| Voice of Oromia |
Voice of Oromo News
Ethiopia: Messay Kebede Got It Wrong on the ‘Right
to Self-Determination’
Published 09/10/2009 -1:00p.m.
By Labsa Shaggar*
Participants in Discussions? Or Minstrel Show Performers?
I raised the above questions to respond to Messay Kebede’s article titled “On the Right to Self -
Determination.” In his article, Messay has stated that his article is a public reaction to a long
email sent to him by an Oromo interlocutor. An interlocutor is “a participant in discussion, or a
performer in a minstrel show who acts as the master of ceremonies and stands in the middle,
and banter with the end men.” Is this discussion or a concert?
At the surface, the article seems laden with the second alternative meaning, i.e., the sense of
“minstrel show performer.” As it is revealed on the article, Messay and the so-called Oromo
interlocutor perform a theatrical show standing in the middle of their correspondence and acting
as masters on an overarching political issue of “the right to self-determination.” Messay mocks at
the “interlocutor”, by writing: “though the author claims not to be a representative of the OLF, I
am not convinced to what extent his views differ from the official position of the organization.”
Further, he wrote that his purpose was less to respond to his interlocutor than to propose some
general reflections. If both Messay and the “interlocutor’’ were participants in discussion, then
what motivated Messay for a “public reaction?” Is that the behavior that Professor Donald Levine
calls “an intrusive and biting”? Is that the politics of denial that is the habitual way of the
Habasha elites? Is that the will to entertain old mentalities with “the habit of the heart”? Posing
these questions for readers, let us now turn to the content of Messay’s article. He calls it
“general reflection.”
- - - - Article Continues Below - - - -
The main point among his so-called general reflection is the serious fallacy of attempting to solely
attach the principles of self-determination to Stalin. He wrote: “the defenders of the right to self-
determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and the Soviet Union), except their view
of nations and nationalities.” He wrote that this “amazes most.” What amazes me the most is
Messay Kebede himself. I am amazed at him for two reasons. One is his past career. The other is
the emptiness of his argument.
If Messay Kebede is the one I know, a teacher of “Marxist-Leninist Philosophy” in Addis; the one
who had been advocating his teaching as more scientific than sciences; the one who had lived on
the earnings from that same vocation; and the one who had brainwashed hundreds of students
for a decade or more with that ideology; then his aforementioned statement is amazing. If this
Messay Kebede is not the one I know, then I beg your pardon on this point.
The second amazing point is the emptiness of his argument. He presents his argument as if self-
determination is a Stalinist doctrine. This kind of presentation is totally erroneous as well as
deceptive.
The fact is that, historically, the concept of the “principles of self determination” has been
developed, in large part, shortly after the end of the Second World War. It was first coined by
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Then the idea of self-determination was underpinned by International
Law and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. To be specific, Article 1 (2) of the United
Nations Charter, drawn up in 1945, stipulates that the UN is to “develop a friendly relationship
among nations based on respect of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples and to take other measures to strengthen universal peace.”
Subsequently, the principle of self-determination was recognized in two key United Nations’
General Assembly Resolutions adopted in 1960 and 1970. The UN Resolution adopted in 1960 –
Resolution 1514- provides that “all people have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.” In addition, UN Resolution 2625 that was adopted in 1970 widely restated
the already existing principles of Customary International Law and provided similar provisions.
Both resolutions principally addressed the issue of self-determination for non-self-governing
peoples and territories. Both recognize that peoples of colonial states and territories
administered by alien powers have a right to decide their status.
Further, the principles of self-determination were embedded in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of the 1966. These covenants affirmed self-determination as a “right of
peoples” and guaranteed it by treaty laws. The Common provisions of the covenants under
Article 1 read as follows:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural rights.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their national wealth and resources
without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based
upon the principles of mutual benefit and international law. In no case may a people be deprived
of its own means of subsistence.
3. The states parties to the present covenant, including those having responsibility for the
administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the
right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provision of the
Charter of the United Nation.
Besides these international treaties, the right to self-determination has been affirmed by plentiful
regional human rights instruments, declarations, and resolutions. For instance: African (Banjul)
Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted on June 27, 1981, affirms under Article 20 (1)
that: “all peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and
inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall
pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.”
Moreover, the right to self determination is part and parcel of human rights. Building upon the
principles stipulated under Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), self-
determination is about all the three generations of human rights:
• The first generation of rights, Articles 3-21 of UDHR and the ICCPR, that are civil and political in
nature;
• The second generation of rights, Articles 22-27 and the ICESCR, that are economic, social, and
cultural; and
• The third generation of rights, Article 28 and demands that are drawn upon the first two
generations of rights.
Further, practically, through self-determination scores of conquered and occupied nations and
colonized peoples have freed themselves from the shackles of alien domination.
Irrespective of all these widely acknowledged historical, legal, political and practical hard facts,
Messay begins his “public reaction” with misleading ideas and offers an unacceptable advice for
“…the refusal of self-determination….” Recognizing that self-determination is about fundamental
rights wrought in the core instruments stated herein above, what does Messay’s agitation
against it imply? The implication can be nostalgia of the Amaranization policies of the 70+ nations
and nationalities by the triple forces of “mekuanent, mesafint, and kahenat.” It can be longing for
dominance. It can be intense desire for hegemonic empire. Or, conversely, it can be a call for the
abolition of minority rights. But, such a political stance must be called by its name: reactionary,
undemocratic and anti-human and peoples’ rights. The Amhara elites need to conduct soul
searching. As members of a “dominant minority group”, they need to reflect on their political
history, fairy-tales, review the wrongs of their establishment and shift their way of thinking and
self-definition. Even if it is bitter, they must swallow that this era is the era of identity politics.
They must understand the renewed legitimacy this era of identity has brought to the ideals of
democratic self-determination. They must take note of the fact of the de-legitimation of the
notions of suzerainty and hegemonic control.
Jumping from one invalid argument to another, Messay suggests “…to reject the usage of the
terms ‘nations and nationalities’” and recommends, instead, the usage of “ethnic groups.” Here
again, Messay reveals his detachment from realities, lack of intellectual integrity and breadth of
thought, and a concern for public issues. The terms Messay wants to discard away at his will and
whim carry meanings. More than literally meanings, they have extensive political, sociological and
anthropological concepts. In contravention with these scientific concepts, the Amhara elites
(including Messay) have for long been scornfully labeling the terms “nation, nationality and
ethnie” (to use the French term) as “gossa”, which is the equivalent of ‘tribe and/or clan’. Now,
Messay and his likes want to ban the usage of the terms nations and nationalities and replace
them with ethnic groups. The intention behind this is clear: demeaning the concepts attached to
the terms and belittling them to the lowest forms of human developmental stages. In so doing,
the Amhara élites emulate white colonialists, who used to describe political malfunctions in Africa
as “tribal” problems to assert the lesser evolution, development and humanity of Africans; to
portray the picture of a people without culture, and without history in order to justify colonialism.
As that was racist and ahistorical, so is the attempt of Messay to reduce nations to ethnic groups.
To conclude, this kind of thought is rigid and unchangeable. In the recent past, fool outcry of the
type has become immense. It is not clear what made them so noisy with so much scale. Yes, the
crime of Woyane is enormous. But, reactionary ideas can not make it right.
* Labsa Shaggar can be reached at labsashaggar@yahoo.com.
RELATED: Messay Kebede’s Article “On the Right to Self-Determination” can be found
here: www.voiceoforomia.com/99890
to Self-Determination’
Published 09/10/2009 -1:00p.m.
By Labsa Shaggar*
Participants in Discussions? Or Minstrel Show Performers?
I raised the above questions to respond to Messay Kebede’s article titled “On the Right to Self -
Determination.” In his article, Messay has stated that his article is a public reaction to a long
email sent to him by an Oromo interlocutor. An interlocutor is “a participant in discussion, or a
performer in a minstrel show who acts as the master of ceremonies and stands in the middle,
and banter with the end men.” Is this discussion or a concert?
At the surface, the article seems laden with the second alternative meaning, i.e., the sense of
“minstrel show performer.” As it is revealed on the article, Messay and the so-called Oromo
interlocutor perform a theatrical show standing in the middle of their correspondence and acting
as masters on an overarching political issue of “the right to self-determination.” Messay mocks at
the “interlocutor”, by writing: “though the author claims not to be a representative of the OLF, I
am not convinced to what extent his views differ from the official position of the organization.”
Further, he wrote that his purpose was less to respond to his interlocutor than to propose some
general reflections. If both Messay and the “interlocutor’’ were participants in discussion, then
what motivated Messay for a “public reaction?” Is that the behavior that Professor Donald Levine
calls “an intrusive and biting”? Is that the politics of denial that is the habitual way of the
Habasha elites? Is that the will to entertain old mentalities with “the habit of the heart”? Posing
these questions for readers, let us now turn to the content of Messay’s article. He calls it
“general reflection.”
- - - - Article Continues Below - - - -
The main point among his so-called general reflection is the serious fallacy of attempting to solely
attach the principles of self-determination to Stalin. He wrote: “the defenders of the right to self-
determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and the Soviet Union), except their view
of nations and nationalities.” He wrote that this “amazes most.” What amazes me the most is
Messay Kebede himself. I am amazed at him for two reasons. One is his past career. The other is
the emptiness of his argument.
If Messay Kebede is the one I know, a teacher of “Marxist-Leninist Philosophy” in Addis; the one
who had been advocating his teaching as more scientific than sciences; the one who had lived on
the earnings from that same vocation; and the one who had brainwashed hundreds of students
for a decade or more with that ideology; then his aforementioned statement is amazing. If this
Messay Kebede is not the one I know, then I beg your pardon on this point.
The second amazing point is the emptiness of his argument. He presents his argument as if self-
determination is a Stalinist doctrine. This kind of presentation is totally erroneous as well as
deceptive.
The fact is that, historically, the concept of the “principles of self determination” has been
developed, in large part, shortly after the end of the Second World War. It was first coined by
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Then the idea of self-determination was underpinned by International
Law and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. To be specific, Article 1 (2) of the United
Nations Charter, drawn up in 1945, stipulates that the UN is to “develop a friendly relationship
among nations based on respect of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples and to take other measures to strengthen universal peace.”
Subsequently, the principle of self-determination was recognized in two key United Nations’
General Assembly Resolutions adopted in 1960 and 1970. The UN Resolution adopted in 1960 –
Resolution 1514- provides that “all people have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.” In addition, UN Resolution 2625 that was adopted in 1970 widely restated
the already existing principles of Customary International Law and provided similar provisions.
Both resolutions principally addressed the issue of self-determination for non-self-governing
peoples and territories. Both recognize that peoples of colonial states and territories
administered by alien powers have a right to decide their status.
Further, the principles of self-determination were embedded in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of the 1966. These covenants affirmed self-determination as a “right of
peoples” and guaranteed it by treaty laws. The Common provisions of the covenants under
Article 1 read as follows:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural rights.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their national wealth and resources
without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based
upon the principles of mutual benefit and international law. In no case may a people be deprived
of its own means of subsistence.
3. The states parties to the present covenant, including those having responsibility for the
administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the
right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provision of the
Charter of the United Nation.
Besides these international treaties, the right to self-determination has been affirmed by plentiful
regional human rights instruments, declarations, and resolutions. For instance: African (Banjul)
Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted on June 27, 1981, affirms under Article 20 (1)
that: “all peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and
inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall
pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.”
Moreover, the right to self determination is part and parcel of human rights. Building upon the
principles stipulated under Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), self-
determination is about all the three generations of human rights:
• The first generation of rights, Articles 3-21 of UDHR and the ICCPR, that are civil and political in
nature;
• The second generation of rights, Articles 22-27 and the ICESCR, that are economic, social, and
cultural; and
• The third generation of rights, Article 28 and demands that are drawn upon the first two
generations of rights.
Further, practically, through self-determination scores of conquered and occupied nations and
colonized peoples have freed themselves from the shackles of alien domination.
Irrespective of all these widely acknowledged historical, legal, political and practical hard facts,
Messay begins his “public reaction” with misleading ideas and offers an unacceptable advice for
“…the refusal of self-determination….” Recognizing that self-determination is about fundamental
rights wrought in the core instruments stated herein above, what does Messay’s agitation
against it imply? The implication can be nostalgia of the Amaranization policies of the 70+ nations
and nationalities by the triple forces of “mekuanent, mesafint, and kahenat.” It can be longing for
dominance. It can be intense desire for hegemonic empire. Or, conversely, it can be a call for the
abolition of minority rights. But, such a political stance must be called by its name: reactionary,
undemocratic and anti-human and peoples’ rights. The Amhara elites need to conduct soul
searching. As members of a “dominant minority group”, they need to reflect on their political
history, fairy-tales, review the wrongs of their establishment and shift their way of thinking and
self-definition. Even if it is bitter, they must swallow that this era is the era of identity politics.
They must understand the renewed legitimacy this era of identity has brought to the ideals of
democratic self-determination. They must take note of the fact of the de-legitimation of the
notions of suzerainty and hegemonic control.
Jumping from one invalid argument to another, Messay suggests “…to reject the usage of the
terms ‘nations and nationalities’” and recommends, instead, the usage of “ethnic groups.” Here
again, Messay reveals his detachment from realities, lack of intellectual integrity and breadth of
thought, and a concern for public issues. The terms Messay wants to discard away at his will and
whim carry meanings. More than literally meanings, they have extensive political, sociological and
anthropological concepts. In contravention with these scientific concepts, the Amhara elites
(including Messay) have for long been scornfully labeling the terms “nation, nationality and
ethnie” (to use the French term) as “gossa”, which is the equivalent of ‘tribe and/or clan’. Now,
Messay and his likes want to ban the usage of the terms nations and nationalities and replace
them with ethnic groups. The intention behind this is clear: demeaning the concepts attached to
the terms and belittling them to the lowest forms of human developmental stages. In so doing,
the Amhara élites emulate white colonialists, who used to describe political malfunctions in Africa
as “tribal” problems to assert the lesser evolution, development and humanity of Africans; to
portray the picture of a people without culture, and without history in order to justify colonialism.
As that was racist and ahistorical, so is the attempt of Messay to reduce nations to ethnic groups.
To conclude, this kind of thought is rigid and unchangeable. In the recent past, fool outcry of the
type has become immense. It is not clear what made them so noisy with so much scale. Yes, the
crime of Woyane is enormous. But, reactionary ideas can not make it right.
* Labsa Shaggar can be reached at labsashaggar@yahoo.com.
RELATED: Messay Kebede’s Article “On the Right to Self-Determination” can be found
here: www.voiceoforomia.com/99890
Articles by Fayyis Oromia
Aug 25, 09--A New Ethiopia with Afaan Oromo as the
National Language
Aug 20, 09--The universal truth about TPLF cadres in
cyber world
Aug 12, 09--Why was it easy for Meles' regime to rule
over Ethiopians?
Aug 03, 09--Working language of our future regional
UNION/genuine Ethiopian federation should be only
English!
July 23, 09--The question to be asked by Oromos in
Atlanta Georgia!
July 18, 09--Is WAAQ-AYYOO our KA-AYYOO / is our
KA-AYYOO the WAAQ-AYYOO?
Aug 25, 09--A New Ethiopia with Afaan Oromo as the
National Language
Aug 20, 09--The universal truth about TPLF cadres in
cyber world
Aug 12, 09--Why was it easy for Meles' regime to rule
over Ethiopians?
Aug 03, 09--Working language of our future regional
UNION/genuine Ethiopian federation should be only
English!
July 23, 09--The question to be asked by Oromos in
Atlanta Georgia!
July 18, 09--Is WAAQ-AYYOO our KA-AYYOO / is our
KA-AYYOO the WAAQ-AYYOO?
| Yesterday's Oromia |
| Today's Oromia |
1 Comment so far...
By Ogina
Re.: The OLF, ideological or leadership buncraptcy
"OLF as a Trinity (one and three at a time)!!
This short essay is just presented as a clarification for Oromo foes like Ato Robele and Prof
Messay, who are nowadays delighting by “percieving” a division of the Oromo liberation
vanguard in to “three”. To their information OLF has got from the very beginning only one
Kaayoo (goal), which also at the same time can be interpreted as three Kayyos, in a pocket and
it played with the three cards based on the objective reality it is in, aka according to the “here
and now” of the situations. Even though the only one Kayyoo is self-determination, the 3
interpretations of the Kaayoo are:
- independence without a union
- referendum on the issue: independence without a union vs independence within a union
- independence within a union.
OLF permanently advocated that it fights for Oromian independence, for Oromos’ right to self-
determination and for a union of nations in the empire/region. It emphasizes one of the three
interpretations according to the condition of the time (Zeitgeist). Whenever Abyssinians become
arrogant and start to sing about the unconditional unity of their empire with supression of
Oromos’ right, it streses independence of Oromia from Abyssinian colonialism underming the
possible union. The logic behind this is, where ever there is supression, there will be a move for
separation. When reasonable politicians from different nations in the empire start to recognize
the God given right of the great Oromo nation to self-determination, it starts to play the card of
self-determination (decision per referendum either for independence within a union or for
independence without a union).
Now the one structural OLF we Oromos had seems to have been devided in to three, each of
them just taking as a goal one of the three interpretations of the Kaayyo:
- OLF1 of Ob Galaassa seems to make no compromise on independence without a union.
- OLF2 of Ob Daud has self-determination as its goal (being open for both independence within a
union and independence without a union as far as Oromo people decide for one of the two).
- OLF3 of Ob Hassan (the new) seems to have decided for the independence within a union of
nations in the empire/region so that it sympathizes with and seems to seek an alliance with
Oromos in the ruling party aka OPDO and strives for an understanding from the reasonable “pro
unity” Abesha forces. Here I must say, it is not yet clear whether this group moves to the
position of OLF1 for it wants to consolidate all members of ULFO who do stress independence
without a union under one structural organization. Time will tell us, whether this group will be
either pro OPDO or pro ULFO. Or is there any association between the two (OPDO and ULFO)?
Any ways a Merdo to the foes of Oromo Liberation Movement is that the one/three OLF(s) will
never give up the struggle for the right of Oromos to self-determination till we Oromos be the
determiners of our own destiny, be it within Ethiopian union or without the union.
Other wise, let’s differentiate rhetoric from conviction! I do hear nowadays certain Oromo
politicians talking about the “fact” that Oromo people doesn’t want “secession”. I do consider
talking about Oromos wanting independence or not is a wrong generalization. One thing we
need to know as a fact is that almost all Oromo politicians (including those who do make the
above mentioned rhetoric) deep in their heart believe in the right of Oromo nation to self-
determination. This is the whole mark of Oromos and aim of our mindset (spiritual Organization)
aka OLF. This mindset, OLF has got one Kaayyoo, but also three Karaas (including three
rhetorics)
- OLF mindset in the rebel organizations has got an explicit rhetoric of self-determination and it
fights for this Kaayyoo by all meanses,
- OLF mindset in the opposition organizations has got the rhetoric of struggling for liberation in
Ethiopian context, but it covertly struggles for the Kaayyoo,
- OLF mindset in the ruling organization has got the rhetoric, which says: “we have already
achieved the liberation”, but yet it covertly pushes for the Kaayyoo.
So fellow Oromos, let’s allow the mindset move to the Kaayyoo in all the Karaas, despite the
rhetorics of some Oromos in the opposition and ruling Oromo organizations. Let our foes know
exactly, despite the different rhetorics, Oromo Liberation Movement can never be stopped till it
achieves the Kaayyo. We need to motivate our selves to do our rhetoric and our practice in the
liberation movement on the Karaa each of us did choose to come to the Kaayyo. Long live OLF as
a trinity (OLF with one Kaayyoo, but with three Karaas)!
We have to forget the current rhetoric of Oromo politicians in the ruling party and in the
opposition parties, who are doing their talk under the gun point of Weyane (they are just
denying the right of Oromo people to self-determination at gun point) and let’s strive to our END
Kayyoo, which is already determined by our mindset. I am personally against any sort of
dictatorial unity and I am a supporter of a union of free nations in the empire/region based on
free will. Any unity without Oromo public verdict will fail, take it only 1 year, about 10 years or as
long as 100 years. That is why I do advocate for a lasting solution based on free will of all
stakeholders, instead of the temporary hoyaa-hoyee of unity as a wishy-washy solution.
MEDREK seems to have chosen unconditional-unity as a precondition for the alliance, but the
unity they do strive for will surely never last long, because it is not based on self-determination
of peoples, but on pre-determination by only few e!
lites. TIBIBIR aka revived AFD, which may be forged by OLF et al must be based on a solid
ground and take self-determination rather than unconditional unity as the precondition for an
alliance!
Any ways, our foes need to know that, they can only manipulate and delay the realization of
Oromo’s right to self-determination, but they can never hinder it. Oromo’s mindset is leading us
to our Kaayyoo aka self-determination, take it how long it might be. Our foes like it or not, in
reality almost all Oromos are lead in our liberation struggle by this mindset. That is why an
International Crisis Group (ICG) put it: ” despite its organizational flaws and divisions, many
ordinary Oromos retain an almost messianic belief in the OLF as the major nationalist
organization”!"
email = ogina@yahoo.com
By Ogina
Re.: The OLF, ideological or leadership buncraptcy
"OLF as a Trinity (one and three at a time)!!
This short essay is just presented as a clarification for Oromo foes like Ato Robele and Prof
Messay, who are nowadays delighting by “percieving” a division of the Oromo liberation
vanguard in to “three”. To their information OLF has got from the very beginning only one
Kaayoo (goal), which also at the same time can be interpreted as three Kayyos, in a pocket and
it played with the three cards based on the objective reality it is in, aka according to the “here
and now” of the situations. Even though the only one Kayyoo is self-determination, the 3
interpretations of the Kaayoo are:
- independence without a union
- referendum on the issue: independence without a union vs independence within a union
- independence within a union.
OLF permanently advocated that it fights for Oromian independence, for Oromos’ right to self-
determination and for a union of nations in the empire/region. It emphasizes one of the three
interpretations according to the condition of the time (Zeitgeist). Whenever Abyssinians become
arrogant and start to sing about the unconditional unity of their empire with supression of
Oromos’ right, it streses independence of Oromia from Abyssinian colonialism underming the
possible union. The logic behind this is, where ever there is supression, there will be a move for
separation. When reasonable politicians from different nations in the empire start to recognize
the God given right of the great Oromo nation to self-determination, it starts to play the card of
self-determination (decision per referendum either for independence within a union or for
independence without a union).
Now the one structural OLF we Oromos had seems to have been devided in to three, each of
them just taking as a goal one of the three interpretations of the Kaayyo:
- OLF1 of Ob Galaassa seems to make no compromise on independence without a union.
- OLF2 of Ob Daud has self-determination as its goal (being open for both independence within a
union and independence without a union as far as Oromo people decide for one of the two).
- OLF3 of Ob Hassan (the new) seems to have decided for the independence within a union of
nations in the empire/region so that it sympathizes with and seems to seek an alliance with
Oromos in the ruling party aka OPDO and strives for an understanding from the reasonable “pro
unity” Abesha forces. Here I must say, it is not yet clear whether this group moves to the
position of OLF1 for it wants to consolidate all members of ULFO who do stress independence
without a union under one structural organization. Time will tell us, whether this group will be
either pro OPDO or pro ULFO. Or is there any association between the two (OPDO and ULFO)?
Any ways a Merdo to the foes of Oromo Liberation Movement is that the one/three OLF(s) will
never give up the struggle for the right of Oromos to self-determination till we Oromos be the
determiners of our own destiny, be it within Ethiopian union or without the union.
Other wise, let’s differentiate rhetoric from conviction! I do hear nowadays certain Oromo
politicians talking about the “fact” that Oromo people doesn’t want “secession”. I do consider
talking about Oromos wanting independence or not is a wrong generalization. One thing we
need to know as a fact is that almost all Oromo politicians (including those who do make the
above mentioned rhetoric) deep in their heart believe in the right of Oromo nation to self-
determination. This is the whole mark of Oromos and aim of our mindset (spiritual Organization)
aka OLF. This mindset, OLF has got one Kaayyoo, but also three Karaas (including three
rhetorics)
- OLF mindset in the rebel organizations has got an explicit rhetoric of self-determination and it
fights for this Kaayyoo by all meanses,
- OLF mindset in the opposition organizations has got the rhetoric of struggling for liberation in
Ethiopian context, but it covertly struggles for the Kaayyoo,
- OLF mindset in the ruling organization has got the rhetoric, which says: “we have already
achieved the liberation”, but yet it covertly pushes for the Kaayyoo.
So fellow Oromos, let’s allow the mindset move to the Kaayyoo in all the Karaas, despite the
rhetorics of some Oromos in the opposition and ruling Oromo organizations. Let our foes know
exactly, despite the different rhetorics, Oromo Liberation Movement can never be stopped till it
achieves the Kaayyo. We need to motivate our selves to do our rhetoric and our practice in the
liberation movement on the Karaa each of us did choose to come to the Kaayyo. Long live OLF as
a trinity (OLF with one Kaayyoo, but with three Karaas)!
We have to forget the current rhetoric of Oromo politicians in the ruling party and in the
opposition parties, who are doing their talk under the gun point of Weyane (they are just
denying the right of Oromo people to self-determination at gun point) and let’s strive to our END
Kayyoo, which is already determined by our mindset. I am personally against any sort of
dictatorial unity and I am a supporter of a union of free nations in the empire/region based on
free will. Any unity without Oromo public verdict will fail, take it only 1 year, about 10 years or as
long as 100 years. That is why I do advocate for a lasting solution based on free will of all
stakeholders, instead of the temporary hoyaa-hoyee of unity as a wishy-washy solution.
MEDREK seems to have chosen unconditional-unity as a precondition for the alliance, but the
unity they do strive for will surely never last long, because it is not based on self-determination
of peoples, but on pre-determination by only few e!
lites. TIBIBIR aka revived AFD, which may be forged by OLF et al must be based on a solid
ground and take self-determination rather than unconditional unity as the precondition for an
alliance!
Any ways, our foes need to know that, they can only manipulate and delay the realization of
Oromo’s right to self-determination, but they can never hinder it. Oromo’s mindset is leading us
to our Kaayyoo aka self-determination, take it how long it might be. Our foes like it or not, in
reality almost all Oromos are lead in our liberation struggle by this mindset. That is why an
International Crisis Group (ICG) put it: ” despite its organizational flaws and divisions, many
ordinary Oromos retain an almost messianic belief in the OLF as the major nationalist
organization”!"
email = ogina@yahoo.com
