ABOn G7f Hubachiisa Addaddaa Dabarse

Jaal Daawud Ibsaa, Hayyu Dureen ABO, dhaamsa viidiyiidhaan dabarsan keessatti akka ibsanitti, humnooti mootummaa Itoophiyaa irratti qabsoo goona jedhan, akkuma bara qabsoon bilisummaa Oromoo itti eegalame sanatti qabsoo Bilisummaa Oromoo irratti qiyyaaffatanii  jiran.

Kanaaf, sababiin guddaan, akka J/ Daawud ibsanitti, yeroo ammaa kanatti qabsoo itti fufiinsa qabu kan deemsisaa jiru ABO ta’uu hubachuun, wareegama ummata Oromoo butatanii deemuuf duula bal’aa  banamee dha.

Keessattuu, dhaabni G7 jedhamu daandii wayyaanee hordofuun shiraa fi yakka olaanaa qabsoo bilisummaa Oromoo irratti dalaguu isaa kan himan J/ Daawud, “Akkuma TPLF OPDO tolfate, G7 ABO irratti qiyyaaffatee waan jiruuf, humni kun gochaa akkanaa irraa akka dhaabbatuuf  ABOn dhaamsa dabarseefii  jira,” jedhanii jiru.

Haata’uutii, humnooti kunneen, keessaayyuu G7 ABOfi qabsoo Oromoof kabajaa kennuu irra karaa badii fi yakkamaa waan filateef ummati Oromoo fi miseensoti ABO qabsoo isaanii fi jaarmiyaa isaanii akka qaroo ijaatti tifkachaa qabsoo farra wayyaanee jabeessanii akka itti fufan dhaamanii jiru.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zl1kcnnVSRg

http://oromeida.com/2012/01/30/abon-g7f-hubachiisa-addaddaa-dabarse/

What’s He Got to Hide?

Irada Humbatova/Reuters

The case of two Swedish journalists imprisoned in Ethiopia sheds light on a harsh campaign of repression.

Published: January 28, 2012

IN a filthy Ethiopian prison that is overridden with lice, fleas and huge rats, two Swedes are serving an 11-year prison sentence for committing journalism.

Martin Schibbye, 31, and Johan Persson, 29, share a narrow bed, one man’s head beside the other’s feet. Schibbye once woke up to find a rat mussing his hair.

The prison is a violent, disease-ridden place, with inmates fighting and coughing blood, according to Schibbye’s wife, Linnea Schibbye Steiner, who last met with her husband in December. It is hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night, and the two Swedes are allowed no mail or phone calls, she said. Fortunately, she added, the 250 or so Ethiopian prisoners jammed in the cell protect the two journalists, pray for them and jokingly call their bed “the Swedish embassy.”

What was the two men’s crime? Their offense was courage. They sneaked into the Ogaden region to investigate reports of human rights abuses.

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s increasingly tyrannical ruler, seemed to be sending a signal to the world’s journalists: Don’t you dare mess with me!

So the only proper response is a careful look at Meles’s worsening repression. Sadly, this repression is abetted by acquiescence from Washington and by grants from aid organizations.

Those Swedish journalists will probably be released early because of international pressure. But there will be no respite for the countless Ethiopians who face imprisonment, torture and rape.

I’m in Davos, Switzerland, for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, and so is Meles. I’ve been pursuing him for the last few days, trying to confront him and ask him about his worsening pattern of brutality.

He has refused to see me, so I enlisted my Twitter followers to report Meles sightings. I want to ask him why he has driven more journalists into exile over the last decade than any other leader in the world, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York City.

Meles has done genuine good in fighting poverty. He has some excellent officials under him, including a superb health minister, and Ethiopia’s economy is making progress in health and agriculture. Ethiopia is full of aid organizations, and it has a close intelligence and military relationship with the United States government.

Yet since 2005, when an initial crackdown left 200 protesters dead and 30,000 detained, Meles has steadily tightened his grip. A Human Rights Watch report this month noted that the government is forcibly removing tens of thousands of people from their rural homes to artificial villages where they risk starvation. Those who resist endure arrests, beatings or worse.

“The repression is getting worse,” notes Tamerat Negera, who fled to the United States after the newspaper he edited was closed down in 2009. “His vision seems an attempt to root out any dissent.”

Meles has criminalized dissent, with a blogger named Eskinder Nega now facing terrorism charges, which could mean a death sentence. His true crime was calling on the government to allow free speech and end torture.

Appallingly, the Meles regime uses foreign food aid to punish his critics. Ethiopia is one of the world’s largest recipients of development aid, receiving about $3 billion annually, with the United States one of its largest donors. This money does save lives. But it also “underwrites repression in Ethiopia,” in the words of Human Rights Watch.

Families and entire areas of the country are deliberately starved unless they back the government, human rights groups have shown. In Ethiopia, the verb “to starve” is transitive.

Look, I’m a huge advocate of smart aid to fight global poverty. But donors and aid groups need to ensure that their aid doesn’t buttress repression.

The Meles regime, run largely by a coterie from his own minority Tigrayan ethnicity, has been particularly savage in the Ogaden region, where it faces an armed uprising. When Jeffrey Gettleman, a colleague at The New York Times, went to the Ogaden in 2007, he found a pattern of torture and rape. The government then arrested Gettleman and two colleagues, detaining them for five days in harsh conditions.

The two Swedish reporters illegally entered the Ogaden and met a rebel group to examine that human rights wasteland. In December, they were sentenced to 11-year terms.

Steiner, Schibbye’s wife, said of the harsh conditions: “Eleven years in an Ethiopian prison is equal to life, because you do not survive that long.”

Amnesty International says that in the last 11 months, the government has arrested at least 114 Ethiopian journalists and opposition politicians. It described this as “the most far-reaching crackdown on freedom of expression seen in many years in Ethiopia.”

Prime Minister Meles, you may have dodged me in Davos, but your brutality toward Swedish, American and Ethiopian journalists will not silence the world’s media. You’re just inviting more scrutiny.

The Abused Terms of 'JUSTICE', 'FREEDOM' and 'DEMOCRACY'

(OLF Infodesk)

The Abused Terms of 'JUSTICE', 'FREEDOM' and 'DEMOCRACY'

Afaan Oromon dubbisuuf as tuqi

Click here to read in AMharic

Kanneen ‘Haqa’, ‘Bilisummaa’ fi ‘Demokraasii’f Qabsoofna Ofiin Jedhan Dursa Hiikaa Maqoota Kanaa Waliin Haa Araaraman!

(Infodeski ABO)

Afaan Oromo
Amharic

Oromia-Ethiopia: G7’s Non-Credible and Dangerous Political Move – Take 2

By Malkaa Guutuu*

It is a sad reality that the Ethiopian Empire is saddled with all manners of socio-economic and political problems that seem to only get bigger and more complex with time. Generations in that ill-fated country have now grown up with grinding poverty, recurring famine, which have consumed the lives of millions, and inter-group conflicts caused mainly by political and national oppression of one group by another, etc. Millions have fled these tragedies and continue to do so, in some cases, taking incredible chances against their own lives.

My goal in this article is not to rehash these tragedies, nor argue their causes. For that, one may consult the numerous publications that have been produced about these gut-wrenching human tragedies. Instead, my main purpose is to use insights from game theory to make the case that the most recent “alliance” between G7 and some Oromo Galtuus, who gracelessly consider themselves a faction of the Oromo Liberation Front, is a costly undertaking that further complicates the ongoing saga in the empire, because it sends dangerous signals to the main stakeholders. In doing so, I will also identify a necessary condition that must be observed by sensible political actors if a stable “Nash Equilibrium,” solving the age-old problems afflicting the country, is to be found.¹

Let me first say a word or two about game theory, also known as interactive decision theory. As an academic subject, it has been around for a few decades, and has a wide range of applicability in real life, where human relations are governed by strategic interactions. For instance, it has been used to explain why superpowers engage in the arms race, which everyone and their uncle knows to be sub-optimal. Although the birth of this theory is conventionally associated with John Nash’s doctoral thesis at Princeton, the genesis of its modern treatment goes back to earlier works, such as Von Neumann’s 1928 “Zur Theorie der Gesellaschaftsspiele” in “Mathematische Annalen.”

In game theory, there is a very simple game known as the prisoners’ dilemma, in which two actors simultaneously decide to either cooperate or handicap each other. If both players cooperate, their joint payoff is maximized. But, the game’s Nash Equilibrium is different from this outcome, because players have incentives to deviate from this socially-optimal result. Thus, rational players choose to handicap each other, ending up with inferior outcomes. It could be argued that Menelik and his brain-trust were playing this game, when their “alliance” with Gobana effectively created the current Ethiopia. Perhaps, thinking of the joint payoff (foolish), or assuming the game was going to be repeated (perhaps, correct in the long run), or motivated by some other irrational reason (possible), the latter chose to collaborate, while the former clearly had the opposite in mind. The outcomes were obvious: the Amhara elites ended up with superior outcomes, and the other guys went home with less than what they had before.

In what can only be described as an audacious step, if futile and even dangerous, the so-called G7 is trying to pull another one of those moves against the Oromo nation, by forming a “partnership” with a bunch of pathetic individuals, who are misusing the name of the Oromo Liberation Front. I am convinced this approach is not just misguided, but will entail harsh consequences. In a game of prisoners’ dilemma, defrauding a strategic competitor can happen only once if the players are rational. Menelik and his men could be excused for thinking that they were playing a one-shot game of prisoners’ dilemma, since, it might safely be assumed, they did not know anything about repeated games of prisoners’ dilemma, let alone much more sophisticated dynamic games played under imperfect and incomplete information. The G7 “geniuses” are pulling all the strings to play the old game with a complete set of new characters, by crowning Oromo clowns as their strategic partners. If being half-wits disqualified people from getting involved in politics, we would never see the architects of this design participate in any political affair. Ethiopia’s current political landscape requires much more adept touch, finesse, lots of understanding, not to mention a certain dose of humility and a ton of hard work, not clever-by-half and manipulative measures we just witnessed from G7 and its boosters.

Let me state a fact which ought to have been self-evident to G7, which seems to be preoccupied with an impossible task of re-instituting a version of Ethiopia that is dead for good, using measures that are stale and uninspired. Even Atse Meles’ TPLF did not attempt to play this game with the OLF, the vanguard of the Oromo National Liberation Movement. What the TPLF did was rent, under duress, some prisoners of war, who never had a say in any strategic political decision-making process. The actions of the TPLF when it created the so-called Oromo People’s Democratic Organization are qualitatively different from the hallucination that the OLF would be a party to any agreement that would potentially mean the dismantling of Oromia.

The OLF, despite its current difficulties, knows that history and credibility are important considerations in any dynamic game of mixed strategies, even in a repeated game of prisoners’ dilemma. The ongoing power play in the Ethiopian empire is a typical dynamic game with several actors, multitudes of strategic configurations and equilibrium outcomes, and thus necessitates credible actions by intelligent and rational players. To state the obvious, Oromo political leaders cannot forget the Menelik-Gobana “alliance” which kicked into effect a century-long agony of their people; they (we) cannot afford not to remember the Harka-Mura and Harma-Mura in Aannoollee, Calanqoo and other places. We can’t and will not forget how a foolish move by one of our own effectively resulted in the dispossession of our land, the inability to use and develop our language and culture, and being reduced to second-class citizens in our own country.

By making a terrible political move against the Oromo nation, the architects of G7 have thus clearly underestimated genuine Oromo political leaders’ capacity for strategic thinking, in effect exposing themselves to have no credibility as serious political players in shaping the future of the Ethiopian empire. Instead of marshaling their limited resources to come up with a credible plan of actions based on proper and careful analyses the Oromo question demands, they have opted for a foolish bluff that, unfortunately, will have dire consequences. One glaring negative consequence of their misguided and shortsighted step is that it makes a peaceful resolution of the ongoing crises in the Ethiopian Empire more remote than before. Any attempt at rerunning the old game one more time, as if the Oromo people and their leadership are oblivious to what happened yesterday and have not updated their information set, is surprisingly inept and will not produce optimal outcomes.

Sadly, I am not optimistic that there are leaders in the die-hard Ethiopianist camp willing and/or capable of reflection of the issues raised in this article. However, if there are any who truly care about the well-being of people they claim to speak for, they need to quit blindly beating the dead horse and engage, in more productive and serious ways, the Oromo Liberation Front and representatives of the other national groups (e.g. the ONLF) – the grass-roots organizations representing the interests of their respective nations. If there are any responsible and sensible Ethiopianist elites out there, whose goal is to bring about lasting and positive changes in the empire, they should honor the following condition, at a minimum. The stipulation is obviously not a substitute, but a prerequisite, for concrete steps that could be hammered out between self-interested actors (representatives of different national groups in this case), in order to begin to solve the age-old problems afflicting the empire. Oromo political and civic leaders will be in the forefront of identifying and proposing these concrete steps if the Ethiopianist camp approaches the Oromo question with the seriousness and care it deserves.

Here is what the ascending Oromo nationalists’ camp requires, rather demands, from the competing camp(s) if there is to be a peaceful resolution of the country’s problems. Do not repeat the tragic mistakes of G7! There are no fine prints to it. The name of the political game in the Ethiopian empire today is a mixed-strategy dynamic game involving several actors, which have different strengths and weaknesses, as well as a variety of strategic interests and goals. Critically, these disparate groups choose over a number of actions available to them, based on a probability distribution of possible actions, because they are operating with uncertainty. In these types of games, non-credible moves are out. Any group that wishes to live in peace and harmony with the Oromo people in the 21st century, therefore, must learn from the dangerous mistake that G7 just committed in playing a very amateurish and second-rate game. It is imperative to avoid shortsighted tricks and bluffs that underestimate the wisdom of one’s strategic competitors, and devalues one’s credibility as a serious player, in a political game that requires a great deal of intelligence and understanding. In order to be taken seriously by genuine Oromo political leaders and organizations as potential strategic partners, the die-hard unionist groups must first demonstrate that they have the seriousness, competence and credibility it takes to play the very complex political games in the Horn of Africa. If the Ethiopiansts heed this advice, there just might be a stable sub-game perfect Nash Equilibrium, solving the multifarious and intricate problems the empire has become infamous for. The equilibrium solution(s), by the way, need not be zero-sum game!

—————

1. Nash Equilibrium is a solution concept describing a set of strategy choices and the resulting payoffs in a game involving N players (individuals, firms, states, etc), in which each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing its strategy unilaterally.

* Malkaa Guutuu can be reached at malkaa.guutuu@gmail.com

Source: Gadaa.com

OPUCC                                                                                                 NYMFD

Freedom, Sovereignty and Democracy shall prevail
A Call from the Oromo People’s Uprising Coordinating Council (OPUCC) and the National Youth Movement for Freedom and Democracy (NYMFD) aka QEERROO

(Qeerroo, Finfinnee, 22 January 2012) The uprising which is about to launch in Oromia is a culmination of the long year Resistance Against Subjugation (Fincila Diddaa Gabrummaa (FDG)) which has been going on over the last long years. It is the highest form of popular movement to bring an end to the killings, campaign of imprisonment, kidnappings and disappearances, harsh economic and resource exploitation, nonstop eviction from ancestral land and overall to stop all forms of subjugation and slavery the Oromo people are subjected to over the last several decades by the dictatorial Ethiopian regimes.

The revolution is a just movement launched to bring an end to the humiliation of the Oromo people and other oppressed nations and nationalities in Ethiopia for the last 130 years; it deserves sympathy and support from all who has respect for human dignity and an end to tyranny in any form.

The blood of innocent Oromos spilled so far, the continuous flow of tears caused by loss of loved ones by illegal killings, torture, arrests, abductions and disappearances, should come end. The system of massive economic exploitation targeting particularly the Oromo people causing poverty and starvation should stop here by this final peaceful uprising of the Oromo people. Similar movements which have been successful in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other countries in the Middle-east (aka Arab Spring) all started after the Oromian youth movement known by the name Resistance Against Subjugation (or FDG).

The general resistance against subjugation in Oromia, the glorious movement by Qeerroo, and the struggle of the Oromo people for justice and democracy in particular deserves the same outcome as the Arab Spring. We are in an era where the voices of oppressed peoples against dictators are getting the upper hand.

Therefore, in order to bring to an end to arbitrary arrest, killing, torture, abduction and disappearance, illegal massive school dismissals, economic exploitation leading to abject poverty and starvation, massive eviction from land and in general to free the Oromo people from a slavery which lasted 130 years, the Oromo People’s Uprising Coordinating Counclil (OPUCC) and the National Youth Movement for Freedom and Democracy (NYMFD) aka QEERROO calls upon the entire Oromo people in general and the Oromo youth in particular to stand up and participate in this planned peaceful uprising.

More..

Bilisummaa, Walabummaa fi Dimokiraasiin Ammas ni mo’ata! Amajjii 2012

Freedom, Sovereignty and Democracy shall prevail. January 2012

Freedom,Sovernity and Democracy will prevail -Amaharic

Donor Funds Should Not Facilitate Abuse of Indigenous Groups

• 
  The new village of Bildak in Ethiopia's Gambella region, which the semi-nomadic Nuer who were forcibly transferred there quickly abandoned in May 2011 because there was no water source for their cattle.
  © 2011 Human Rights Watch

Downloadable Resources: 

Download this press release in Amharic (PDF)

Related Materials: 

“Waiting Here for Death”

More Coverage: 

For more HRW reporting on Ethiopia

The Ethiopian government’s villagization program is not improving access to services for Gambella’s indigenous people, but is instead undermining their livelihoods and food security. The government should suspend the program until it can ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place and that people have been properly consulted and compensated for the loss of their land.

Jan Egeland, Europe director at Human Rights Watch

(London) – The Ethiopian government under its “villagization” program is forcibly relocating approximately 70,000 indigenous people from the western Gambella region to new villages that lack adequate food, farmland, healthcare, and educational facilities, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. State security forces have repeatedly threatened, assaulted, and arbitrarily arrested villagers who resist the transfers.

The report, “‘Waiting Here for Death’: Forced Displacement and ‘Villagization’ in Ethiopia’s Gambella Region,” examines the first year of Gambella’s villagization program. It details the involuntary nature of the transfers, the loss of livelihoods, the deteriorating food situation, and ongoing abuses by the armed forces against the affected people. Many of the areas from which people are being moved are slated for leasing by the government for commercial agricultural development.

“The Ethiopian government’s villagization program is not improving access to services for Gambella’s indigenous people, but is instead undermining their livelihoods and food security,” said Jan Egeland, Europe director at Human Rights Watch. “The government should suspend the program until it can ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place and that people have been properly consulted and compensated for the loss of their land.”

The government says the “villagization” program is designed to provide “access to basic socioeconomic infrastructures” to the people it relocates and to bring “socioeconomic & cultural transformation of the people.” But despite pledges to provide suitable compensation, the government has provided insufficient resources to sustain people in the new villages, Human Rights Watch said.

The residents of Gambella, mainly indigenous Anuak and Nuer, have never had formal title to the land they have lived on and used. The government often claims that the areas are “uninhabited” or “under-utilized.” That claim enables the government to bypass constitutional provisions and laws that would protect these populations from being relocated.

The report is based on more than 100 interviews in Ethiopia in May and June 2011, and at the Ifo refugee camp in Dadaab and Nairobi, Kenya, where many Gambellans have fled.

“My father was beaten for refusing to go along [to the new village] with some other elders,” a former villager told Human Rights Watch. “He said, ‘I was born here – my children were born here – I am too old to move so I will stay.’ He was beaten by the army with sticks and the butt of a gun. He had to be taken to hospital. He died because of the beating – he just became weaker and weaker.”

The Villagization Program
The Ethiopian government is planning to resettle 1.5 million people by 2013 in four regions: Gambella, Afar, Somali, and Benishangul-Gumuz. Relocations started in 2010 in Gambella, and approximately 70,000 people there were scheduled to be moved by the end of 2011. Under the Gambella Peoples’ National Regional State Government Plan, 45,000 households are to be moved during the three-year program. The plan pledges to provide infrastructure for the new villages and assistance to ensure alternative livelihoods. The plan also states that the movements are to be voluntary.

Instead of improved access to government services, however, new villages often go without them altogether. The first round of forced relocations occurred at the worst possible time of year – the beginning of the harvest – and many of the areas to which people were moved are dry with poor-quality soil. The nearby land needs to be cleared, and agricultural assistance – seeds and fertilizers – has not been provided. The government failure to provide food assistance for relocated people has caused endemic hunger and cases of starvation.

Human Rights Watch’s research showed that the forced relocation policy is disrupting a delicate balance of survival for many in the region. Livelihoods and food security in Gambella are precarious. Pastoralists are being forced to abandon their cattle-based livelihoods in favor of settled cultivation. Shifting cultivators – farmers who move from one location to another over the years – are being required to grow crops in a single location, which risks depleting their soil of vital nutrients. In the absence of meaningful infrastructural support and regular supplies of food aid, the changes for both populations may have life-threatening consequences, Human Rights Watch said.

The resident of one new village told Human Rights Watch: “We expect major starvation next year because they did not clear in time. If they [the government] cleared [the land] we would have food next year but now we have no means for food.”

Commercial Land Investment
The villagization program is taking place in areas where significant land investment is planned or occurring. The Ethiopian government has consistently denied that the resettlement of people in Gambella is connected to the leasing of large areas of land for commercial agriculture, but villagers have been told by government officials that this is an underlying reason for their displacement. Former local government officials confirmed these allegations to Human Rights Watch.

One farmer told Human Rights Watch that during the government’s initial meeting with his village, government officials told them: “We will invite investors who will grow cash crops. You do not use the land well. It is lying idle.”

“We want you to be clear that the government brought us here… to die... right here,” one elder told Human Rights Watch. “We want the world to hear that government brought the Anuak people here to die. They brought us no food, they gave away our land to the foreigners so we can’t even move back. On all sides the land is given away, so we will die here in one place.”

Mass displacement to make way for commercial agriculture in the absence of a proper legal process contravenes Ethiopia’s constitution and violates the rights of indigenous peoples under international law.

From 2008 through January 2011, Ethiopia leased out at least 3.6 million hectares of land, an area the size of the Netherlands. An additional 2.1 million hectares of land is available through the federal government’s land bank for agricultural investment. In Gambella, 42 percent of the total land area is either being marketed for lease to investors or has already been awarded to investors, according to government figures. Many of the areas that have been moved for villagization are within areas slated for commercial agricultural investment.

“The villagization program is being undertaken in the exact same areas of Ethiopia that the government is leasing to foreign investors for large-scale commercial agricultural operations,” Egeland said. “This raises suspicions about the underlying motives of the villagization program.”

Role of Foreign Donors
Foreign donors to Ethiopia, including the United Kingdom, United States, World Bank, and European Union, assert that they have no direct involvement in the villagization programs. However, the multi-donor Protection of Basic Services (PBS) program subsidizes basic services – health, education, agriculture, roads, and water – and local government salaries in all districts in the country, including areas where new villages are being constructed and where the main activity of local governments is moving people.

As a result of their potential responsibilities and liabilities, donors have undertaken assessments of the villagization program in Gambella and in Benishangul-Gumuz and determined that the relocations were voluntary. Human Rights Watch’s field-based research and interviews with residents, however, indicates that the moves have been coerced.

International donors should ensure that they are not providing support for forced displacement or facilitating rights violations in the name of development, Human Rights Watch said. They should press Ethiopia to live up to its responsibilities under Ethiopian and international law, namely to provide communities with genuine consultation on the villagization process, ensure that the relocation of indigenous people is voluntary, compensate them appropriately, prevent human rights violations during and after any relocation, and prosecute those implicated in abuses. Donors should also seek to ensure that the government meets its obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the economic and social rights of the people in new villages.

“It seems that the donor money is being used, at least indirectly, to fund the villagization program,” Egeland said. “Donors have a responsibility to ensure that their assistance does not facilitate forced displacement and associated violations.”

Selected Accounts from “Waiting Here for Death”

“We were told, ‘If somebody refuses, the government will take action’ – so the people went to the new village – by force.”
–Villager in Abobo woreda (district), May 2011

“Farmers in our woreda did not want to go. The woreda reported to the region that farmers are refusing to accept. The governor asked the woreda chairman to investigate. He did – ‘Yes, they are resisting. What shall we do?’ he asked the governor. The governor told him that five development agents should be suspended from their job, and that he would bring in the soldiers. So that is what happened.”
–Former woreda civil servant, June 2011

“The government is killing our people through starvation and hunger. It is better to attack us in one place than just waiting here together to die. If you attack us, some of us could run, and some could survive. But this, we are dying here with our children. Government workers get this salary, but we are just waiting here for death.”
–Elder in recently relocated village, Abobo woreda, May 2011

“There is a psychological impact on children. No learning is happening. There was a school in the old village, here there is none. No one is going to school now, as they are afraid. Who will protect them going to the old village? Even the children themselves are refusing to go.”
–Anuak woman from new village discussing the lack of promised school in Abobo woreda, May 2011

Source

Can Oromummaa and Ethiopianism Be Reconciled?

*

This paper critically examines how the duality inherent in the concept of Ethiopianism shifts back and forth between claims of a “Semitic” identity when appealing to the White, Christian, racist/ethnocentric, occidental hegemonic power center and claims of an African identity when cultivating the support of sub-Saharan Africans and the African diaspora while, at the same time, ruthlessly suppressing or destroying the history and culture of non-Semitic Africans of the various colonized nations, such as Oromos. Successive Ethiopian state elites have used their Blackness to mobilize other Africans and the African diaspora for their political projects by confusing original Africa, Ethiopia, or the Black world with contemporary Ethiopia (former Abyssinia) and at the same time have allied with Euro-American powers and practiced racism, state terrorism, genocide, and continued subjugation on the indigenous Africans who are, today, struggling for self-determination and multinational democracy. Exposing the racist discourse of Ethiopianism and liberating the mentality of all Africans and the African diaspora from this “social cancer” must be one of the tasks of a critical paradigm of Oromummaa. Developing Oromummaa (Oromo culture, identity, and nationalism), the Oromo national movement engages in such a liberation project. Those intermediary Oromos who have been joining the Tigrayan or Amhara camps as collaborators have promoted Ethiopianism at the cost of Oromummaa. Those diaspora Oromo elites who are claiming to change the program of the Oromo Liberation Front are part and parcel of these subservient forces that have perpetuated Ethiopian colonialism and political slavery.

The critical and thorough examination of the essence and duality of Ethiopianism demonstrates the negative impact of this ideology on the processes of identity formation, state building, and development in the Ethiopian Empire. Ethiopians/Abyssinians or Habashas consider themselves Semitic and suppress their African-ness or Blackness by claiming their racial and cultural superiority to Blacks in general and the indigenous Africans they colonized in particular. Successive Ethiopian state elites have used the discourses of civilization, race, culture, and religion to justify and rationalize the colonization and dehumanization of the indigenous Africans, such as Agaos, Oromos, Ogaden-Somalis, Afars, Sidamas, and Walayitas, and have selectively utilized the politics of African-ness or Blackness without actually practicing this aspect of Ethiopianism. The duality of Ethiopianism and the politics of building contemporary Ethiopia as an empire on the foundation of racial/ethno-national hierarchy have prevented successive Ethiopian state elites from building a viable country. Consequently, Ethiopia has remained one of the most impoverished countries in the world and has become infamous for its recurrent famines and a series of internal and external wars and massive human rights violations.

Since ancient times, repeated episodes of migration from Arabia led to a series of conflicts revolving around issues of religion, identity, land, and power between various indigenous African population groups and the Africanized Arab descendants in the Horn of Africa. As indigenous Africans phenotypically and culturally impacted the Arab immigrants, the Africanized immigrants influenced the culture, religion, and identity of the original Africans through trade, colonial settlement, marriage, conflict, war, selective cultural borrowing, and cooperation. However, the descendants of these Africanized immigrants still control state power and refuse to treat those indigenous Africans they dominate, abuse, and exploit in the Horn of Africa as equal partners. It does not matter if the Ethiopian state is controlled by Amhara or Tigrayan elites since both of them are racists and colonialists. These elites have been using Oromo intermediaries, who lack real power and self-respect, to dominate, control, and exploit Oromo society for more than a century.

The modern ideology of the Ethiopian state evolved from what was once the Axumite kingdom of Abyssinia formed in the 1st century A.D. by the Africanized descendants of Arab settlers. The kingdom developed through commerce, migration, colonization, and the assimilation of some African and Arab cultural elements. The Axumite kingdom accepted Orthodox Christianity in the 4th century through the commercial relationship it developed with the Greco-Romans. The Muslim Arab immigrants who arrived after the rise of Islam in the 7th century spread this new religion in African coastal towns and subsequently challenged the Axumites. As Islamic influence increased, the commerce of the Axumite kingdom started to decline. However, the final deathblow was given to the deteriorating kingdom not by the Muslim Arabs, but by the indigenous Beja and Agao peoples who had been exterminated to some degree and enslaved by the Axumites. They revolted in the 10th century and occupied the northern trade routes to the Mediterranean world. In the mid-11th century, the previously colonized Agao people established a kingdom known as the Zagwe dynasty.

This dynasty lasted until 1270, when it was overthrown by one of the groups that descended from the remnants of the Axumites. These Axumite descendants developed a separate identity known as Amhara. The Amhara ethnonational group and another group known as Tigray are collectively called Habashas or Abyssinians. The Habashas developed a common religion, tradition, and set of customs, but each group maintained its own language. Although phenotypically and culturally Africanized, the Habashas have suppressed their Africanness or Blackness by linking themselves to the Middle East by considering themselves a Semitic people and claiming to be racially and culturally superior to indigenous Africans. In Abyssinia proper, using their state power, the Habashas imposed their Christian religion, their languages— Amharic and Tigragna—and their customs on the peoples that they colonized, resulting in Abyssinization, which can be described as the complete destruction of the identity of the colonized population groups by claiming racial and/or cultural superiority.

The colonization and destruction of various indigenous population groups, such as Qemant, Agao, and Gafat, in their homeland (later called Abyssinia), along with expropriation of their lands and other economic resources, the establishment of military colonies, the evangelization of the remnants of the colonized population groups, and their cultural assimilation were central to the continuous process of marginalization and Abyssinization. The modern Ethiopian state that emerged in the last decades of the 19th century through the alliance of Ethiopian colonialism and European imperialism has continued similar policies of colonization, genocide, and subjugation. How did Abyssinia gradually become Ethiopia? What role did European powers play in this name change? Although the historical meaning of Ethiopia is applicable to all Black peoples, its contemporary meaning applies mainly to Amharas and Tigrayans, who have successively dominated Ethiopian state power. The name Ethiopia originated with the Greek word Aethiopes. Classical Greek explorers and writers gave this name to the territories inhabited by Black peoples that they called burned-face peoples in Asia and Africa.

Therefore, ancient Ethiopia and the current Abyssinian Empire (contemporary Ethiopia) are not geographically coterminous, but the latter occupies a subset of the area of the former. Recognizing the political significance of the name Ethiopia and especially its Christian Biblical connections, Abyssinian leaders started to claim an Ethiopian identity and to argue that their territories once included all regions that classical geographers and historians described as Ethiopia. In actuality, the official adoption of the name Ethiopia for the Abyssinian Empire occurred in the early 1930s. In 1931, Haile Selassie officially changed the name Abyssinia to Ethiopia in the constitution. Today, few Africans and members of the African diaspora know the difference between ancient Ethiopia and contemporary Ethiopia (former Abyssinia). As we shall see below, successive Habasha state elites have used this historical ignorance, through the discourse of Ethiopianism, and mobilized Africans and the African diaspora for their racist projects of enslaving and colonizing various indigenous Africans, mainly Oromos, in the Horn of Africa. Most Africans and the African diaspora still subscribe to the ideology of Ethiopianism without critically understanding its duality and oppose the struggles of indigenous Africans in Ethiopia for self-determination and multinational democracy. Unfortunately, Oromo collaborators still accept Ethiopianism because of their ignorance or political opportunism.

The practice of creating and supporting a neocolonial state in accordance with the interests of the West started with the emergence of the modern Ethiopian state in Africa. The creation of the modern racialized Ethiopian state and the emergence of the Ethiopian Empire occurred within the expansion of the European-dominated capitalist world economy. Because of their Christian ideology and willingness to collaborate with European imperialist powers, such as Great Britain, France, and Italy, successive Habasha rulers gained access to European technology, weapons, administrative and military expertise, and other skills needed for the construction of a modern state. The Oromo population was reduced from about 10 to 5 million through war, slavery, massive killings, disease, and war-induced famine during the second half of the 19th century.

The modern Ethiopian state was the continuation of the previous Abyssinian racialized state, which committed genocide on indigenous peoples such as Qemant, Gafat, and Agao and asserted control over the remaining colonized peoples. Contemporary Ethiopia emerged as an empire by claiming the name of ancient and historic Ethiopia with the help of the West during the partition of Africa by European powers, and justified its genocide, enslavement, colonization, and the continued subjugation of Oromos and others through the discourse of race and religion.

Contemporary Ethiopia, the West, and the Discourse of Race

Denying the reality that contemporary Abyssinia/Ethiopia was the product of neocolonialism, invented by the alliance of Ethiopian colonialism and European imperialism, the West praises Abyssinia (later Ethiopia) as the country that was never colonized in Africa. The idea that Ethiopia was not colonized laid the cornerstone for the ideology of “Greater Ethiopia.” The ideology of “Greater Ethiopia” claims that Ethiopia was not colonized like other parts of Africa because of Habasha bravery and patriotism that made this empire unique in Africa. The Ethiopian historical discourse claims that Ethiopian boundaries are sacred since they were established 3,000 years ago. Furthermore, it is asserted that Abyssinian “society represented an advanced level of social and economic organization” that enabled it to defend itself from European colonialism by eliminating slavery and protecting “all the peoples of greater Ethiopia from falling prey to European imperialism” and that Ethiopia played a significant civilizing mission by colonizing and dominating Oromos and other nations who were backward, pagan, destructive, and inferior.

The Western foreign policy experts not only provided technology and expertise in different fields, they played a critical role in formulating and promoting racist mythologies to justify the colonization and continued subjugation of the colonized subjects. For instance, the notion of claiming Abyssinia/Ethiopia as an ancient kingdom was originally suggested by an Italian expert in 1891. Francisco Crispi instructed an Italian agent in Finfinnee to inform Menelik that the European powers were establishing their boundaries in Africa and that the emperor should, with Italian assistance, circulate a letter defining his borders in order to guarantee the integrity of his empire. Crispi further suggested that in the letter, Menelik ought to point out that Ethiopia was an ancient Kingdom, which had been recognized as independent by the Christian states of Europe. The racist idea that Habashas were different from other Africans lay at the core of the European justification for empowering them to colonize and rule Oromia and other nations.

These racist mythologies of “Greater Ethiopia” also helped the Haile Selassie government gain admission into the League of Nations in 1924. As a result, Ethiopia began to enjoy more recognition in Europe and North America. The ideology of Greater Ethiopia, that has been accepted and developed by European and American policy elites and their successive governments, has been the bedrock of racism on which Ethiopia was built and still maintained. In the 1930s when Haile Selassie went to Europe and became the darling of the Western media, the ideology of “Greater Ethiopia” was refined and celebrated in Europe, America, and Ethiopia. He was also glorified for his devotion to modernization. The Ethiopian Empire that was created with the alliance of European imperialist powers and Habasha warlords has maintained itself through an alliance with successive imperial superpowers, namely, Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, and the United States, that have provided protection to successive Ethiopian state elites and their governments. Presently China supports the Tigrayan state elites that are engaging in dominating and destroying Oromia and its people.

After colonizing the Oromo and other nations with the help of European technology and expertise, Abyssinian colonial settlers in Oromia and other regions justified their colonial domination with racist discourse. With the establishment of their colonial authority in the colonized regions, Habasha settlers “assumed that their own innate superiority over the local residents accounted for this accomplishment.” These essential components of racist discourse of Greater Ethiopia have remained intact. “Socialist” and then “democratic” discourse has been introduced by successive Habasha state elites and accepted by their Euro-American supporters without changing the colonizing and racist structure of Ethiopian society. Ethiopian racism and White racism have conveniently intermarried in the U.S. policy formulation and implementation in Ethiopia. The U.S. policy toward Ethiopia builds upon the European policy established before the United States became involved.

The combined views about Oromos and others and the racist assumptions of U.S. foreign policy elites effectively mobilize the U.S. State Department against the indigenous Africans. The U.S. government supports the Ethiopian authoritarian-terrorist regime that is characterized by extreme militarization and repression; tight control of information and resources in the form of foreign aid, domestic financial resources, and political appointments; and direct ownership and control of all aspects of state power, including security and military institutions, judiciary and other political bodies, and financial institutions. Similarly, emerging countries like China and India support the Tigrayan government of Meles Zenawi and promote its policies. Because of its racist policies, the Ethiopian state has different policies within Abyssinia proper, the homeland of Amhara-Tigray, and the colonized regions such as Oromia.

Ethiopianism has been effectively used to hide the crimes against humanity that the Ethiopian state engages in today. The Ethiopian state has acted in an authoritarian manner toward Amhara and Tigray ethno-nations from which it emerged and in a terrorist fashion toward racialized peoples, such as Oromos, Afars, Sidamas, Ogaden-Somalis, and others, that it suppresses and exploits. Therefore, I have characterized this state as an authoritarian-terrorist regime. The Ethiopia state is owned by Tigray-Amhara elites who control all aspects of state power and use state terrorism to maintain their power and privilege.

The Duality of Ethiopianism

Ethiopian elites boast that their country, Ethiopia, was not colonized like that of other Africans. They are unable to recognize the fact that the Ethiopian Empire has been an indirect colony of Euro-America since its inception. Despite the fact that Habasha elites claim that Ethiopia has been the defender of African freedom in public, they never hesitate to express their disdain for formerly enslaved or directly colonized Africans in private among themselves. Habasha elites have claimed that they have a superior religion and civilization, and even sometimes have expressed that they are not Black and see formerly enslaved or colonized Africans as baryas (slaves). Furthermore, they have degraded the humanity and culture of the indigenous Africans they have colonized and dominated. The Habashas have traditionally looked upon the dark skinned people as inferiors and given them the name of “Shankalla” . . . . The Black Americans were known as Negro [sic], which in Ethiopia was associated with slavery. Hence to the Ethiopians the Afro-Americans were Shankalla.”

Habashas see themselves as a Semitic people who are racially and culturally superior to other Africans and the African diaspora. Imitating their white masters, Menelik and his followers saw themselves as white gods who were sent to “civilize” Oromos and other indigenous Africans via slavery and colonialism. Ethiopian colonizers started to dehumanize Oromos by changing their name to Galla. As the names of various African peoples who were enslaved and brought to America were changed to Negro, and as the names of various peoples in America were changed to Indian with their colonization and destruction, Oromos were given the name Galla. These names were invented in the process of removing these peoples from their respective cultural and historical roots and making them the target of destruction, enslavement, colonialism, and continued subjugation. The appellation Galla was given to Oromos as a name of contempt and derogation. It has characterized them as slave, pagan, uncivilized or barbaric, inferior, and ignorant. This name was invented to destroy Oromoness and to devalue Oromo culture, history, and tradition. In Abyssinia proper, Galla and barya have been used interchangeably. Galla is the name of racist ridicule in academia and popular discourse.

Habashas have effectively used the discourse of cultural racism in destroying or suppressing other peoples. Cultural racism can be defined as the conscious or subconscious conviction of the politically dominant population group that imposes its cultural patterns and practices through its social institutions in an attempt to destroy or suppress the cultural patterns and practices of the colonized and dominated population. Cultural racism and its contradictions may result in the extermination or/and continued subjugation of the dominated population group. Racism does not necessarily manifest itself by the discourse of biological difference. Usually it combines the discourses of biological and cultural differences to justify unequal treatment of different population groups. The extermination of Jews by Germans, the continued subjugation of Palestinians by the Jews, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnians by Serbians, the destruction of Tutsis by Hutus, and suppression of Hutus by Tutsis are examples of extreme forms of cultural racism.

The discourses of race and racism emerged with the development of the racialized capitalist world system via racial slavery and European colonialism. The processes of expropriation, slavery, and colonialism resulted in the hierarchical organization of world populations through the creation of an elaborate discourse of racism to maintain the system. Let me provide a pragmatic definition of racism. As the meaning of race is complex, so is that of racism. Racism is a discourse and a practice in which a racial/ethno-national project (i.e., slavery, genocide, colonialism, continued subjugation) is politically, culturally, and “scientifically” constructed by dominating elites in the capitalist world system to justify and naturalize racial/ethno-national inequality in which those at the top of social hierarchy oppress and exploit those below them by claiming biological and/or cultural superiority. Simply put, racism is an expression of institutionalized patterns of colonizing structural power and social control.

Race and racism are socially, politically, and culturally constructed to maintain the identities and privileges of the dominant population groups and their power through policy formulation and implementation. They are sociopolitical constructs because all human groups are biologically and genetically more alike than different. “Geneticists have shown that 85 per cent of all genetic variation is between individuals within the same local population. A further 8 per cent is between local populations or groups within what is considered to be a major race. Just 7 per cent of genetic variation is between major races.” Despite the fact that all human groups originally evolved in Africa and migrated to different parts of the world, Europeans and Ethiopians have been victimizing indigenous Africans by inventing nonexistent “races” and the discourse of racism. Just as Eurocentric scholars have intellectually separated the original Black civilization of Kemet (Egypt) and Kush or Nubia and then linked them to the Middle East to prove the racist notion of superiority of non-Blacks to Blacks, Ethiopian elites and some Ethiopianists have tried to prove the racial and civilization superiority of Amharas and Tigrayans by Semitizing and linking them to the Middle East and Europe.

Successive Ethiopian state elites use the African and Semitic discourses both regionally and globally. Globally, they use the Semitic discourse and the discourse of Christianity to mobilize assistance from Europe, North America, and the Middle East. On the other hand, they use their Blackness to mobilize other Africans, the African diaspora, and Black U.S. policy elites against Oromos and other colonized peoples. Several times, Ethiopian state elites have attempted and used the influence of the African diaspora for their political and economic interests, particularly in the United States, by capitalizing on the emotion they have for the name Ethiopia. By confusing original Ethiopia (the Black world) with contemporary Ethiopia (former Abyssinia), Habasha elites have misled some historically naive people in Africa, Europe, North America, and the world.

Because of this historical misinformation, Africans who were colonized or enslaved by Europeans, except those who were enslaved and colonized by contemporary Ethiopians, wrongly considered contemporary Ethiopia (former Abyssinia) as an island of Black freedom because it was able to maintain formal political power, albeit with the help of Euro-American powers. Most Blacks “knew very little about the social and political conditions of Ethiopia. What they wrote or said about Ethiopia was at best a manifestation of their emotional state.” Other Africans are unaware that Ethiopia’s political power came from allying with the colonizing European powers.

By using the discredited racist categorization of human groups, such as Semitic, Hamitic, Negroid, and Cushitic, Habashas have a stratified hierarchy in which they place Oromos between themselves and the people that they wrongly call Shankillas—people they consider Negroid. Despite the fact that Habashas are Black, they consider themselves Semitic to associate with the Middle East and dissociate from Africa, whose peoples they consider both racially and culturally inferior. For instance, when the Nigerian Daily Times interviewed Haile Selassie, the emperor of Ethiopia, in the 1930s, about Ethiopian racial identity, he said “that Ethiopians were not, and did not regard themselves as Negroes, as they were a Hamito-Semitic people.” Because the concept of race is a sociopolitical construct, it is essential to critically understand the historical context in which Ethiopian racism is produced and reproduced to denigrate the colonized peoples to deny them access to Ethiopian state power and economic resources.

In Ethiopian discourse, racial distinctions have been invented and manipulated to perpetuate the political objective of Habasha domination of the colonized population groups. Habasha elites recognize the importance of racial distinctions in linking themselves to the Middle East, Europe, and North America to mobilize support for their political projects. Jews, Arabs, Europeans, and Americans see Habashas as closer to themselves than the peoples whom they consider “real Black.” Also the West, particularly the United States, places Habashas on “an intermediate position between whites and blacks” and considers them closer to “the European race” or members of “the great Caucasian family.” There were Europeans who considered Habashas as a very intelligent people because of their racial affinity with the “Caucasian race.” There were also those who saw Habashas as “dark-skinned white people” and “racial and cultural middleman” between Black Africa on one side and Europe and the Middle East on the other side. One German scholar admired the intelligence of Habashas and noted that he never saw such mental capability among Negroes, Arabs, Egyptians, and Nubians.

These racist discourses go unchallenged in academic and popular discourse because they help reproduce Ethiopianism and colonial state power. U.S. foreign policy elites, diplomats, and other officials recognize and defend such “racial pretension of Ethiopia’s ruling class.” Racist Euro-American scholars use these kinds of discourses to show the significance of Whiteness and denigrate the value of Blackness in human civilization. Despite the fact that their skin color is Black, Ethiopian state elites joined their racist White counterparts to devalue the humanity of Black people. One would expect that African American policy elites in the U.S. State Department and the U.S. black president would think differently from and genuinely promote social justice and democracy in Africa. But African American policy elites, because of their distorted historical knowledge, and/or because of their class interests, have accepted the ideological discourse on Ethiopia that presented this empire as the home of Black freedom when all Blacks were under Euro-American colonialism and slavery and endorsed the racist U.S. policy toward Ethiopia and Oromia.

In Ethiopian academic studies, Oromos were depicted as “crueler scourges” and “barbarian hordes who brought darkness and ignorance in the train”; they were also depicted as evil, ignorant, order-less, destructive, infiltrators, and invasive. In addition, Oromos were seen as “a decadent race” that was “less advanced” because of their racial and cultural inferiority. Therefore, their colonization and enslavement by the alliance of Ethiopians and Europeans were seen as a civilizing mission. Because in modernist thinking, historical development is linear and society develops from a primitive or backward to a civilized or advanced stage, Oromos, who have been seen as primitive people, are also considered as part of a collection of tribes or a single tribe or a “cluster” of diverse groups that cannot develop any nationalist political consciousness except tribalism. Racist and modernist scholars have also denied the existence of a unified Oromo identity and argued that Oromos cannot achieve statehood because they are geographically scattered and lack cultural substance. Generally speaking, both Ethiopian elites and their Euro-American counterparts have built Ethiopianism as a racial project at the cost of indigenous Africans, such as Oromos. Furthermore, Oromo collaborators including those who are claiming to change the program of liberation to subordination have become instruments of these ideologies.

The Impact of Ethiopianism on Oromos

The popular discourse on Oromos is full of racist prejudices and stereotypes. When Habashas want to make a point of the alleged inferiority of Oromos on the racial/ethno-national hierarchy, or to deny them their humanity, they debase an Oromo and her or his nationality by asking, “sawu nawu Galla?” (Is he or she a human being or a Galla?) This query shows that Habashas consider Oromos as inferior human beings. Even Orthodox Christianity is used to promote racism in Ethiopia. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church publication denounced sexual relations between Habashas and Oromos by saying that Jesus would punish those who had sexual intercourse with “the cursed, the dumb, the Moslems, the Galla, the Shankilla, the Falasha, the horse, the donkey, the camel and all those who committed sodomy.” This religious tract was written in Geez (an old Abyssinian language) and translated into Amharic in 1968. While its original date of writing and authorship are unknown, the piece has been popular and widely recited by literate Habashas.

Oromos, Ethiopian Jews, Muslims, and various peoples were categorized with beasts, such as horses, donkeys, and camels. The implicit intention of the Orthodox Church was to draw a racial/ethno-national boundary between Habashas and non-Habashas to maintain the racial/ethno-national purity of the former. Habasha stereotypes depict Oromos as a dirty people: the expression “Galla na sagara eyadare yigamal” compares Oromos to feces and claims that Oromos continue to stink like feces with passing days. This expression warns that the closer you get to Oromos, the more you find how dirty they are. This racial insult is used to create tension between Oromos and Habashas. Another expression depicts Oromos as a rotten people (“timbi or bisbis Galla”). Yet another expression explains that Oromos cannot be clean even if they wash themselves again and again: “Galla na Shinfila ayitaram,” which literally means, “Even if you wash their stomach lining, a Galla will never come clean.”

Oromos have been depicted as barbarians and backward people in popular discourse. A Habasha expression claims that Oromos’ attempt to be civilized cannot be successful because Oromos are predestined to fail in civilization projects. The saying “Galla sisaltin bacharaqa jantila yizo yizoral” attempts to show that even if he or she is civilized, an Oromo does not know the true essence of civility. Literally this saying translates, “When an Oromo is civilized he/she stretches his/her umbrella in the moonlight and walks around so that he/she can be seen by others.” Simply put, because Oromos are stupid, they do not know how to behave in a civilized way. The expression “Ye Galla chawa, ye gomen choma yelewum” depicts Oromos as a society that does not have respected and notable individuals. The literal translation of this expression reads, “As there is no fat in vegetables or greens, there is no a gentlemen in the Galla community.” Generally, Oromos have been targeted by Habasha expressions and are seen by Habsashas as a useless people who do not deserve respect.

Oromos have been insulted for even trying to assimilate to Ethiopian culture by speaking an Ethiopian language. Habasha have expressed their anger toward Oromos who have mispronounced Amharic words by saying that “Afun yalfata Galla; tabitaba Galla” (an Oromo is someone who cannot express himself/herself clearly). To psychologically demoralize Oromos, the Habasha discourse also depicts Oromos as a cowardly person that cannot resist domination; the saying “and Amhara matto Galla yinadal” clearly shows the essence of this discourse. Literally it translates, “One Amhara can force one hundred Oromos into submission or subordination.” However, historical evidence indicates that until they allied with Europeans and obtained modern weapons, Habashas saw Oromo fighters as their nightmare.

Even a poor Habasha or a leper claims that he or she is better than a Galla; the expressions “Even if I am poor, I am not a Galla,” and “Even if I am a leper, I am not a Galla” clearly show how most Habashas, including the sick and the poor, claim racial/ethno-national superiority. Generally speaking, Habashas have “looked upon and treated the indigenous people as backward, heathen, filthy, deceitful, lazy, and even stupid—stereotypes that European colonialists commonly ascribed their African subjects.” Furthermore, Habasha social institutions, such as family, school, media, government, and religion, reproduce and perpetuate these racist prejudices and stereotypes within Ethiopian society. The prejudices and stereotypes consciously or unconsciously have influenced Ethiopians and Ethiopian studies.

Ethiopians, and particularly those Ethiopian scholars and Ethiopianists who have been influenced by these racist assumptions, have never respected Oromo culture and have opposed the Oromo struggle for self-determination, social justice, democracy, and human rights under a variety of different pretexts. Some assert that because Oromos are dispersed among other peoples, the question of national self-determination is not applicable to their cause. Others argue that the assimilation of Oromos to Habashas both biologically and culturally prevent them from having a cultural identity that enables them to have national self-determination. Furthermore, because Oromos are considered “invaders” of Ethiopia, some Ethiopian elites argue that Oromos do not deserve self-determination because the region that they call Oromia does not belong to them. This assertion implicitly suggests that Oromos must accept their subjugation and second-class citizenship, or they must leave Ethiopia before they will be totally annihilated for continuing to demand self-determination and democracy.

The political agenda of the destruction of Oromo society is not a new phenomenon. The West has been supporting this political agenda. And now China, India and Arab countries support Ethiopianism and Tigrayan colonial policies. The massive killing of Oromos by Amhara-Tigrayans was never condemned as genocide. Just as genocide committed by Menelik and his followers escaped world condemnation, so is the ethno-national cleansing that is systematically committed by the Meles regime. Currently Ethiopianism hides the true nature of the Tigrayan-led minority regime in Ethiopia. Supported by the West, mainly the United States, and using political violence, this regime has dominated and controlled the Oromo people and others, denying them freedom of expression, association, or organization, as well as access to the media and related forms of communication and information networks.

The Meles regime has used various techniques of violence to terrorize Oromos who are engaged in the struggle for liberation and democracy. Just as successive Amhara-dominated regimes engaged in terrorism and genocide and exploited the resources of Oromos, Afars, Ogaden Somalis, Sidamas, and others, the Tigrayan-dominated regime is engaged in similar practices to suppress the national movements of these indigenous peoples in order to maintain a racial/ethno-national hierarchy and to continue subjugation. With the intensification of the national movements of these subjugated nations, the regime has been engaged in massive human rights violations, terrorism, and hidden genocide.

While engaging in state terrorism in the form of war, torture, rape, and hidden genocide to control the Oromo people and others and to loot their economic resources, Tigrayan state elites claim that they are promoting democracy, federalism, and national self-determination. These elites use Ethiopianism to claim the unity of the colonizer and the colonized population groups in the Ethiopian Empire while committing such serious crimes against humanity. For example, in 2003 and 2004, the Meles regime commited genocide against the Annuak people of Gambella. It is no wonder that all colonized population groups in Ethiopia reject the ideology of Ethiopianism. In particular, Oromos have developed Oromummaa (Oromo-centric worldview, culture, and nationalism) to oppose Ethiopianism and to dismantle the racial/ethno-national hierarchy and Ethiopian settler colonialism and its institutions. Oromo nationalists must fight and discredit those who have betrayed Oromummaa and the Oromo national interest by joining the Ethiopianist camp.

Oromummaa and Critical Afrocentricity

Oromummaa, as an aspect of Afrocentric worldview, builds on the best elements of Oromo culture and traditions and endorses an indigenous Oromo democracy known as the gadaa system. As an Afrocentric worldview that sees an African culture as the center of African life and the African diaspora, Oromummaa bases its vision on Oromo popular democracy, an institution that existed before American democracy. Before their colonization, Oromos used the gadaa system of government to organize and order their society around political, economic, social, cultural, and religious institutions. Gadaa democracy included the principles of checks and balances (through periodic succession of every 8 years), division of power (among executive, legislative, and judicial branches), balanced opposition (among five parties), and power sharing between higher and lower administrative organs to prevent power from falling into the hands of despots. Other principles of the system included balanced representation of all Oromo branches, lineages, regions, and confederacies; accountability of leaders; and the settlement of disputes through reconciliation and the respect for basic rights and liberties.

Currently, the Oromo national movement attempts to retrieve popular Oromo democracy. The aspiration to restore this form of popular democracy is similar to the idea of developing Afrocentric awareness in the African and African diaspora communities. Those who endorse and glorify Ethiopianism are undermining this Afrocentric awareness to enjoy power and material benefits at the cost of various African population groups particularly Oromos. Hence progressive Habashas, ordinary Amharas and Tigrayans, other Africans, and the African diaspora must recognize the negative consequences of Ethiopianism and support the struggles for self-determination, multinational democracy, and development in Oromia, Ethiopia, and beyond. The Oromo national movement is revolutionary, progressive anti-colonial, antiracist, and pan-Africanist. Oromummaa or Oromo nationalism is not against any people, but against the Ethiopian colonial system and its oppressive and repressive institutions and all forms of injustice.

Without recognizing the centrality of Africa for humanity in general and the significance of indigenous African cultures in particular, we cannot develop “a victorious consciousness” that equips us with the knowledge of liberation. This knowledge of liberation must be a critical Afrocentric one that “places the African person at the center of analysis” by making “the African person subject, and not object, of study.” Similarly, Oromummaa as an intellectual and ideological vision places the Oromo man and woman at the center of analysis and at the same time goes beyond Oromo society and aspires to develop global Oromummaa by contributing to the solidarity of all oppressed peoples and promoting the struggle for self-determination and multinational democracy. Oromummaa is a complex and dynamic national and global project. As a national project and the central ideology of the Oromo national movement, Oromummaa enables Oromos to retrieve Oromo-centric political strategies and tactics that can mobilize the nation for collective action empowering the people for liberation.

As a global project, Oromummaa requires that the Oromo national movement be inclusive of all persons, operating in a democratic fashion. This global Oromummaa enables the Oromo people to form alliances with all political forces and social movements that accept the principles of national self-determination and multinational democracy in the promotion of a global humanity that is free of all forms oppression and exploitation. In other words, global Oromummaa is based on the principles of mutual solidarity, social justice, and popular democracy. Oromummaa, as an element of culture, nationalism, and vision, has the power to serve as a manifestation of the collective identity of the Oromo national movement. The foundation of Oromummaa must be built on over-arching principles that are embedded within Oromo traditions and culture and, at the same time, have universal relevance for all oppressed peoples. The main foundations of Oromummaa are individual and collective freedom, justice, popular democracy, and human liberation, all of which are built on the concept of saffu (moral and ethical order) and are enshrined in gadaa principles.

Although Oromummaa emerges from the Oromo cultural and historical foundations, it goes beyond culture and history in providing a liberative narrative for the future of the Oromo nation as well as the future of other oppressed peoples, particularly those who suffer under the Ethiopian Empire. As a critical element of Afrocentricity, Oromummaa challenges Ethiopianism and the idea of glorifying African monarchies or chiefs or warlords who collaborated with European slavers and colonizers and destroyed Africa by participating in the slave trade and the project of colonization. It also exposes the crimes of Tigray-Amhara elites that are engaging in the suppression of the Oromo national movement led by the Oromo Liberation Front. Oromummaa as an aspect of Afrocentricity also challenges those African scholars who degrade African democratic traditions just as their Euro-American counterparts devalue the Oromo democratic system and consider indigenous Africans such as Oromos primitive and “stateless” before and after their colonization.

Learning about Oromo society—with its complex democratic laws, an elaborate legislative tradition, and well-developed methods of dispute settlement—and the Oromo national struggle can present a new perspective for Africana studies and politics. Africans and the African diaspora and other oppressed peoples can ally with one another on global level by exchanging political and cultural experiences and re-creating the ideology of pan-Africanism from “below” and global mutual solidarity based on the principles of popular democracy and egalitarian world order. While developing national and global Oromummaa and intensifying the Oromo national struggle, Oromo nationalists must defeat those Oromos who accept Ethiopianism and collaborate with Ethiopian colonialists that attempt to perpetuate the continued subjugation of the Oromo nation. At the same time, the Oromo national struggle must develop political strategies that will enable the Oromo nation to establish Oromia’s sovereignty and ally with oppressed nations and groups that reject the ideology of Ethiopianism and accept the principles of national self-determination and multinational democracy. Those opportunist and mercenary Oromos who oppose the Oromo struggle for national self-determination and attempt to replace Oromummaa with the racist ideology of Ethiopianism are going to join the dustbin of history as their predecessors.

* Asafa Jalata is Professor of Sociology, Global Studies, and Africana Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His teaching and research expertise focuses on the areas of Oromo studies, global studies, development and international inequality, social movements, nationalism, terrorism studies, indigenous studies, human rights, and race and ethnicity.

Qaawwa Ittiin Alagaan Harka Nutti Naqataa Jiru Duuchuuf Haa dirmannu!

Kemal Gelchu & Co.: “OLF” Trojan horse? Part I

On August 10, 2006, Oromo nationalist all over the world woke up to the news of Gen. Kemal Gelchu’s (a TPLF army general) defection to Eritrea and joining the Asmara Group of OLF (AKA the Dawud Ibsaa Group). Kemal Gelchu had been a very loyal soldier of the Ethiopian empire for many years both under the DERG and TPLF regimes. At the time of his defection to Eritrea, he was the commander of the TPLF 18th army division.

According to media reports, Kemal Gelchu simply walked across the border to Eritrea under cover of darkness from where he was stationed on Ethio-Eritrea border. What is more, he brought along 150 fully armed soldiers and, by some accounts, “tens of commanders” including Col. Abebe Geresu.

TPLF explained away the general’s defection as a disgruntled soldier who was denied promotion and chose to engage in “divisive activities”. Ethiopian TV reported: “Although his [Kemal Gelchu’s] colleagues repeatedly tried to correct the commander from his anti-government and inappropriate activities, the commander was not willing to change".

Regardless of his alleged “divisive activities” and notwithstanding TPLF’s knowledge of it, Kemal was allowed to command TPLF’s 18th army division stationed at the border with Eritrea – Ethiopia’s arch enemy. By any standard, the border between the two states was highly guarded and monitored at the time he crossed over. Regardless, the general was able to walk across the border with 150 other soldiers in tow and with a minor shooting incident.

How he accomplished such a feat was never explained, much less in sufficient detail. Hard to believe? Read on!

Gen. Hailu Gonfa and Col. Gemechu Ayana, two other long time soldiers of the empire, followed suite a few weeks later. How they arrived in Asmara was never explained to my knowledge.

Their defection generated euphoria in some corners owing to the belief that these generals would re-organize and re-build a guerrilla force that would match, surpass and defeat the TPLF army.

The two generals fanned the euphoria by informing the public that peaceful struggle against TPLF is futile and that they had exhausted the possibility of bringing TPLF to its senses through dialogues. In an interview he gave to BBC soon after arriving in Asmara, Kemal Galchuu said “The language they (the Ethiopian government) understand is force and we're going to challenge them by force." (Read Here). Hailu Gonfa, on his part, told Eritrean Television, that their demands for democracy “fell on deaf ears, [as a result] they were compelled to raise arms against the [TPLF] regime and thus join the popular struggle.”

Five years after they joined the Asmara Group of OLF and given that they now lead an OLF faction and their announcement on new year 2012 of having changed the OLF political program (Read Here) , it is about time, and fair, to assess their performance.

Have they challenged TPLF by force as they promised they would do when they defected? Has the Oromo struggle fared better as a result of their defection? Has the Oromo struggle become stronger or weaker – militarily, politically, socially, etc - as a result of them joining it?. Most importantly, did they defect to the Asmara Group of OLF to help the struggle or to do TPLF work? How about the faction that Kemal Gelchu is leading – is it advancing the Oromo struggle or is it a TPLF tool – a Trojan horse for TPLF spies and saboteurs? Where they sent to infiltrate the Asmara Group of OLF, take control of the organization and ensure that faction accepts TPLF conditions of surrender: Accepting the TPLF constitution and renouncing armed struggle?

In the following paragraphs, I will search for answers to these questions in their actions over the last five years.

But, first, what is a “Trojan Horse?”

The term “Trojan Horse” comes from the legendary ancient war story between Greeks and Trojans (People of Troy). In this epic story, having given up on confronting the Trojans in face-to-face combats, the Greeks came up with a crafty plot. They built a wooden horse, hid Greek soldiers in its belly and left it at the gate of the heavily fortified and defended Trojan city. Believing that this was a parting gift to the gods from the Greeks, Trojans opened their gate, wheeled the wooden horse in and went about celebrating their “victory”. Unbeknownst to them, the Greeks had hidden their soldiers in the wooden horse, whom in the middle of the night came out of the horse’s belly and opened the gate to the Trojan city. Once the gate was thrown open, more Greek soldiers streamed in to the city and decimated the Trojans thereby winning the war. That wooden horse became known as “Trojan Horse” and the term itself has since been used to describe enemy operatives in one’s midst conducting espionage and sabotage to undermine the opponent from within.

So, is Kemal Gelchu & Co. a Trojan horse? Let the facts speak for themselves.

On Strengthening the Oromo Struggle

In a couple of years after their arrival, the Kemal Gelchu group split the Asmara Group of OLF. The reason given for the split depends on which side of the divide would be doing the explaining. However, there is one glaring fact that is undeniable about how they split the organization and the consequences accompanying the split on Oromo struggle.

The first, and the most damaging one to the Oromo struggle and Oromummaa (Oromo identity), is the fact that when they parted company with the Dawud Ibsaa Group, their constituency consisted entirely of Oromo nationals of Arsi birth. Not a single known Oromo personality from other regions of Oromia appeared in their list. They exploited the latent regionalist tendencies espoused by some in the organization. They purposefully promoted regional differences and suspicions to gain support. They presented the split as one caused by the organization’s refusal to allow an able leader from Arsi to take his rightful place at the head of the organization. “The time is ours”, they told their fellow Oromos from Arsi. “Arsi Oromos are discrimintaed against in the organization” they preached to them. They succeeded in taking their divisive activity to the Oromo public and worked hard to destroy Oromimmaa (Oromo identity) which had been built with the blood and flesh of heroes and heroines of the struggle. They sprayed this venom in every Oromo institution in diaspora including community associations, political and religious organizations. By doing so, they saw the seeds of mistrust even among former comrades and personal friends from Arsi and other parts of Oromia. The purpose was to destroy Oromummaa and Oromo unity without which they know the struggle cannot progress.

Without the slightest exaggeration, no action of anyone, including that of the enemy, has rolled back what was gained by the Oromo struggle to the extent they did by this action. This is a major setback Oromummaa suffered from which it is yet to recuperate. Insha Allah, it will!

“Divide and conquer” strategy against the Oromo has been a tried and true way utilized by successive Ethiopian regimes to keep Oromos from uniting. It is also a strategy employed extensively by TPLF against other nations and religious groups in the empire. Their fear is that a united group of people will be able to pool their resources together to build enough capacity to one day defeat them. Consequently, they leave no stone unturned to frustrate their effort to unite through their agents particularly within the group they fear. One of the missions Kemal Gelchu & Co. is charged with by TPLF was to execute this policy within the Oromo and other diaspora oppositions.

Today, the Oromo diaspora is socially more divided than when they arrived. Politically, it is more fragmented and disunited than when they defected. Militarily, the Oromo struggle is in a worse position than it was when they joined it to purportedly re-energize OLA and challenge TPLF by force. While they are not responsible for everything that transpired since their arrival, Kemal Gelchu & Co. have contributed purposefully and immensely to weakening the Oromo struggle over the last five years.

THE OLF: TURNING THE CURRENT CRISIS INTO OPPORTUNITY

Abbas Qoro and Dabala Dimbo

The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) was born out of deep historical injustices perpetrated against the Oromo people by successive Ethiopian regimes. It is rooted in centuries-old political oppression and economic exploitation of the Oromo in the hands of the Abyssinian rulers. The OLF was founded with a political goal of freeing the Oromo people from such oppressions. It has spearheaded the Oromo liberation struggle now for over four decades.

Over the course of this struggle, the Front has achieved some notable successes, but has also faced several external and internal political and organizational challenges. Some of the external challenges were caused by a well-resourced and externally supported enemy that is the Ethiopian state, hostile neighboring countries that have long served as proxy for the Ethiopian regimes, etc. Internally, the Front has faced core leadership weaknesses and divisions within the OLF which weakened its organizational capacity. The OLF has been particularly plagued, over the last decade or so, by internal divisions and organizational factionalization, unable to manage or resolve such conflicts, with devastating consequences to the success of the organization. At the interface of these external and internal weaknesses is also insufficient material support from the Oromo populace.

These challenges notwithstanding, Oromo resistance has, however, continued virtually throughout Oromia. The history of human liberation struggles show that, regardless of organizational challenges, the struggle against domination continues as long as injustices persist. This is more of a law of nature than an engineered desire, and that of the Oromo is no exception. While the presence of unity and organizational effectiveness may speed up progress, their absence can’t void the struggle.

It seems, therefore, somewhat surprising that so much euphoria has surrounded the recent cryptic pronouncement of a splinter group of an OLF that the OLF has given up on its political goal of liberation and independence in favor of embracing Ethiopian unity. The pronouncement may have created a political illusion among some Abyssinian quarters, including Ginob 7, that the Oromo cause has suddenly disappeared into thin air, and that the century-long injustices against the Oromo have suddenly disappeared. It is wrongly assumed that the quest of the Oromo people for freedom from political oppression and economic exploitation will somehow be addressed by embracing a system that has generated these injustices in the first place. As a result, some of these political groups have begun to prematurely celebrate the death of OLF as we know it. They have failed taking heed from lessons of history: organizational challenges may slow progress, open way for some opportunists to try to sell out the cause, and for enemies to align with such groups to spread needless propaganda undermining the cause, but they will not be able to stop the quest for Oromo freedom.

On the other hand, the political maneuvers and foul-plays offer a clear opportunity to the Oromo people, and the Oromo diaspora in particular. This should be a moment of reflection, a moment that should serve as a clear call to begin to chart a new path for unity, based on a recognition that, while there may be differences within us, these differences pale in comparison with the threat that is now emerging from the “OPDOs” of the diaspora, those who are only too willing to abandon the Oromo cause. The Oromo opportunists, who have been party to this pronouncement, should not only be roundly rejected by the Oromo diaspora – our communities, civic organizations, and Oromo individuals – but they should be isolated and never again be allowed to undermine the Oromo struggle. They should be discouraged from allowing the enemy to poke a hole in the Oromo struggle.

OLF Splinter Groups
OLF’s inability, over the last two decades, to confront the many political and organizational challenges it has faced has culminated in a lack of visible overall progress, particularly in terms of military successes against the Ethiopian state. The lack of success has in turn led to a great deal of frustration within the OLF ranks and the larger Oromo population. Indeed, these challenges have resulted in the creation of many splinter groups within the OLF over the last few decades.

Some of these splinter groups went on to build a separate organization of their own with new names. Others split from the OLF, but retained the “OLF” as their organization name, fully cognizant of the irreplaceable brand-name that OLF has become both within the Oromo community and within the broader Ethiopian political establishment. As a result, there are today three Oromo political groups who call themselves “OLF”. They are generally referred to as QACA, Jijjirama, and the core OLF – Shannee.

The QACA group decided to separate from the core in the early 2000s, accusing the latter of having changed its mission from “independence” to “democratization of Ethiopia.” In reality, and barring mutual recriminations, a neutral observer of this conflict would be hard pressed to establish that there has indeed been a change of mission since the early 2000s. Shanne revised the political program of the OLF, replacing the word “independence” by “self-determination,” but it is hard to see how this provides a conclusive proof of a change in mission. The two groups have played a war of words around words, such as “self-determination,” “independence,” “negotiations.” However, for about a decade now, Oromos have been deliberating, discussing, and searching for a clear and definite proof of political differences between QACA and Shanee – and to no avail. So far, no fundamental difference that justifies the split has been articulated.

The Jijjirama group split from Shanee a few years ago under the rubric of essentially bringing about fundamental organizational and leadership changes. Unfortunately, the group failed to capture the hearts and minds of the majority even in diaspora despite raising a legitimate-sounding issue, primarily because it organized its splinter group based on region. Furthermore, many remaining members of the OLF felt the changes could be implemented without a split that causes further weakening of the movement. There was however some sympathy to the idea of change, especially by those who believed that success is coming too slow, and that the OLF, as an organization, needed injection of some new ideas and leadership.

Regrettably, the experience of more than a decade of division within the OLF shows that none of the splinter groups has grown to become a viable organization better than, or even comparable to, the core organization they left. None has solved the very problem they enlisted as a primary reason for their split: lack of military success. None could deliver on what they perceived was an organizational failure of the core OLF leadership – the inability to build a vibrant organization with a growing membership base and expanded resources, capable of scoring victories. Indeed, with each splinter group leaving, the same membership base was further divided into more sub-groups, diminishing the financial and human capacity of each group, including that of the core. Discouraged and off-put by the internal bickering, public support to each group has considerably diminished, with many Oromo nationalists in the diaspora deciding to stay on the sideline.

The New Development
None of the three groups has until now publicly articulated a different political vision for the Oromo struggle, different from that pronounced originally in the 1970s – freedom of the Oromo people from the Abyssinian rule. The experience also shows that, individual defectors aside, all splinter groups of the OLF have until now maintained a psychological independence, a stubborn political stance that often resisted compromise even with other OLF groups, let alone with Abyssinian political establishments. None of them would give or take reconciliatory measures even from neutral Oromo mediators, leave alone succumb to an Abyssinian moral authority.

In the past, all the three groups have publicly discussed the challenges of Oromo struggle, at times, in a politically and emotionally charged environment. The sharp debates have centered on leadership, vision, and even personality issues. The debates have sometimes exhibited emotional overflows, but have always put the interest of the Oromo people first. Even in the midst of such politically and emotionally charged environment, all contending Oromo views have guarded the interest of Oromo nationalism against Abyssinian intrusion and manipulation. The most recent development with the Jijjirama group is, however, different.

It is indeed shocking to learn that the Jijjirama group has now negotiated, and wantonly surrendered the entire agenda of the Oromo struggle to a non-Oromo political organization, Ginbot 7, a move that has angered many Oromos. There is a legitimate anger when an Oromo stands for or represents foreign agents against the interests of his or her own people. That anger is even more compounded when members of such group reside in North America, far from the despondency of hunger and excruciating poverty that may have subjected many an Oromo to reluctantly embrace alien political rules for some financial gain, forcing them to betray their souls. Clearly, this voluntary capitulation by a diaspora Oromo political entity to a diaspora Abyssinian manipulation lacks pride and integrity. It is beneath the dignity of the Oromo as a nation. It crosses the line that has never before been crossed by any self-respecting Oromo political group whose expressed purpose is to advance the Oromo cause. The question before us, the Oromo diaspora, is, therefore, how we should react to this sad turn of events. In particular, two questions are of critical importance: first, how should we deal with this minority group that has crossed the line? And, second, how can we turn this crisis into an opportunity to re-energize the Oromo spirit, and forge greater unity of purpose among the remaining Oromo groups. Before we, turn to these questions, a brief commentary on Ginbot 7 is in order.

Ginbot 7 and Its Mission
Ginbot 7 is an Ethiopian diaspora organization founded in 2008, led by individuals with political ambitions that seem to have successfully combined business and politics. Many of the Ginbot 7 leaders left Ethiopia after the 2005 Ethiopian elections in which they fully participated, and when their political ambition was cut short by the Ethiopian regime that denied them any political seat despite the claim that the group has scored some victories in the said election.

In recent years, Ethiopian unionist political groups have somehow managed to inject themselves into the inter-Oromo debate, in part emboldened by misguided fora, such as the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD), a short-lived forum created by the OLF whose alleged purpose was to create alliance between the Oromo and the Amhara elites to topple the Tigrayan Ethiopian state, the TPLF. These Abyssinian groups now seem to be willing to push the envelope, resorting to their tried divide-and-rule strategy, and hunting for weak spots within the Oromo body politic, to weaken the Oromo struggle.

With the recent pronouncement, Ginbot 7 is now bragging that it has hit a jackpot, it has found a “formula” to “transform” the OLF, an organization that all unionists see as a major threat to the unity and integrity of Ethiopia, into one that is now ready to embrace that unity, and work within the framework of the Ethiopian constitution. The Abyssinian media outlets and blogosphere are abuzz with the news. They declared: “they have convinced the OLF to change course.” If it were only that simple!

What is missing from this declaration is the truth that this political matrimony occurred with an Oromo political group (Jijjirama) that many within the Oromo community regard as a marginal group in terms of representation and political outlook. In fact, some key core members of the Jijjirama leadership have resigned from membership prior to and following this highly controversial proclamation. This matrimony is short-sighted and counter-productive because history has shown that the call for “Unity of Ethiopia” has consistently failed on deaf ears as far as the Oromo public is concerned; it is not a goal that interests or draws the attention of the Oromo people. It is counter-productive because whatever goodwill some Oromos have harbored about the possibility and utility of tactical “alliance” with the Ginbot 7 (and indeed the broader unionist Ethiopian political groups) to fight the Tigrayan domination is now likely to disappear altogether. Blinded by the old ambitions of Abyssinian domination, now increasingly out of range, Ginbot 7 has now sabotaged what little hope there was for the principles of peaceful coexistence of people as equals, respectful of one another and each other’s cultures, in a format chosen by free will of the people. Its manipulative ploy has diminished whatever little trust there has been among the Oromo about unionist Ethiopian political groups.

What Next?
In the short term, we propose the following two points to be taken into account relative to the ongoing crisis:

· It is important to place the Jijjirama group in the proper historical context of the Oromo struggle. The actions of these few individuals of immense appetite for fame should not be exaggerated; there were OPDOs, there are OPDOs today, and there will be OPDOs in the future. In a larger context of society, all scavengers of fame are but less than a footnote. This recycled concept of trying to create OPDOs even in diaspora where such capitulation is not imposed on anyone by force is sad to watch, but not entirely unexpected. The Oromo struggle should still focus on its legitimate demand without resorting to revenge that these minorities of the Abyssinian minorities might provoke us to.

· That said, since the Jijjirama has compromised honor and integrity, and crossed a line that no Oromo political group in the diaspora has ever crossed before, we call on all proud and genuine Oromo voices – political organizations, communities, civic organizations and individuals – to condemn the actions of these individuals openly, and expressing such condemnations through the Oromo news and media outlets; and letting these individuals know that their actions are reprehensible, unworthy of the long struggle of the Oromo.

A call to turn this crisis into opportunity
Regardless of the damage done to the Oromo struggle, as a result of this crisis, we believe the crisis also offers ample opportunity for some serious reflections and actions that benefit the Oromo struggle:

· In concert with the actions suggested above, the current turbulence within the Oromo struggle must be dealt with swiftly, and honest discussions must be encouraged through open channels, such as OSA, to facilitate a road-map that will reinvigorate the struggle. This must be done without compromising the Oromo ethos and without succumbing to the Abyssinian interest, be it for political prestige or for garnering attention and making news. We should guard the struggle from poachers and imposters, especially during tough times like this, by openly voicing our concerns and encouraging civil discourse.

· The two splinter groups of the OLF: the OLF core and the QACA group should put aside whatever minor political and personal differences they may have and start working together on reconciliatory steps in the interest of the Oromo people. It is evident, from this recent experience, that inter-Oromo conflicts are being used to poke big holes in the Oromo struggle. The last few years have shown clearly that the ruling regime of Ethiopia and other Abyssinian political organizations will do everything in their power to weaken the Oromo struggle. To fight and lose a fight is unfortunate, but to allow enemy infiltration of the Oromo struggle and weaken the struggle as a result of such infiltration is a mistake of historic magnitude.

· All OLF supporters and members, including those who have recently announced their withdrawal from the blundered Jijjirama group, others who distanced themselves from the struggle or withheld support for all good reasons, or chose silence rather than to be part of any group, must now come together to exert pressure on the Oromo political groups and individuals to act in favor of reconciliation to build a momentum for the Oromo struggle. Resting on our laurels is not going to bring about freedom to the Oromo people; it will not accelerate its coming.