When Dr Abiy Repeatedly Mention Ethiopia, Which One Does He Have in Heart: Amapia or Oropia?
We listen that Dr Abiy repeatedly mention Ethiopia and it is not bad that he strives to keep national unity and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. But the million dollar question is: which Ethiopia does he have in his heart and mind? The hitherto Menelik’s Ethiopia with domination of Amaranet and Amarigna as the only working language of the federation, i.e practically Amapia (Amaranet dominated Ethiopian) or the innovative Haile Fida’s Ethiopia with legitimate leadership of Oromummà with Afàn Oromo as primary language of the country for the fact that the Oromo are about 60% of the whole population, where Ethiopia will be de facto Oropia (Oromummà led Ethiopia)? If he has Menelik’s version of Ethiopia in his heart and mind, he is Amapianist, thus no wonder that Amara elites are supporting his move. In such case, the Oromo should stop giving him any support. Also Oromo Prosperitans now rallying behind him should check this, in case they have Oromo interest at heart. If he has Haile Fida’s version in his heart and mind, he deserves Oromo support, but surely he will lose the hitherto help from Amara elites. Fact on the ground is that he can not serve the visions of both Amapia and Oropia at the same time. It is clear that at the moment, Ethiopia led by Dr. Abiy is dominated by Amaranet. Are Oromo elites in OPP still ready to keep this status quo or are they bold enough to persuade him to promote Afàn Oromo to primary language of the federation, replacing Amarigna, and give Oromummà its legitimate leadership position in the whole country?
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/07/0 ... at-oromia/
Re: When Dr Abiy Repeatedly Mention Ethiopia, Which One Does He Have in Heart: Amapia or Oropia?
The ruling Oromo elites (Prosperitans) led by Dr. Abiy are trying to reconcile the irreconcillable two contents of Ethiopian identity (Amaranet and Oromummà). Till the Oromo Prosperitans took over power in Finfinne palace, Ethiopianness was the same to Amaranet and all the ruling Abyssinian elites declared Oromummà as the main enemy of Ethiopia and Ethiopiawinet. Thus, any Oromo was considered as good Ethiopian only when (s)he denies Oromummà and be ready to be Amaranized. Now, the Oromo Prosperitans try to change this, but by keeping Amarigna as primary working language of the federation and promoting Oromiffà to only secondary position. This is yet the same mechanism of taking Ethiopiawinet be equivalent to Amaranet. Oromo Prosperitans try to decieve the Oromo just by using Oromiffà as secondary federal language. Actually, Oromiffà should legitimately be promoted to primary position and replace the present status of Amarigna. Therefore, there seems to be no compromise solution, if Ethiopia should survive. Ethiopia shall continue either as usual with Ethiopiawinet be the same to Amaranet or Ethiopia will have Oromiffà as primary working language and be transformed to the status where Ethiopiawinet will be the same to Oromumma. Having both identities side by side can only happen in confederation, where Amaria and Oromia will be quasi independent from each other. In that case, Ethiopia will practically be dismantled. The burning question now is that which version of Ethiopia do the Oromo prosperitans serve? Ethiopia as Amapia (with Amarigna as primary language) or Ethiopia as Oropia (with Oromiffà as primary federal language). They can not promote both versions at the same time; thus can’t serve two lords!
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
It is fact on the ground that every political minded individual and organization in Ethiopia prefers federation as an appropriate admnistrative structure for the country. The question is only about choosing what type of federation. Especially, both OPP of Abiy and OFC of Jawar claim to prefer language based federation (“ethnic federation”). Where is their different? As I see, OPP just replaced TPLF, but continued promoting ‘Amaringa dominated dictatorial federation, whereas OFC is striving to foster ‘Oromiffà led democratic federation’. No question that domination of Amaringa can be continued only dictatorially, because if the status of languages will be determined democraticaĺly, Oromiffà has the chance to be primary language of the federation. This dictatorial keeping of Amarigna’s dominance is what Abiy’s OPP is doing now, thus lost support of Oromo majority. Surely, Jawar’s OFC being joined by the OLF and other genuine Oromo nationalists, shall prevail in the future.
Abiy’s admnistration imprisoning Jawar and co. as well as banning OMN, the symbol of Oromo protest against tyranny, is simply the beginning of the end for his advocated Ethiopian union. The only question is: what will follow? An independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia. Dr. Abiy keeping the dominance of Amaranet at the cost of Oromummà is already a failed project. No question that Oromo protest shall come back again and will send the Amaranized Oromo elites now ruling in Finfinné palace to their appropriate place, but it will not keep them in the palace. Surely, Abiy’s Ethiopia of Amaranet (Union Ethiopia) will either be replaced by Jawar’s Ethiopia of Oromummà (Oropia) or it will give birth to Oromia. It seems that as far as the Oromo are concerned Abiy’s regime is done. Time will show us what and who shall follow!
It is interesting also to observe that certain Amara elites are trying to fight against Jawar’s inclusive Ethiopian federal Union (de facto inclusive Oropia, i.e Oromian led Ethiopia on the grave of Abyssinian dominanted Ethiopia). This is the grave mistake Amara elites can do now, at the time they have to fight on multiple fronts. In the future inclusive Union Oromia, all nations in North Ethiopia (Awi, Qemant, Himira, Woyixo, Gafat, Shinasha, Kunama, Tembien, Wolqayit, Erob, Argoba, Raya, Lalibela … etc) will get their God given self-rule. Of course, this Union will be very good prelude for the future possible independent Oromia or integrative Oropia.
In the past second Oromo’s consensus convention in Washington DC, we decided for union Oromia (fedeeral Ethiopia), in which we can promote: 1. Afan Oromo to working language of the union; 2. the Cushitic Black-Red-White to flag of the union; and 3. Oromia, instead of Ethiopia, to a name of the union. This was our common slogan in the ongoing discourse. It is a known fact that Oromo national liberation movement has got a general objective of freedom with two alternative types of post-freedom Oromian sovereignty, which could be fostered after achieving freedom from the system of domination. The post-freedom objectives are an independent Oromia (600, 000 sqkm) as planned by the OLF and a union Ethiopia (1, 130, 000 sqkm) with self-rule of Oromia as opted by the OFC. This is a simplistic way of attributing the two objectives to these two organizations, respectively, for we also read in mission statement of the OLF:
“The fundamental objective of the Oromo liberation movement is to exercise Oromo people’s inalienable right to national self-determination to terminate a century of oppression and exploitation, and to form, where possible, a political union with other nations on the basis of equality, respect for mutual interests and the principle of voluntary associations. … OLF’s commitment to this objective is based on a democratic principle, that the Oromo people are endowed with the right to decide the type of sovereignty they want to live under and the type of political union they want to form with other peoples. … In fact, the OLF and the Oromo people are committed to the noble cause of laying a foundation for union of free peoples on the basis of their freely expressed will.”
As shown in the statement, even the OLF is committed to forge “a political union where possible.” The OFC already put in its program that it struggles for a “multi-national federation within Ethiopia.” The difference I do see between the two approaches is that OFC gave the name Ethiopia to the union it will build and specified the type of union being multi-national federation, whereas OLF kept a possible name of the union and type of the union open for future decisions. Just looking at the last sentence of OLF’s mission statement, is it not possible to consider OFC as an agent to accomplish the message in the sentence? If this is the case, then why should we be as such worried about the two different approaches to the same goal of freedom, which we noew achieved? For OFC and OLF to be explicitly on the same page, it is necessary that OLF names the future possible union as Oromia and that OFC changes name of the union it wants to foster from Ethiopia to Oropia.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
As Ob. Ibsaa Gütama put in one of his articles, it is already written in original program of OLF that an objective of the struggle is “….where possible to foster a political union with other neighbouring nations.” This same expression is still in mission statement of the Front. When we look at statements of all Oromo organizations, there were two main principles in Oromo national liberation struggle: (1) concerning the means of struggle: where possible nonviolent struggle – otherwise, armed struggle for freedom; (2) regarding an end of the struggle: where possible political union – otherwise, national independence after freedom. Based on this principle, OFC chose nonviolent struggle and political union; whereas OLF initially opted for an armed struggle and national independence. But, as a nation, the Oromo combined both armed struggle and nonviolent struggle to achieve our freedom. The question of independence vs. union will be answered per referendum now, after we already got freedom.
According to programs of the two lines of thought, a possible union with free neighbouring nations is not excluded. The goal of exclusive independent own state is an appropriate solution for certain minority at the periphery – like Tigrai nation, and an autonomous own state within Ethiopian union is optimal for any minority at the center – for example, Gurage nation. Parallel to this, an independent Oromia as a solution by default considers Oromo nation as minority at the periphery, whereas Oromia’s autonomy within union Ethiopia puts the Oromo in a category of minority at the center. These two solutions seem to be not optimal for Oromo nation, which is a majority in the whole present empire and in the possible future union. Oromo’s condition as colonized majority at the political center of the country was a unique situation – which needed correspondingly unique solution. Finfinné (political center of the Oromo) being brain and heart of Ethiopia, a lasting and proper solution for the Oromo better be Oropia (1,130,000 sqkm). What does this concept mean?
Oropia is a modified Indian model of sovereignty: the Hindi people liberated themselves together with all nations and nationalities in their region, and named the whole country as India, made Hindi the working language of Indian federation and, of course, divided national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not Oromo people, be liberated together with other nations and nationalities in Ethiopia, call the whole country ‘Oromia’ and promote Afan Oromo to working language of the federation, with historical local Odaa’s of Oromia (Odaa-Bisil, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee and -Roobaa) as future separate federal regions of the country? I think it is Not beneficial at the moment to divide the nominally existing Oromia region into such Odaa’s, thus it is possible to have Oromo national area as an autonomous “Oromo Regional State” within the union Oromia. That is why the concept union Oromia is said to be a modified form of an Indian model sovereignty. Can Abiy realize such Union Oromia? It seems unlikely, but Jawar can do it.
This idea of Oropia is a synthesis of the two existing post-freedom sovereignty – that of independent Oromia and union Ethiopia. Why is this synthesis necessary? I think the aim ‘independent Oromia’ has got a sort of international obstacle from most neighbouring nations as well as from international community, and the objective ‘union Ethiopia’ is facing an internal objection from Oromo nationalists. That is why our leaders are getting difficulty to openly sell the idea of an independent Oromia to the diplomatic community; so they usually speak about self-determination, freedom and democracy, instead of clearly telling that “we want to foster an independent Oromia.” At the same time, unionist Oromo nationalists are facing problem in getting support from the Oromo, who have been told for the last 40 years that “Ethiopia is the system to be dismantled, thus we need to reject also the name Ethiopia.”
Accordingly, those with the agenda of union Ethiopia are usually labelled by the pro-independence nationalists as “enemy of the Oromo struggle.” Can we change the name Ethiopia in “union Ethiopia” to Oropia and replace the independence goal in an “independent Oromia” by a union and just synthesize from these two goals ‘union Oromia’? In this synthesis, clearly Oromia will be in U.N. in the form of an inclusive union, instead of “exclusive independence.” Such combination of the two objectives into one synthesis can help us reduce the internal Oromo conflicts and the international concern about fate of the region. Just as union Oropia is a good synthesis of both an independent Oromia and union Ethiopia, an attempt of bringing back the past– imperial Ethiopia – by Abyssinian elites from both Amara and Tigrai nations, is anti-thesis of the two.
In short: Imperial Ethiopia (Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia)=====> Union Ethiopia vs Independent Oromia ——-> Oropia
I once wrote an article showing the importance of naming, which is the main factor of identifying certain nation: http://gadaa.com/oduu/20240/2013/06/15/ ... entifying/. Such naming of the union as Oropia solves the conflict between pro-independence fronts and pro-unity forces: we will have both the desired independence and the required unity, if other nations accept this recommendation as a compromise solution. As far as the Oromo-proper is concerned, we renamed our nation from “Galla” to Oromo and our capital city from Addisaba to Finfinne without waiting for any permission or recognition from anyone else. So why not we rename the country from Ethiopia to Oromia? Anybody can call the country as either Abyssinia or Ethiopia, but Oromo people should unanimously agree to call it from now on as Oromia. That country is neither land of the mixed (Abyssinia) as Portuguese called it nor land of the burnt face (Ethiopia) as Greeks named it, but it is land of the brave (Oromia) as both Oromo-proper and Oromo-progeny (other Cushitic nations as offshots from the Oromo) call ourselves. Such Cushitic Oromia, in which freedom of citizens, liberty of nations, genuine democracy, justice and human rights are respected, will be our future common home, if other nations in the empire voluntarily accept and endorse this suggestion.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
If Oromo neighbours are not ready to accept union Oromia, they are the ones who should seek an aknowledgement from the Oromo or Oropia and ask a recognition from international community to get their own independence. Oromo national liberation struggle of both the ODF and the OLF lines needed to focus on how to get state power in Caffé Aràrà palace of Finfinné as well as give such offer of Oropia for others to stay with us, if they want. This is a union in our own terms, which can benefit the Oromo and others. It is a bit similar to opinion of Ob. Bàrô Tumsà, given 40 years ago, where he suggested: “we, the Oromo, must capture state power by any means necessary. In order to do this, we must clandestinely organize all sectors of our society. It is the responsibility of the young educated Oromo like you, to disseminate the spirit of Oromo nationalism when you return to your respective communities. We can only change the deplorable condition of our people by being tolerant to one another and reestablishing a necessary Oromo national unity. In this way, we can build a strong organization, capture state power and take actions that facilitate fundamental social transformation.”
I would like to suggest implementation of following five points in the phase of “taking actions that will facilitate transformation”: (1) freedom of citizens and nations in the union; (2) Afàn Oromo as a working language of the union; (3) democracy as rule of game in the union; (4) Oromia as name of the union; and (5) the Cushitic Black-Red-White as flag of the union. If all our neighbouring nations are interested in living with the Oromo in a common home (union), they have to take this offer seriously; otherwise, I think birth of an independent Oromia is inevitable and this surely will divide Ethiopia at least into four: North Ethiopia, Ogadenia, Oromia and South Ethiopia. As far as the Oromo are concerned, and putting it metaphorically, an integrative Oropia is same as a gross salary, while an independent Oromia is similar to net salary of a certain professional. In case other nations reject this offer from the Oromo and go their way to be our neighbour states, we will have our independent Oromia with its capital city Finfinne, just like Russia with its Moscow was left behind as other states of the Soviet Union decided for their independence as well as like Serbia and its Belgrade had the same fate during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
In short, both pro-union and pro-independence Oromo nationalists can consider Oropia as common synthetic objective to be told boldly and clearly both internally to our people as well as internationally to others, so that we can unanimously struggle per nonviolent struggle and/or armed struggle to liberate our nation from 150 years of subjugation. This approach of the Oromo as a majority in the whole country can have a lesser obstacle from the internal national friction and milder rejection from the international stakeholders of the Horn region. Is this synthesis helpful to promote an indispensable unity of purpose among Oromo nationalists and an important alliance with other anti-TPLF forces, so that we can have effective and efficient force against our main foe – the Abyssinian dictators? I hope this attempt of seeking a common focus for all Oromo liberation forces could be developed further by the second consensus convention Houston with better ideas. The writer of this opinion is ready to hear and read a possible – be it negative or positive – feedback. But, almost sure is the fact that an inclusive federal union of Jawar is a very nice prelude for an independent Oromia or an integrative Oromia. There is no more turning back to Empire Abyssinia (Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia). Abiy’s attempt to keep Ethiopia dominated by Amaranet at the cost of Oromummà shall also fail. May Wàqa help us all in the region to foster a common home as suggested here – federal union as a prelude to Oromia or Oropia.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
It is fact on the ground that every political minded individual and organization in Ethiopia prefers federation as an appropriate admnistrative structure for the country. The question is only about choosing what type of federation. Especially, both OPP of Abiy and OFC of Jawar claim to prefer language based federation (“ethnic federation”). Where is their different? As I see, OPP just replaced TPLF, but continued promoting ‘Amaringa dominated dictatorial federation, whereas OFC is striving to foster ‘Oromiffà led democratic federation’. No question that domination of Amaringa can be continued only dictatorially, because if the status of languages will be determined democraticaĺly, Oromiffà has the chance to be primary language of the federation. This dictatorial keeping of Amarigna’s dominance is what Abiy’s OPP is doing now, thus lost support of Oromo majority. Surely, Jawar’s OFC being joined by the OLF and other genuine Oromo nationalists, shall prevail in the future.
Abiy’s admnistration imprisoning Jawar and co. as well as banning OMN, the symbol of Oromo protest against tyranny, is simply the beginning of the end for his advocated Ethiopian union. The only question is: what will follow? An independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia. Dr. Abiy keeping the dominance of Amaranet at the cost of Oromummà is already a failed project. No question that Oromo protest shall come back again and will send the Amaranized Oromo elites now ruling in Finfinné palace to their appropriate place, but it will not keep them in the palace. Surely, Abiy’s Ethiopia of Amaranet (Union Ethiopia) will either be replaced by Jawar’s Ethiopia of Oromummà (Oropia) or it will give birth to Oromia. It seems that as far as the Oromo are concerned Abiy’s regime is done. Time will show us what and who shall follow!
It is interesting also to observe that certain Amara elites are trying to fight against Jawar’s inclusive Ethiopian federal Union (de facto inclusive Oropia, i.e Oromian led Ethiopia on the grave of Abyssinian dominanted Ethiopia). This is the grave mistake Amara elites can do now, at the time they have to fight on multiple fronts. In the future inclusive Union Oromia, all nations in North Ethiopia (Awi, Qemant, Himira, Woyixo, Gafat, Shinasha, Kunama, Tembien, Wolqayit, Erob, Argoba, Raya, Lalibela … etc) will get their God given self-rule. Of course, this Union will be very good prelude for the future possible independent Oromia or integrative Oropia.
In the past second Oromo’s consensus convention in Washington DC, we decided for union Oromia (fedeeral Ethiopia), in which we can promote: 1. Afan Oromo to working language of the union; 2. the Cushitic Black-Red-White to flag of the union; and 3. Oromia, instead of Ethiopia, to a name of the union. This was our common slogan in the ongoing discourse. It is a known fact that Oromo national liberation movement has got a general objective of freedom with two alternative types of post-freedom Oromian sovereignty, which could be fostered after achieving freedom from the system of domination. The post-freedom objectives are an independent Oromia (600, 000 sqkm) as planned by the OLF and a union Ethiopia (1, 130, 000 sqkm) with self-rule of Oromia as opted by the OFC. This is a simplistic way of attributing the two objectives to these two organizations, respectively, for we also read in mission statement of the OLF:
“The fundamental objective of the Oromo liberation movement is to exercise Oromo people’s inalienable right to national self-determination to terminate a century of oppression and exploitation, and to form, where possible, a political union with other nations on the basis of equality, respect for mutual interests and the principle of voluntary associations. … OLF’s commitment to this objective is based on a democratic principle, that the Oromo people are endowed with the right to decide the type of sovereignty they want to live under and the type of political union they want to form with other peoples. … In fact, the OLF and the Oromo people are committed to the noble cause of laying a foundation for union of free peoples on the basis of their freely expressed will.”
As shown in the statement, even the OLF is committed to forge “a political union where possible.” The OFC already put in its program that it struggles for a “multi-national federation within Ethiopia.” The difference I do see between the two approaches is that OFC gave the name Ethiopia to the union it will build and specified the type of union being multi-national federation, whereas OLF kept a possible name of the union and type of the union open for future decisions. Just looking at the last sentence of OLF’s mission statement, is it not possible to consider OFC as an agent to accomplish the message in the sentence? If this is the case, then why should we be as such worried about the two different approaches to the same goal of freedom, which we noew achieved? For OFC and OLF to be explicitly on the same page, it is necessary that OLF names the future possible union as Oromia and that OFC changes name of the union it wants to foster from Ethiopia to Oropia.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
As Ob. Ibsaa Gütama put in one of his articles, it is already written in original program of OLF that an objective of the struggle is “….where possible to foster a political union with other neighbouring nations.” This same expression is still in mission statement of the Front. When we look at statements of all Oromo organizations, there were two main principles in Oromo national liberation struggle: (1) concerning the means of struggle: where possible nonviolent struggle – otherwise, armed struggle for freedom; (2) regarding an end of the struggle: where possible political union – otherwise, national independence after freedom. Based on this principle, OFC chose nonviolent struggle and political union; whereas OLF initially opted for an armed struggle and national independence. But, as a nation, the Oromo combined both armed struggle and nonviolent struggle to achieve our freedom. The question of independence vs. union will be answered per referendum now, after we already got freedom.
According to programs of the two lines of thought, a possible union with free neighbouring nations is not excluded. The goal of exclusive independent own state is an appropriate solution for certain minority at the periphery – like Tigrai nation, and an autonomous own state within Ethiopian union is optimal for any minority at the center – for example, Gurage nation. Parallel to this, an independent Oromia as a solution by default considers Oromo nation as minority at the periphery, whereas Oromia’s autonomy within union Ethiopia puts the Oromo in a category of minority at the center. These two solutions seem to be not optimal for Oromo nation, which is a majority in the whole present empire and in the possible future union. Oromo’s condition as colonized majority at the political center of the country was a unique situation – which needed correspondingly unique solution. Finfinné (political center of the Oromo) being brain and heart of Ethiopia, a lasting and proper solution for the Oromo better be Oropia (1,130,000 sqkm). What does this concept mean?
Oropia is a modified Indian model of sovereignty: the Hindi people liberated themselves together with all nations and nationalities in their region, and named the whole country as India, made Hindi the working language of Indian federation and, of course, divided national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not Oromo people, be liberated together with other nations and nationalities in Ethiopia, call the whole country ‘Oromia’ and promote Afan Oromo to working language of the federation, with historical local Odaa’s of Oromia (Odaa-Bisil, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee and -Roobaa) as future separate federal regions of the country? I think it is Not beneficial at the moment to divide the nominally existing Oromia region into such Odaa’s, thus it is possible to have Oromo national area as an autonomous “Oromo Regional State” within the union Oromia. That is why the concept union Oromia is said to be a modified form of an Indian model sovereignty. Can Abiy realize such Union Oromia? It seems unlikely, but Jawar can do it.
This idea of Oropia is a synthesis of the two existing post-freedom sovereignty – that of independent Oromia and union Ethiopia. Why is this synthesis necessary? I think the aim ‘independent Oromia’ has got a sort of international obstacle from most neighbouring nations as well as from international community, and the objective ‘union Ethiopia’ is facing an internal objection from Oromo nationalists. That is why our leaders are getting difficulty to openly sell the idea of an independent Oromia to the diplomatic community; so they usually speak about self-determination, freedom and democracy, instead of clearly telling that “we want to foster an independent Oromia.” At the same time, unionist Oromo nationalists are facing problem in getting support from the Oromo, who have been told for the last 40 years that “Ethiopia is the system to be dismantled, thus we need to reject also the name Ethiopia.”
Accordingly, those with the agenda of union Ethiopia are usually labelled by the pro-independence nationalists as “enemy of the Oromo struggle.” Can we change the name Ethiopia in “union Ethiopia” to Oropia and replace the independence goal in an “independent Oromia” by a union and just synthesize from these two goals ‘union Oromia’? In this synthesis, clearly Oromia will be in U.N. in the form of an inclusive union, instead of “exclusive independence.” Such combination of the two objectives into one synthesis can help us reduce the internal Oromo conflicts and the international concern about fate of the region. Just as union Oropia is a good synthesis of both an independent Oromia and union Ethiopia, an attempt of bringing back the past– imperial Ethiopia – by Abyssinian elites from both Amara and Tigrai nations, is anti-thesis of the two.
In short: Imperial Ethiopia (Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia)=====> Union Ethiopia vs Independent Oromia ——-> Oropia
I once wrote an article showing the importance of naming, which is the main factor of identifying certain nation: http://gadaa.com/oduu/20240/2013/06/15/ ... entifying/. Such naming of the union as Oropia solves the conflict between pro-independence fronts and pro-unity forces: we will have both the desired independence and the required unity, if other nations accept this recommendation as a compromise solution. As far as the Oromo-proper is concerned, we renamed our nation from “Galla” to Oromo and our capital city from Addisaba to Finfinne without waiting for any permission or recognition from anyone else. So why not we rename the country from Ethiopia to Oromia? Anybody can call the country as either Abyssinia or Ethiopia, but Oromo people should unanimously agree to call it from now on as Oromia. That country is neither land of the mixed (Abyssinia) as Portuguese called it nor land of the burnt face (Ethiopia) as Greeks named it, but it is land of the brave (Oromia) as both Oromo-proper and Oromo-progeny (other Cushitic nations as offshots from the Oromo) call ourselves. Such Cushitic Oromia, in which freedom of citizens, liberty of nations, genuine democracy, justice and human rights are respected, will be our future common home, if other nations in the empire voluntarily accept and endorse this suggestion.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
If Oromo neighbours are not ready to accept union Oromia, they are the ones who should seek an aknowledgement from the Oromo or Oropia and ask a recognition from international community to get their own independence. Oromo national liberation struggle of both the ODF and the OLF lines needed to focus on how to get state power in Caffé Aràrà palace of Finfinné as well as give such offer of Oropia for others to stay with us, if they want. This is a union in our own terms, which can benefit the Oromo and others. It is a bit similar to opinion of Ob. Bàrô Tumsà, given 40 years ago, where he suggested: “we, the Oromo, must capture state power by any means necessary. In order to do this, we must clandestinely organize all sectors of our society. It is the responsibility of the young educated Oromo like you, to disseminate the spirit of Oromo nationalism when you return to your respective communities. We can only change the deplorable condition of our people by being tolerant to one another and reestablishing a necessary Oromo national unity. In this way, we can build a strong organization, capture state power and take actions that facilitate fundamental social transformation.”
I would like to suggest implementation of following five points in the phase of “taking actions that will facilitate transformation”: (1) freedom of citizens and nations in the union; (2) Afàn Oromo as a working language of the union; (3) democracy as rule of game in the union; (4) Oromia as name of the union; and (5) the Cushitic Black-Red-White as flag of the union. If all our neighbouring nations are interested in living with the Oromo in a common home (union), they have to take this offer seriously; otherwise, I think birth of an independent Oromia is inevitable and this surely will divide Ethiopia at least into four: North Ethiopia, Ogadenia, Oromia and South Ethiopia. As far as the Oromo are concerned, and putting it metaphorically, an integrative Oropia is same as a gross salary, while an independent Oromia is similar to net salary of a certain professional. In case other nations reject this offer from the Oromo and go their way to be our neighbour states, we will have our independent Oromia with its capital city Finfinne, just like Russia with its Moscow was left behind as other states of the Soviet Union decided for their independence as well as like Serbia and its Belgrade had the same fate during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
In short, both pro-union and pro-independence Oromo nationalists can consider Oropia as common synthetic objective to be told boldly and clearly both internally to our people as well as internationally to others, so that we can unanimously struggle per nonviolent struggle and/or armed struggle to liberate our nation from 150 years of subjugation. This approach of the Oromo as a majority in the whole country can have a lesser obstacle from the internal national friction and milder rejection from the international stakeholders of the Horn region. Is this synthesis helpful to promote an indispensable unity of purpose among Oromo nationalists and an important alliance with other anti-TPLF forces, so that we can have effective and efficient force against our main foe – the Abyssinian dictators? I hope this attempt of seeking a common focus for all Oromo liberation forces could be developed further by the second consensus convention Houston with better ideas. The writer of this opinion is ready to hear and read a possible – be it negative or positive – feedback. But, almost sure is the fact that an inclusive federal union of Jawar is a very nice prelude for an independent Oromia or an integrative Oromia. There is no more turning back to Empire Abyssinia (Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia). Abiy’s attempt to keep Ethiopia dominated by Amaranet at the cost of Oromummà shall also fail. May Wàqa help us all in the region to foster a common home as suggested here – federal union as a prelude to Oromia or Oropia.