we Oromos be the determiners of our own destiny, be it within Ethiopian union or without the union.
Other wise, let’s differentiate rhetoric from conviction! I do hear nowadays certain Oromo politicians talking about the “fact” that Oromo people doesn’t want “secession”. I do consider talking about Oromos wanting independence or not is a wrong generalization. One thing we need to know as a fact is that almost all Oromo politicians (including those who do make the above mentioned rhetoric) deep in their heart believe in the right of Oromo nation to self-determination. This is the whole mark of Oromos and aim of our mindset (spiritual Organization) aka OLF. This mindset, OLF has got one Kaayyoo, but also three Karaas (including three rhetorics)
- OLF mindset in the rebel organizations has got an explicit rhetoric of self-determination and it fights for this Kaayyoo by all meanses,
- OLF mindset in the opposition organizations has got the rhetoric of struggling for liberation in Ethiopian context, but it covertly struggles for the Kaayyoo,
- OLF mindset in the ruling organization has got the rhetoric, which says: “we have already achieved the liberation”, but yet it covertly pushes for the Kaayyoo.
So fellow Oromos, let’s allow the mindset move to the Kaayyoo in all the Karaas, despite the rhetorics of some Oromos in the opposition and ruling Oromo organizations. Let our foes know exactly, despite the different rhetorics, Oromo Liberation Movement can never be stopped till it achieves the Kaayyo. We need to motivate our selves to do our rhetoric and our practice in the liberation movement on the Karaa each of us did choose to come to the Kaayyo. Long live OLF as a trinity (OLF with one Kaayyoo, but with three Karaas)!
We have to forget the current rhetoric of Oromo politicians in the ruling party and in the opposition parties, who are doing their talk under the gun point of Weyane (they are just denying the right of Oromo people to self-determination at gun point) and let’s strive to our END Kayyoo, which is already determined by our mindset. I am personally against any sort of dictatorial unity and I am a supporter of a union of free nations in the empire/region based on free will. Any unity without Oromo public verdict will fail, take it only 1 year, about 10 years or as long as 100 years. That is why I do advocate for a lasting solution based on free will of all stakeholders, instead of the temporary hoyaa-hoyee of unity as a wishy-washy solution. MEDREK seems to have chosen unconditional-unity as a precondition for the alliance, but the unity they do strive for will surely never last long, because it is not based on self-determination of peoples, but on pre-determination by only few elites. TIBIBIR aka revived AFD, which may be forged by OLF et al must be based on a solid ground and take self-determination rather than unconditional unity as the precondition for an alliance!
Any ways, our foes need to know that, they can only manipulate and delay the realization of Oromo’s right to self-determination, but they can never hinder it. Oromo’s mindset is leading us to our Kaayyoo aka self-determination, take it how long it might be. Our foes like it or not, in reality almost all Oromos are lead in our liberation struggle by this mindset. That is why an International Crisis Group (ICG) put it: ” despite its organizational flaws and divisions, many ordinary Oromos retain an almost messianic belief in the OLF as the major nationalist organization”!!
September 7th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Dr Messay,
I know your hate against OLF in particular and Oromos in general. Before rejoicing about the failure of OLF and the missery of Oromos, enjoy the following:
“OLF as a Trinity (one and three at a time)!!
This short essay is just presented as a clarification for Oromo foes, who are nowadays delighting by “percieving” a division of the Oromo liberation vanguard in to “three”. To their information OLF has got from the very beginning only one Kaayoo (goal), which also at the same time can be interpreted as three Kayyos, in a pocket and it played with the three cards based on the objective reality it is in, aka according to the “here and now” of the situations. Even though the only one Kayyoo is self-determination, the 3 interpretations of the Kaayoo are:
- independence without a union
- referendum on the issue: independence without a union vs independence within a union
- independence within a union.
www.ethioplanet.com/medrek “
September 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
1. It is of course that Oromos are migrated long ago from central east Africa ,mainly from the current Rwanda .The famous Historian Richard Pankhurst call them the ….The prime example of all this is the pure Oromos in deep south, which they still retain their cousins Hutu and Tutu complexion . like anybody would suggested otherwise, I do not wish to see no Oromos to go back to Rwanda either, but, to exercise their identity, liberty, the pursuit of happiness in their (new home land)Ethiopia. Here the discussion shouldn’t be that of succession or not. Their beloved country Ethiopia loves them not as a Diaspora but patriotic citizens like the rest of us( Ethiopians). Forward with a united Geez speaking Ethiopia.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
It is good point. The ideology of OLF must be questioned. An organisation that claim to fight for the freedom of 28million people hasn’t done anything in all areas. Some of the achievements like using own language, a region with some ‘autonomy’ were brought about by the EPRDF government for its own tactical reasons. Therefore, it will not be wrong to question that ‘Does OLF really refelcts the political interest of the Oromo people? or is it just upholding the fantasy of power-monger elites? A substantial number of Oromo people are sympathetic to OLF as they believe in its independence from TPLF, but few really understand or support its goal of self-determination, particularly secession
September 7th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
There is a saying in Ethiopia “YETEMARE YEGDELEGNE”
Good on you proffesor Mesay, I like to read such informative and advanced article.
Long live Proffesor_______ Long live ethiopia!
Thanks
September 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Dr Messay,
If it was an ideological bankruptcy, do you think all the millions of supporters of the OLF which comprises the majority of the oromos would support the OLF? Or do you think that these all people are damn? Please try to think outside of your black box. You could contribute better to the Unity of Ethiopia by thinking outside the black box. Come out of the thinking framework you developed as a child under the emperor and then the derg. Their ideologies caused all todays misery and divisions. You continued attempts to perpetuate their style will push the oromo further to the corner and extremism.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Ogina you are delusional that is your openion it doesn’t represent Oromos at large, We Oromos are majority and we have vast natural resources in our land then we don’t go any where , if minorities demands to go that is possible. I tell you one example ” LARGE TREE(OROMO)DOESN’T GO ANY WHERE BUT SMALL TWIGS CAN BE BLOWN BY WIND”.
Oniga don’t undermine OROMOS, I repeat “WE OROMOS WE DON’T GO ANY WHERE”.
Bye for now.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
OLF is is bankrupt in ideology and leadreship. Although as you admitted the other authors argument that both of them emanated out of the student movements of that era as TPLF, EPLF, EPRP and OLF. Since all of them follow marxisist ideology that makes undemocratic in their quest for Seccssion. Now you are asserting as their ideology of self-determination upto secession, irrespective of the order of the quest, TPLF, OLF and EPLF were advancing the oppression of the nationalities by the Amaharic ethnic group, while EPRP was adancing the class struggle between the royalists, the balabats and the all Ethiopians, the landlords and farmers, the employers and the workers, nevertheless with the Marxisit /Moasit ideology, which is undemocratic and foreign to Ethiopians at large. Therefore it failed in its ideology, because of its undemocratic, separatist and marxist ideology and leadership inclined as negative forces of disintegration of Ethiopia, adding up to the the existing TPLF/eprdf and EPLF/Eritrean Regimes, creating a war like zones in the horn fo Africa along with the already seceded and independent Eritrean State.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Fayyis Oromia [certainly a nom de guerre] is currently advancing the proposal-cum-precondition that a break-up should precede union in the next chapter of Ethiopian political saga. In other words, Ethiopia should break-up first into ethnic enclaves so that a free and un-coerced union could be realized. This sounds pretty much the stratagem of old EPLF, its underling the TPLF and all-knowing and instigator “Dr. Megalommatis” rolled into one. Fayyis argues that “any unity without public verdict will fail.” How true that is – except it is not well-intentioned or well-thought-out.
Perhaps Fayyis has in mind a re-run of Eritrean sham ‘verdict’ where the public was required to choose between “freedom” and “slavery.” And why would any sane person choose slavery or not want to gain freedom from [Ethiopian] colonialism? Fayyis believes the Oromo were colonized just like their Eritrean kin and that Oromo people should decide whether they want to unite with their “Abyssinian” colonizers or to breakaway!! [Incidentally, Amharas do complain that Tigrayans are colonizing them; hence, there is no sense talking about the subject as we all have been colonies of each other at some point! Or may be the Oromo should be allowed a ten-year period to colonize Tigrayans to teach them how it feels to be colonized - especially by Africans. You see how silly the thing gets?!]Read More herehttp://etrecycler.blogspot.com/2009/09/verdict.html
September 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
THE VERDICT
Fayyis Oromia [certainly a nom de guerre] is currently advancing the proposal-cum-precondition that a break-up should precede union in the next chapter of Ethiopian political saga. In other words, Ethiopia should break-up first into ethnic enclaves so that a free and un-coerced union could be realized. This sounds pretty much the stratagem of old EPLF, its underling the TPLF and all-knowing and instigator “Dr. Megalommatis” rolled into one. Fayyis argues that “any unity without public verdict will fail.” How true that is – except it is not well-intentioned or well-thought-out.
Perhaps Fayyis has in mind a re-run of Eritrean sham ‘verdict’ where the public was required to choose between “freedom” and “slavery.” And why would any sane person choose slavery or not want to gain freedom from [Ethiopian] colonialism? Fayyis believes the Oromo were colonized just like their Eritrean kin and that Oromo people should decide whether they want to unite with their “Abyssinian” colonizers or to breakaway!! [Incidentally, Amharas do complain that Tigrayans are colonizing them; hence, there is no sense talking about the subject as we all have been colonies of each other at some point! Or may be the Oromo should be allowed a ten-year period to colonize Tigrayans to teach them how it feels to be colonized - especially by Africans. You see how silly the thing gets?!]Read More here http://etrecycler.blogspot.com/2009/09/verdict.html
September 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I don’t know the author of this article, but it is the nice reply to the assertion of Prof Messay! enjoy it:
“Is this discussion or a concert?
Participants in Discussions?
Or
Minstrel Show Performers?
I raised the above questions to respond to Messay Kebede’s article titled “On the Right to Self -Determination”. In his article, Messay has stated that his article is a public reaction to a long email letter to him by an Oromo interlocutor. Interlocutor means “participant in discussion or a performer in a minstrel show who acts as the master of ceremonies and stands in the middle and banter with the end men”. Is this discussion or a concert?
At the surface, the article seems laden with the second alternative meaning, i.e., the sense of “minstrel show performer”. As it is revealed on the article, Messay and the so called Oromo interlocutor perform a theatre standing in the middle of their correspondence and acting as masters on an overarching political issue of the right self-determination. Messay mocks at the “interlocutor”, by writing: “though the author claims not to be a representative of the OLF, I am not convinced to what extent his views differ from the official position of the organization.” Further, he wrote that his purpose is less to respond to his interlocutor than to propose some general reflections. If both Messay and the “interlocutor” were participants in discussion, then what motivated Messay for a “public reaction”? Is that the behavior that Professor Donald Levine calls “an intrusive and biting? Is that the politics of denial that is the habitual way of the Habasha? Is that the will to entertain old mentalities with “the habit of the heart”? Posing these questions for readers, let us now turn to the content of Messay’s article. He calls it “general reflection”.
The main point among his so called general reflection is the serious fallacy of attempting to solely attach the principles of self-determination to Stalin. He wrote: “the defenders of the right to self-determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and the Soviet Union), except his view of nations and nationalities”. He wrote that this “amazes most”. What amazes me most is Messay Kebede himself. I am amazed at him for two reasons. One is his past career. The other is the emptiness of his argument.
If Messay Kebede is the one I know, a teacher of “Marxist-Leninist Philosophy” in Addis; the one who had been advocating his teaching as more scientific than sciences; the one who had lived on the earnings from that same vocation; and the one who had brainwashed hundreds of students for a decade or more with that ideology; then his aforementioned statement is amazing. If this Messay Kebede is not the one I know, then I beg pardon on this point. The second amazing point is the emptiness of his argument. He presents his argument as if self-determination is Stalinist doctrine. This kind of presentation is totally erroneous as well as deceptive.
The fact is that, historically, the concept of the “principles of self determination” has been developed, in large part, shortly after the end of the Second World War. It was first coined by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Then the idea of self-determination was underpinned by International Law and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. To be specific, Article 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter, drawn up in 1945, stipulates that the UN is to “develop a friendly relationship among nations based on respect of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and to take other measures to strengthen universal peace”.
Subsequently, the principle of self-determination was recognized in two key United Nations’ General Assembly Resolutions adopted in 1960 and 1970. The UN Resolution adopted in 1960 “Resolution 1514- provides that all people have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. In addition, UN Resolution 2625 that was adopted in 1970 widely restated the already existing principles of Customary International Law and provided similar provisions. Both resolutions principally addressed the issue of self-determination for non-self-governing peoples and territories. Both recognize that peoples of colonial states and territories administered by alien powers have a right to decide their status.
Further, the principles of self-determination were embedded in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of the 1966. These covenants affirmed self-determination as a “right of peoples” and guaranteed it by treaty laws. The Common provisions of the covenants under Article 1 read as follows:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural rights. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their national wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principles of mutual benefit and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
The states parties to the present covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provision of the Charter of the United Nation.
Besides these international treaties, the right to self -determination has been affirmed by plentiful regional human rights instruments, declarations, and resolutions. For instance: African (Banjul) Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted on June 27, 1981, affirms under Article 20 (1) that: “all peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen”
Moreover, the right to self determination is part and parcel of human rights. Building upon the principles stipulated under Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), self-determination is about all the three generations of human rights:
The first generation of rights, Articles 3-21 of UDHR and the ICCPR, that are civil and political in nature; The second generation of rights, Articles 22-27 and the ICESCR, that are economic, social, and cultural; and
The third generation of rights, Article 28 and demands that are drawn upon the first two generations of rights.
Further, practically, through self-determination scores of conquested and occupied nations and colonized peoples have freed themselves from the shackles of alien dominations.
Irrespective of all these widely acknowledged historical, legal, political and practical hard facts; Messay begins his “public reaction” with misleading ideas and offers an unacceptable advice for “the refusal of self-determination”. Recognizing that self-determination is about fundamental rights wrought in the core instruments stated herein above, what does Messay’s agitation against it imply? The implication can be nostalgia of the Amaranization policies of the 70+ populations by the triple forces of “mekuanent, mesafint, and kahenat”. It can be longing for dominance. It can be intense desire for hegemonic empire. Or, conversely, it can be a call for the abolition of minority rights. But, such a political stance must be called by its name: reactionary, undemocratic and anti-human and peoples’ rights. The Amhara elites need to conduct soul searching. As members of a “dominant minority group”, they need to reflect on their political history, fairy-tales, review the wrongs of their establishment and shift their way of thinking and self-definition. Even if it is bitter, they must swallow that this era is the era of identity politics. They must understand the renewed legitimacy this era of identity has brought to the ideals of democratic self-determination. They must take note of the fact of the de-legitimation of the notions of suzerainty and hegemonic control.
Jumping from one invalid argument to another, Messay suggests: to reject the usage of the terms “nations and nationalities”; and recommends, instead, the usage of “ethnic groups”. Here again, Messay reveals his detachment from realities, lack of intellectual integrity and breadth of thought, and a concern for public issues. The terms Messay wants to discard away at his will and whim carry meanings. More than literally meanings, they have extensive political, sociological and anthropological concepts. In contravention with these scientific concepts, the Amhara elites (including Messay) have for long been scornfully labeling the terms “nation, nationality and ethnie” (to use the French term) as “gossa”, which is the equivalent of “tribe and/or clan”. Now, Messay and his likes want to ban the usage of the terms nations and nationalities and replace them with ethnic groups. The intention behind this is clear: demeaning the concepts attached to the terms and belittling them to the lowest forms of human developmental stages. In so doing, the Amhara elites emulate white colonialists, who used to describe political malfunctions in Africa as “tribal” problems assert the lesser evolution, development and humanity of Africans; to portray the picture of a people without culture, and without history in order to justify colonialism. As that was racist and ahistorical, so is the attempt of Messay to reduce nations to ethnic groups.
To conclude, this kind of thought is rigid and unchangeable. In the recent past, fool outcry of the type are immense. It is not clear what made them so noisy with so much scale. Yes, the crime of Woyane is enormous. But, reactionary ideas can not make it right. “
September 7th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Mike,
Fayyis repeatedly put it right that he agrees to all what you want here and he is ready to denounce all what you cursed here, but with just only one precondition: let’s make the only working language of the country, you seem to love very much, Afaan Oromo, instead of Amharinya! Do you agree or you do say WEGEBEN!! here. Enjoy what he wrote here:
Persuading Amhara elites to accept and respect Self-determination
It is clear that only Amhara elites and few Amharanized elites from other nations are against “ethnic” federalism and self-determination of nations. Genuine “ethnic” federalism is the compromise solution for all nations in the region to live together - achieving both national independence and regional integration. The position of Amhara elites regarding the federalism and self-determination made them to be not suitable to cooperate with the elites of other nations against TPLF regime. Amhara elites do prefer unconditional Ethiopian unity rather than self-determination as a precondition for the possible alliance to be forged between Amhara democratic forces and Oromo freedom fighters. Oromos tend to accept this precondition, only if Amhara elites also accept Oromos’ precondition aka making Afaan Oromo the only working language of the federation instead of Amharinya. Oromo elites make such a demand to make Amhara elites to notice how wrong is their cry for unity with Amharinya as the only federal language. Then, in a common house aka “NEW Ethiopia” they suggest to build, the working language must be only Afaan Oromo. Will they then stay to be pro Ethiopian unity and anti ethnicity, even if Amharinya will be demoted to only local language of Amhara region and if Afaan Oromo will be promoted to be the only working language of the Ethiopian federation? I am sure they will not! In case they will stay further to be pro-Ethiopianity and pro-unity as they seem to believe now, let’s then try this NEW version of Ethiopianity with Afaan Oromo instead of with Amharinya.
Read more:
http://www.ethioplanet.com/medrek
In short, the best instrument to compel Amhara elites so that they accept and respect the compromise solution aka genuine “ethnic” federalism and to make them recognize the right of nations to self-determination is to demote Amharinya to be the local language and promote Afaan Oromo to be the federal language, i.e a transformation of the empire to a NEW Ethiopia with Afaan Oromo as the National Language!
September 7th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Stay away from Eritrea. It is a sovereign country.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
MESSAY KEBEDE IS AN AMARA AND TRYING TO UNDERMIND OROMOS THROUGH POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PSYCHOLOGICAL ARTICLE, I DO NOT THINK OROMOS ARE STUPID TO BUY SUCH OUTDATED AMARA PROPGANDA.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Uninvited Messay and other Amhara elites have been asking the same questions for the last 20 years. They still keep on asking questions regarding the OLF and its programs. Let’s put in black and white. Oromos do not care much about what the AAPO appendages think or do. If you have not noticed we are past that stage, thanks for the OLF that has articulated our path, the path of the Oromo people. An ideology has been planted all over Oromia with the blood of Oromo youth. The suffering of the oromo people continues today with the new rulers, but freedom is sprouting for the new generation who are now ready to take over the leadership and the struggle to the finish.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
The day dream of Messay Kebede !!!
“Committed members forced to admit that the OLF has been damaged beyond repair.” HHHHHHHHHHH
Please learn from EPLF. There is time when you will see the results of any struggle, Mr. Messay. I am tired of your very backward hypothesis. Grow up and start discussing with Oromos. My brother do not run in a very vast field. I think three OLFs means three headache for us. Three OLFs means three fronts to fight. This will be difficult for us. The struggle within OLF shows that Oromos have a very advanced democracy comparable to that of USA. Let me tell you the fact I know three groups will compete to be in Finfine against your dream. Your analysis so blemished. Nice try to mislead people. But it will not work. I know the Oromos are more determined than ever in the past to be freed. Even though I am more Amhara than you, I am not foolish to follow you. Since I am married to an Oromo, I also know more Oromos than you. Please again stop your hateful message. You underestimate people. You think Oromos have no educated people to lead them. Are you teaching Oromos??? You want to tell them how they can lead their struggle? Stop your very old philosophy. But I know that you are old elite and have no way to think better. I know you personally, before both of us were forced to leave AAU. Are you paid by TPLF? You want to go back home? This way??? Please use your time to write something that brings all of us together. Okay.
May God help us for United Ethiopia where all of us will be treated equally!
September 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Hi folks,
Always talk talk talk talk………… Let FAYISS make the talk.
Please stop talking dear Ethiopians. It will not change anything. So what is required to do? Today i pledge to donate 1000USD to Ginbot7.
My fellow Ethiopian, please let’s do something. Stop wasting time and help the struggle to make weyane the last dictator. No point of arguing with these extremists as they are filled with hatred and inferiority complex.
My mother always told me “my son, don’t waste your energy by argument. Be pragmatic. YAHIYA KULA BEHODU NEW”. If we are practical and united, we will definitely remove TPLF. Once we have established a democratic institution and government, I bet u OLF will remove their agenda and “chirawin iyekola yimetal”.
Let’s Stop talking and do our share. I’m going to do what about yours fellow brothers and sisters.
LONG LIVE ETHIOPIA,
LONG LIVE OROMO, AMHARA, TIGRE, WELAYITA, SOMALI, AFAR, SIDAMA, GURAGE, KEMBATA et al.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:27 am
So everybody is too radical for the Tigrayans, according to etrecycler. Fayyis is. Teddy Afro is. Only the Mitmita girls acknowledge the historical necessity of the TPLF.
They would let SLF take a stab at Menelik Palace, first by calling for the cushitic solidarity to stand on, and then calling for the Ethiopian unity for political correctness. It looks so easy a job to do, as long they have good sarcastic journalism……the Mitmita girls could dare to go overboard and ring ethnic hate to be noticed.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:38 am
No one need to listen or repeating, about the previous mistaken’s in all Oromo people regions. WE OROMO PEOPLE BELIEVING FOREVER, “ONE PEOPLE ETHIOPIAN, ONE COUNTRY ETHIOPIA”. GOD BLESS ETHIOPIAN
PLease! everyone, who are retarding the struggle backward writing this issue several times. Ethiopian are fed up bynow hearing the few crazy Nationalists to split our Nations.
some of educated persons are confused about the current situations in all Ethiopian regions.
Ethiopian are on alert to devastate the Facsist Weyane regime needed an educated Ethiopian, How to demolish the Devil-Fascists; not backward History. Let us do a new history based on in “G7 MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY.
ድል ለኢትዮጵያ ህዝብ!!!
September 8th, 2009 at 5:45 am
I can’t understand the notion that independent Oromia brings peace and democracy in the horn of Africa. In the first place where is the boundry of Oromia? Imagine if Ethiopia has been dismantled in to 80+ ethnic groups. A sane person would never argue dividing a country in to 80+ pieces is better for peace and democracy. The funny thing is, OLF map of Oromia includes other minority ethnic groups. If one clan with in Oromo wants seccession, who has the right to say no? When this endless seccession stops? Beher, gosa, mender, got, beteseb…..Guys please stop this crazy idea. Struggle for justice, freedom, equality and democracy with out questioning the soverneighty of Ethiopia
September 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am
agafari-you tried to tell us about the so called oromo “immigration”.why you forget about abisinians who had crossed Red see from yemen.are they africans at all?
September 8th, 2009 at 8:51 am
The Joker card for Woyane, maintained for the 89th minute of the game is:
Giving Oromia for OLF, as a genuinely autonomous federal state.
Woyane may do this just to find a way to minimize the impact of the ever growing public anger; and
I think, OLF will be happy with this; instead of thinking of a deal with groups who are bitter about Ethnic Politics.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:16 am
If I am not mistaken “Mesay Kebede” is one of the thousands of the descendants of “Ras Gobena” who betrayed the Oromos and committed untold crime against the Oromo on behalf of King Menilik. So Mesay Kebede is trying to keep up the legacy of “Gobena”.
Mesay has shown his contempt for the Oromo people and now rejoicing at the criticism contained in Jawar Mohammed’s article. Sure enough he was up in arms to ridicule OLF and by extension Oromos!
September 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ogina,
Can you please expound how terrific EPLF turned out to be for our brothers up north? Can you please take a moment to help us see how marvelous TPLF has been for Tigray and the rest of Ethiopia? Provided you take a few more minutes, you will have no problem convincing every soul under the sun that OLF is a party of Angels.
You are a very sad creature energized by ethnic hatred and unable to see a very simple reality.
AbaDama
September 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The name” Ethioforum ” is too big for this stupid website . You should call it “AMHARAFORUM”. Because it is only entitled to tell us what those damn amharas were telling us for years .
September 8th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The idea that “millions” of oromos support the OLF is simply a myth, that can not be verified. Just answer me this: when, where, and how were this mythical figure counted? That is just a propaganda.
In fact, if you stop and think, there is no such a thing as “pure oromo”, it is an “oromiffa speaking” population, each with an ancestry inherited from the indiginous population living in the region prior to the Oromo migration - take the Wollega and the Illubabor: they look like Gojame’s, take those in Arsi, they look like the Hadiya, take the Borana, they look like the Somali, so who is the Oromo the OLF wants to liberate from his other bretheren?
Yes, the TPLF (by the way OLF helped legitimize TPLF over Ethiopia) has marginalized the Oromo population like it does to others, and is subjugating the Oromos. But that does not mean that the population supports OLF. You know why the TPLF subjugates the Oromo? It is only to keep the OLF alive, so that when it decides to leave for the “Republic of Tigray”, then the OLF will come and start fighting the perpetual war with the rest of the Ethiopian population such that their dream of a war-ravaged Ethiopia sitting besider a prosperious Tigray (perhaps united with Eritrea, with the ports) will materialize.
So my Oromo brothers and sisters, please think what you can do, as the largerst Language group of Ethiopia. To be the engine of Ethiopian democracy and prosperity, where people count as thinking humans and not as different bands of singers.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Messay Kebede’s old habit !!!!!
Participants in Discussions?
Or
Minstrel Show Performers?
I raised the above questions to respond to Messay Kebede’s article titled “On the Right to Self -Determination.†In his article, Messay has stated that his article is a public reaction to a long email letter to him by an Oromo interlocutor. Interlocutor means “a participant in discussion or a performer in a minstrel show who acts as the master of ceremonies and stands in the middle and banter with the end men.†Is this discussion or a concert?
At the surface, the article seems laden with the second alternative meaning, i.e., the sense of “minstrel show performer.†As it is revealed on the article, Messay and the so called Oromo interlocutor perform a theatre standing in the middle of their correspondence and acting as masters on an overarching political issue of “the right self-determination. Messay mocks at the “interlocutorâ€, by writing: “though the author claims not to be a representative of the OLF, I am not convinced to what extent his views differ from the official position of the organization.†Further, he wrote that his purpose is less to respond to his interlocutor than to propose some general reflections. If both Messay and the “interlocutor’’ were participants in discussion, then what motivated Messay for a “public reaction?†Is that the behavior that Professor Donald Levine calls “an intrusive and biting? Is that the politics of denial that is the habitual way of the Habasha? Is that the will to entertain old mentalities with “the habit of the heartâ€? Posing these questions for readers, let us now turn to the content of Messay’s article. He calls it “general reflection.â€
The main point among his so called general reflection is the serious fallacy of attempting to solely attach the principles of self-determination to Stalin. He wrote: “the defenders of the right to self-determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and the Soviet Union), except his view of nations and nationalities.†He wrote that this “amazes most.†What amazes me most is Messay Kebede himself. I am amazed at him for two reasons. One is his past career. The other is the emptiness of his argument.
If Messay Kebede is the one I know, a teacher of “Marxist-Leninist Philosophy†in Addis; the one who had been advocating his teaching as more scientific than sciences; the one who had lived on the earnings from that same vocation; and the one who had brainwashed hundreds of students for a decade or more with that ideology; then his aforementioned statement is amazing. If this Messay Kebede is not the one I know, then I beg pardon on this point. The second amazing point is the emptiness of his argument. He presents his argument as if self-determination is Stalinist doctrine. This kind of presentation is totally erroneous as well as deceptive.
The fact is that, historically, the concept of the “principles of self determination†has been developed, in large part, shortly after the end of the Second World War. It was first coined by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Then the idea of self-determination was underpinned by International Law and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. To be specific, Article 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter, drawn up in 1945, stipulates that the UN is to “develop a friendly relationship among nations based on respect of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and to take other measures to strengthen universal peace.â€
Subsequently, the principle of self-determination was recognized in two key United Nations’ General Assembly Resolutions adopted in 1960 and 1970. The UN Resolution adopted in 1960 –Resolution 1514- provides that “all people have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.†In addition, UN Resolution 2625 that was adopted in 1970 widely restated the already existing principles of Customary International Law and provided similar provisions. Both resolutions principally addressed the issue of self-determination for non-self-governing peoples and territories. Both recognize that peoples of colonial states and territories administered by alien powers have a right to decide their status.
Further, the principles of self-determination were embedded in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of the 1966. These covenants affirmed self-determination as a “right of peoples†and guaranteed it by treaty laws. The Common provisions of the covenants under Article 1 read as follows:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural rights.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their national wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principles of mutual benefit and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The states parties to the present covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provision of the Charter of the United Nation.
Besides these international treaties, the right to self -determination has been affirmed by plentiful regional human rights instruments, declarations, and resolutions. For instance: African (Banjul) Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted on June 27, 1981, affirms under Article 20 (1) that: “all peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.â€
Moreover, the right to self determination is part and parcel of human rights. Building upon the principles stipulated under Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), self-determination is about all the three generations of human rights:
• The first generation of rights, Articles 3-21 of UDHR and the ICCPR, that are civil and political in nature;
• The second generation of rights, Articles 22-27 and the ICESCR, that are economic, social, and cultural; and
• The third generation of rights, Article 28 and demands that are drawn upon the first two generations of rights.
Further, practically, through self-determination scores of conquested and occupied nations and colonized peoples have freed themselves from the shackles of alien dominations.
Irrespective of all these widely acknowledged historical, legal, political and practical hard facts; Messay begins his “public reaction†with misleading ideas and offers an unacceptable advice for “…the refusal of self-determination….†Recognizing that self-determination is about fundamental rights wrought in the core instruments stated herein above, what does Messay’s agitation against it imply? The implication can be nostalgia of the Amaranization policies of the 70+ populations by the triple forces of “mekuanent, mesafint, and kahenat.†It can be longing for dominance. It can be intense desire for hegemonic empire. Or, conversely, it can be a call for the abolition of minority rights. But, such a political stance must be called by its name: reactionary, undemocratic and anti-human and peoples’ rights. The Amhara elites need to conduct soul searching. As members of a “dominant minority groupâ€, they need to reflect on their political history, fairy-tales, review the wrongs of their establishment and shift their way of thinking and self-definition. Even if it is bitter, they must swallow that this era is the era of identity politics. They must understand the renewed legitimacy this era of identity has brought to the ideals of democratic self-determination. They must take note of the fact of the de-legitimation of the notions of suzerainty and hegemonic control.
Jumping from one invalid argument to another, Messay suggests “…to reject the usage of the terms “nations and nationalitiesâ€; and recommends, instead, the usage of “ethnic groups.†Here again, Messay reveals his detachment from realities, lack of intellectual integrity and breadth of thought, and a concern for public issues. The terms Messay wants to discard away at his will and whim carry meanings. More than literally meanings, they have extensive political, sociological and anthropological concepts. In contravention with these scientific concepts, the Amhara elites (including Messay) have for long been scornfully labeling the terms “nation, nationality and ethnie†(to use the French term) as “gossaâ€, which is the equivalent of ‘tribe and/or clan’. Now, Messay and his likes want to ban the usage of the terms nations and nationalities and replace them with ethnic groups. The intention behind this is clear: demeaning the concepts attached to the terms and belittling them to the lowest forms of human developmental stages. In so doing, the Amhara élites emulate white colonialists, who used to describe political malfunctions in Africa as “tribal†problems assert the lesser evolution, development and humanity of Africans; to portray the picture of a people without culture, and without history in order to justify colonialism. As that was racist and ahistorical, so is the attempt of Messay to reduce nations to ethnic groups.
To conclude, this kind of thought is rigid and unchangeable. In the recent past, fool outcry of the type are immense. It is not clear what made them so noisy with so much scale. Yes, the crime of Woyane is enormous. But, reactionary ideas can not make it right.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Dear all except the rabid dogs aka flies aka Weyane cadres,
I do sense that the flies are feeding on the dirty thing (conflict between Amharas and Oromos). That is why the smart Oromo politicians nowadays talk about the unity of ALL opposition groups against the fascists without any precondition. Now the issue of self-determination vs unconditional unity has been the best food for the flies. Smart Oromos need to take away this food from the flies aka never to discuss such issue at their presence like in cyber world. Let’s kill the flies through making them hungry of such dirty things they need for survival!! Thanks
September 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
ይህ የተሳፈው በወያነዎች በመሆኑ ምንም አይገረመንም ከተላት ደግሞ በጎ ነገር አንተብክም ኦነግ ምንግዘም የኦሮሞ ህዝብ መሪ ድርጅት ነው ተወደደም ተተላ ተላትም ወዳጅም ይወክ
September 8th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The artcle was written by the wayanes, it doesn’t surprise any body because the whole world knows that they are killing and jailing thousands of our people and selling our land to outsiders and developing Tigray with money displacing our people. Whether you like it or not OLF is the vanguard of the Oromo people. We do not expect any party of other nations will lead us to freedom. Please lift your hands off the Oromos, no one can fool us any more and things happen before 100 years would never repeat.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:13 am
In my posting above, please take my saying in the last paragraph as: “where people are considered as individual thinkers rather than different bands of singers”.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:48 am
-Asfaw and others, -your questions are proceed to weyane devastation plan; This issue is based on to split our Nations created namely Oromiya. Basicaly, there was no abslutely this name at all in the previous History of Ethiopia; The only Oromo(Ethiopian) nation(የኦሮሞ ብሔረሰብ) in everywhere living in lovely condition with the others Ethiopian Nations.
You and others would like to create an other regions by saying AMARIYA, GURAGIYA, WELAYITIYA, SIDAMIYA…..etc.
all of you are living in shameful behave & nonesense to the future generation.
The civilized society never to hear this ancient conflicting system.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
1. It is of course that Oromos are migrated long ago from central east Africa ,mainly from the current Rwanda .The famous Historian Richard Pankhurst call them the Animists .The prime example of all this is the pure Oromos in deep south, which they still retain their cousins Hutu and Tutu complexion . like anybody would suggested otherwise, I do not wish to see no Oromos to go back to Rwanda either, but, to exercise their identity, liberty, the pursuit of happiness in their (new home land)Ethiopia. Here the discussion shouldn’t be that of succession or not. Their beloved country Ethiopia loves them not as a Diaspora but patriotic citizens like the rest of us( Ethiopians). Forward with a united Geez speaking Ethiopia.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Agafari Samueal, The famous Historian Prof- Richard Pankhurst never wrote the departure of the Oromo, the only he had writen about internal conditions.
-The wilkpedia, the free encyclopedia- Oromic, Afan Oromo is- “Afro-Asiatic Languge, widely spoken of the cushetic Languge. This is obiviously, The Oromo(Bertuma & Borena) migrite from India.
- The Tutsi Nation had migrite to Rwanda from East-Africa says all Historian, There is no specific evidences from where they mirgite.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Banda Messay,
Your refusal or inability to accept OLF as Oromo organization supported by all Oromo’s except bands is at the root of your problem. You attack Oromo and their organization by your ill-minded false theories to prove your hidden agenda of undying daydream of Amharization. Messay, the train has left long ago.
If you are not conscious that you are resisting reality, there is no way to break your destructive habit. At the end, you will die in wishful thinking. It is time for you retire with your stone-age mentality for the sake of future generation who may forge new ideas which enable them to live in peace with one another.
At the back your head, you believe that people and circumstances are conspiring against Amhara because you can’t face up to what is and so you live in a world of wishful thinking where things “should be” but are not, a certain way.
YOU CAN’T HELP THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT OLF, BUT YOU CAN HELP THE WAY YOU THINK AND REACT TO THEM. Bone headed
September 14th, 2009 at 5:33 am
-Ethiopian educated persons, This is not the time to critsize each other, especialy based on ethnic politics.
-This is the time to demolish or destroy the Fascist weyane regime.
-D/R Messay, please focus on struggling against the weyane regime, your article proceed to make exciting the weyane Authorities.
-We are conversated this issue about 19 Years, this system is one of weyane ideology to doing busy the people’s mind for not struggling against them.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:45 am
ከእንግዲህ በኋላ በእጅ አዙር የብሐረሰቦችን የእርስ በእርስ ጦርነት የሚያነሳሳ ጽሁፍ ማለትም ከወያኔዎች ጋር ተመሳሳይ የሆነ የሚጽፍና የሚናገር ሁሉ ዘረኛና የዘረኛ ድርጅት አባል መሆኑን በግልጽ ልንነግረው ይገባል እላለሁ:: የኢትዮጵያውያን የወቅቱ ትኩረት ወያኔን ማስወገድ እንጂ እነርሱ የሚፈልጉትን በማወቅም ሆነ ባለማወቅ የሚደረግ ነገር ሁሉ የኢትዮጵያውያን ጠላት ነውና መጠንቀቁን በአጽንኦት ማወቅ ይገባል::
ስለሃገር ለማገናዘብ የግድ P H D አያስፈልግም:: በተረጋጉና በሰለጠኑት ሃገራት የሚደረጉት ንግግሮችና ጽሁፎች ባላደጉት ሃገራት ጋር በአንድ አይነት ሂደት ለማድረግ የሚደረገው ነገር የሚያዋጣ አይደለምና ምሁራን አስተውሉ:: የጥንት አባቶች እናቶች ሃግራችንን ያስረከቡን ፈጣሪ በሰጣቸው አርቆ የማስተዋል ሂደት ነውና እናስብበት::
የቅርብ ታላላቅ ሃገሮች እንኳን የተመሰረቱት በመገበርና በማስገበር ነውና ወደኋላ የምትጎትቱን ሁሉ ተጠንቀቁ::
የወቅቱ የኢትዮጵያውያን ትግል: ከነጭራሹ ወያኔዎችን ማስወገድና በምትኩ ኢትዮጵያውያን የመረጡት መንግስት መመስረት ነውና የማዘናጊያ ንግግሮችና ጽሁፎች ሁሉ ይወገዱ:: ለአንድነት ለነጻነትና ለዲሞክራሲ የሚደረገውን ትግል በተግባር ተቀላቀሉ:: ጽሁፍና analysis ብቻ የትም አያደርስም:: ተግባር! ተግባር! ተግባር!
ኢትዮጵያ ለዘላለም ትኑር!