Oduu Haaraya

Two Names Solution For the Conflict Between Pro-Ethiopia and Pro-Oromia Nationals!

The ongoing #OromoProtest for the last four months clearly showed us the exisitng very deep mistrust between the Ethiopian lovers and the Oromian promoters. Oromians are paying huge sacrifice of their life, while pro-Ethiopia opposition groups are endlessly discussing about the motive of the movement and who are behind it, instead of joining the protest and galvanizing the freedom struggle. The main fear of the Ethiopianists seem to be about the possible civil war between the Oromo and others as well as about the eventual disintegration of the empire. Even the pro-Ethiopia rhetoric of the unionist Oromo in the ODF and OFC couldn’t help in convincing the other Ethiopianists about the union politics of the Oromo people, which is already labelled as “separatist movement” by the Abyssinian elites. Because of this mistrust, an inclusive and efficient revolution against the fascist and racist TPLF couldn’t yet erupt. Even there was a senseless arguement whether to call it Oromo protest or Ethiopia protest. In this arguement, there is a reflectioin of a conflict between two ‘citizen identities’: Ethiopiawinet (Ethiopian) vs  Oromiawinet (Oromian). The million dollar question not yet answered is: how can the pro-Ethiopia elites and the pro-Oromia forces trust each other and protest in unison against the fascist regime?
It is a known fact that the Oromo are the only people with dual history in the state formation of the country and because of that having dual visions for its transformation. The Oromo were both in conquered and conqueror sides of the war in nation building. Now, among the Oromo community, some identify themselves with the conquered side and fight for liberation of Gadaa Oromia or change of Ethiopia to Great Oromia; the others see themselves as parts of the conqueror and struggle for the transformation of Ethiopia to democratic country. The first group are pro-Oromia, while the second are pro-Ethiopia. Now, the two blocs have a sort of conflict and sometimes they even see each other as enemies with irreconcilable conflict. I think we can have a synthetic common vision as compromise solution for the conflict; i.e use of two names (Ethiopia and Oromia) interchangeably for the same country, just as we are calling our capital Addisaba and Finfinne simultaneously.
Just as their Addisaba is our Finfinne, their Ethiopia is our Oromia. Because of the fact that the name Ethiopia is contaminated by the meaning given from the Greeks (burnt-face, which is almost the same to the N-word used against blacks) and by the content given from the Habesha (making Ethiopia equivalent to Abyssinian empire’s system of domination, excluding as well as exploiting the Oromo and the other nations), this additional name now or the possible change of the name in the future is mandatory, if we really want to live together. That is why I once asked the Habesha elites: why not you accept the name Oromia, rather than asking the Oromo to join you in loving Ethiopia? Surprisingly, the Abyssinian elites who tried to exclude the Oromo from the Ethiopian ‘citizen identity’ are now doing everything under the sun in order to persuade us to accept this same identity.
Simply put, I want to tell those who do have a similar attitude that the future of the empire will be either to be transformed in to a genuine union/true federation as the ODF planned, the union which can be given the name Oromia if the Ethiopianists agree or to just face the inevitable emergence of the Gadaa Oromia in a form of an independent republic as the OLF is trying to achieve. Both the Abyssinians and the Oromians know very well that Gadaa Oromia, being occupied by Abyssinia and kept within Ethiopia, will not last as long as they want. That is why we need to come to our senses and try to find a solution, in which we all do have a win-win compromise. Manipulating histories and legends is not what we have to do now. Important is a future-oriented creative thinking, which can benefit all the nations in the empire.
Above all, nowadays narrow the Ethiopianists define Ethiopiawinet (‘citizen identity’) as anti Oromia and use it as an instrument to antagonize Oromo nationalism. They know that Oromumma is now necessary to mobilize the Oromo for freedom struggle and they want to hinder this. To tackle such move of the exclusive Ethiopianists, the Oromo unionists with inclusive politics like the elites in the ODF and OFC better name the whole country Oromia, instead of Ethiopia, so that the Oromo not necessarily should accept the imposed ‘citizen identity’, but enjoy Oromiawinet as our second identiy; the first being Oromonet (Oromummaa = Oromoness). That is why Dawite Mekonnen sang about Oromiawinet (‘citizen identity’) and Abdi Nuressa did it regarding Oromonet (ethnic identity). Here are some reasons why that country should also be named Oromia:
– the Tigrai elites reduced both Oromia and the Oromo almost to half, just as planned by their leader Meles Zenawi to change the majority Oromo to minority, so it is better to reclaim the whole country than accepting the presently less than half Oromia ruled by the OPDO, which is determined by the anti-Oromo elites.
Oromo is Cush and Cush is Oromo, implying that the other Cushitic nations (including the Amhara and Tigrai nations, who denied their Cushitic base) in the country are the offshots or progenies of the Oromo, so that they can be part and parcel of Oromia.
– according to some scholars, the whole country belongs to the Oromo and all the hitherto kings and leaders were Oromo, the Amhara being only soldiers of the governments.
– the brain and heart of the whole country (Finfinne) is the very center of the Oromo nation, so that any country governed or ruled from that center can be called Oromia.
– the Oromo is a single majority (about 60%) and the Oromo region covers more than 60% of the whole country.
– all economical, specially export, base of the whole country (coffee, gold, hide & skin, flower, caat…etc) are from the Oromo region.
– most of the arbenyoch (heros and heroins), who did build and kept the country as it is now, are Oromo and most of the athlets, who contributed for the fame of the country, are also Oromo.
– even the whole Gojjam and part of Gondar and Tigrai were Oromo and belongs to Oromia.
– the original Cushitic language in Meroe was highly related to Afaan Oromo and the other Cushitic languages are branched from it.
– Waaqeffannaa, the indigeneous religion of the Cushites, which was also Abraham’s own religion before the emergence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is still preserved among the Oromo people and it needs to be revived as unique religion of the country.
– the holy TREE (as mentioned in the Bible), under which the pre-Judaism religious peoples on earth sacrifised to their Waaqa, is still revered in the Oromo society.
– the known verse in the Holy book “Oromia stretches his hand to Waaqa” is named as Cush by the Jew and as Ethiopia by Greeks.
– Abraham Ashine of the Akkasum (Axum), who was Cushite is said to be more with Oromo charachters and told to have Oromo fighters during his invasion of Asia.
– the Oromo are told to be the indigeneous people on which the others are grafted.
– the study of Egypt showed more Afaan Oromo charachter than Amharic in relation with old Egypt inscriptions.
– the present country is built at cost of the Oromo, actually with life and limb of the Oromo people as well as with Oromo property.
Oromo People are demographical majority to which all other peoples are highly related and Oromo region is a geographical center in which all peoples of the country enjoy life in harmony.
– the Oromo died for building and keeping the whole country and deserves to claim the naming as Oromia and their own region can be designated as Oromo region.
– ….. etc!
Some arguemnets against naming the country as Oromia are: name of one Ethnie can not be used for the whole multi-national country; it is imposing Oromo identity on others; it is neglecting the identity of other nations; it is just expansion of the Oromo territory; it shows Oromo chauvinism;…etc. But none of the arguements is correct. If we really want to have a union of free peoples, which can never happen if Gadaa Oromia will be Independent, it is necessary to call the future union as Oromia. All nations will have their freedom and autonomy within such a union called Oromia. Designating countries after the name of their biggest Ethnie is not new. E.g the name India is from the name of Hindi people, Russia from Russki and Spain from Spaniard.
Thus, I want to suggest all Oromo nationals to call the whole country Oromia, instead of Ethiopia just as we named Finfinne, instead of Addisaba. The others can further call it Ethiopia. For now we can follow this two names principle until we decide for one of them or otherwise in the future. To avoid any confusion, the present Oromia ruled by the OPDO can be called Oromo region, not Oromia. Oromia consists of the existing Oromo, Amhara, Tigari, Southern, Ogaden, Afar, Benishangul, Gambella & Harari regions. Countries having two names is not some thing new; for instance, Holland/Nietherland, Great Britain/United Kingdom, Germany/Deutschland & Egypt/Misir…etc. The Oromo people can call the whole country Oromia and tolerate the name Ethiopia, becuase of the fact that the positive image of Ethiopia is mainly due to Oromo’s contribution and due to its relation with ancient Cush civilization, to which the Oromo nation is the main part.
In summary, Oromia = formerly Ethiopia as defined here – http://finfinnetribune.com/Gadaa/2014/12/fayyis-oromia-why-not-the-union-state-of-oromia-as-an-optimal-solution-for-the-majority-at-the-center/ – is a union in which the following five points (FADOB-score) will be implemented: F = Freedom from the system of domination; A = Afan Oromo as a working language of federal government; D = Democracy as rule of game in the union; O = ‘Oromia’ instead of ‘Ethiopia’ as name of the union; and B = Black-Red-White as Cushitic flag of the union. This Upper Nile country called ‘Oromia’ by the native owners of the land is used to be named as ‘Abyssinia’ by the Portuguese; ‘Kush’ by the Jews; ‘Alhabesh’ by the Arabs; ‘Punt’ by the Egyptians; and ‘Ethiopia’ by the Greeks.
To help the two anti-TPLF camps (the pro-Ethiopia and pro-Oromia elites) to trust each other and cooperate in struggle, it is necessary that they agree on forging a union of free peoples after freedom from the existing apartheid system of the TPLF. The conflict in the ‘citizen identity’ can be solved by applying the above suggested two names solution. In that case, the Oromo should not necessarily accept Ethiopia and Ethiopiawinet as well as the non-Oromo peoples must not identify themselves with Oromia and Oromiawinet. We can use both Ethiopia and Oromia interchangeably to name our future common home (union of free peoples). If it is necessary to choose from one of the two names or to give another name, that can be decided by the peoples in the country or by their representatives in the future democratically eleced parliament. Now, the Oromo better sing about only Oromia, Oromiawinet and Oromonet without confusing our youth with the rhetoric of Ethiopia and Ethiopiawinet, which are already rejected by some members of our society because of the misuse of Ethiopiawinet by the Habesha elites. Thus, I again suggest that our unionists in the ODF and OFC call the whole country Oromia, instead of Ethiopia. The multi-national federation they want to foster after freedom can contain self rule of Oromo region within shared rule of Oromia.
Fayyis Oromia <foromia@yahoo.com> schrieb am 21:27 Sonntag, 6.September 2015:
                                                      Oromian Union of Free Nations As a Common Goal

One article titled, “The Dreadful Mess of Negation of Negation in Oromo Politics: When Will It End?” was published few years ago here: ( http://gadaa.com/oduu/2494/2010/02/20/the-dreadful-mess-of-negation-of-negation-in-oromo-politics-when-will-it-end-opinion/). Then, the editor of the website asked a legitimate question: “The Oromo National Liberation Movement in a Self-Imposed Gridlock; How Can the Oromo Movement Unlock This Gridlock?” At the same time, the website showed us a very descriptive picture of a traffic jam as an illustration for the gridlock. What a challenging question from Gadaa.com and what a confusing article from the author! I personally took time to respond to the two and wrote since then my opinions on the subject repeatedly. The endless discussion on the same topic is still going on and we are not yet free from labeling each other as “enemy” just for choosing one alternative solution to the other. Thus, we republish the
same opinion again and again for the problem is not yet resolved. It is like prescribing the same medication sgain and again for certain chronic disease. I now try here to summarize my idea in short and show what the common goal can be for the different Oromo ideological factions. Whoever is interested in my hitherto thoughts in detail, visit: https://unionoromia.wordpress.com/

To the Article

I read the article mentioned above and could comprehend that the “thesis” of Oromo struggle was presented as “only an independent Oromo state” to be the original objective. This thesis is in contrast to my hitherto opinions regarding the Oromo’s goal; i.e ‘Oromian union of free nations’, which I do consider as the current synthesis of the Oromo liberation movement. It is not bad that the article stressed the necessity of forging an independent democratic republic of Oromo state. Actually OLF’s aim was from the very beginning an inclusive ‘independence and union’ unlike TPLF’s objective of ‘federation or separation’. This goal of the OLF can be summarized as ‘a union of free nations’, which is almost the same to ‘multinational union’ or ‘self-rule and shared-rule’. OLF’s approach is optimal to the majority nation at the center of the state (to the Oromo nation), whereas that of the TPLF is good for the minority
nation at the periphery.

Actually such minority nations at the periphery are the ones, who need to excercise their right to slef-determination in order to either federate with or separate from the Oromo regional state. For the Oromo nation, freedom is automatically the same to independence, because it simply means a directly taking over of the centeral government; unlike the liberation of Eritrea or the eventual future separation of Tigrai. What the Oromo liberators need to do after occupation of Tulluu Daalatti palace should be just change the name Ethiopia to Oromia, if necessary. Even if we continue calling the union as Ethiopia, it will be de facto Oromia, as long as freedom and democracy are rule of the game and Afaan Oromo will be a working language of the union. Then, the Oromo of Finfinne are the nation who will give right to self-determination including and up to independence for these minority nations at the periphery; that means the Oromo will not be the one who are
going to demand this right from Bahirdar of Amhara or from Maqale of Tigrai.

NB: Oromia = formerly Ethiopia as defined here – http://finfinnetribune.com/Gadaa/2014/12/fayyis-oromia-why-not-the-union-state-of-oromia-as-an-optimal-solution-for-the-majority-at-the-center/– is a union in which the following five points (FADOB-score) will be implemented: F = Freedom from the system of domination; A = Afan Oromo as a working language of federal government; D = Democracy as rule of game in the union; O = ‘Oromia’ instead of ‘Ethiopia’ as name of the union; and B = Black-Red-White as Cushitic flag of the union. This Upper Nile country called ‘Oromia’ by the native owners of the land is used to be named as ‘Abyssinia’ by the Portuguese; ‘Kush’ by the Jews; ‘Alhabesh’ by the Arabs; ‘Punt’ by the Egyptians; and ‘Ethiopia’ by the Greeks.

The problem I see in assertion of the article is that the author thinks with “parallel framework” on the contrary to my “series framework” thinking. Parallel and series here are the metaphors based on the two kinds of electrical circuits (parallel and series circuits). He is a classical example of those who have the hitherto “parallel way” of thinking regarding the arrangement of the three terms of the Oromo’s objective (autonomy, independence & union), the way of thinking which is applied by many members of Oromo polity, including those who produce conflicts where there is actually no conflict. That is why the author ends up accusing and blaming Oromo nationalists, who do emphasize the other two terms of the Oromo goal different from the independence term. According to his “parallel framework,” the following three terms of one Oromo objective are in an irreconcilable conflict, because he and his likes think that the three terms lead us
from the status quo to three different directions:

– plan to forge the true Oromo state’s autonomy in a federated democratic Oromia; that means regional state being dominated by a multinational federal government,

– original objective to establish an independent Gadaa republic of Oromo state, i.e Oromo state free from any non-Oromo centeral government,

– vision to achieve self-determination of the Oromo people with final objective of fostering ‘Oromian union of free nations’: be it in a form of smaller Oromia (excluding Abyssinia), in a form of the existing current Oromia, i.e. including all free nations in the country, or in a form of greater Oromia, including even the neighboring nations in the Horn such as Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia.

If we think in “parallel framework” like the author, we just end up thinking as if these three terms of the objective are exclusive to each other so that the conflict between the groups fighting for these terms of the objective, respectively, is already programmed. Nowadays, there are two groups of people in Oromia, who do want to convince and influence us to think in this “parallel framework.” Some do it unknowingly, like the author seems to be, and the others act intentionally to exploit this “conflicting situation” in order to sow a discord among the three groups of Oromo nationalists. Especially, it is good to know Woyane cadres’ loving this frame of thinking for they grasp how effective it is to divide Oromo nationalists.

I believe that the antithesis to the nonconstructive frame of thinking revealed in the article is my “series framework.” According to mine, the above three terms of the objective are not contradictory, but complementary, to each other. Even though unitarist Oromians’ objective does not include the right of Oromo region to exist as an independent country at all, the merits like justice, democracy and freedom, for which members of unitarist Oromian parties do struggle, are not against our national liberation movement. It seems that is why the parties, in which most of the unitarist Oromians are organized, are now tolerated by many Oromo nationals. Coming to the three important goals, which the author tries to present as if they are the thesis, anti-thesis and the synthesis to each other, they are which I put in a series circuit for they are three terms of one Oromo’s objective and need to be achieved one after another. I think autonomy is our
short-term goal, independence being middle term and union to be considered as the long-term aim. I believe all these three terms of one Oromo objective should be supported by most of Oromians.

To the Poll

Gadaa.com’s poll project in relation to the article seemed to be misleading. The question raised was, “What is the Oromo Cause for You?” and, of course, asking that is not bad. Nevertheless, the alternative answers given there as listed below are not actually exclusive options, among which we should choose. They are complementary options, which we can have at different situations and which we do support at different steps of our liberation journey. The alternatives given as the answer in the poll were:

– liberating Oromo region and form an ‘Oromian union of free nations’.

– liberating Oromo region in the form of an independent sovereign country (republic of Oromo state).

– establishing the self-rule of Oromo state in a democratically federated whole Oromia with strong multinational centeral government.

– winning the class struggle first and foremost, and last.

Gadaa.com would have asked better, for instance, if the question were like: “What Should Be the Final Objective” of the Oromo people for you? Then, we can know how many people really want to have as their final goal “only winning class struggle,” or “only self-rule of Oromo region” or “only republic of Oromo state,” instead of pushing step by step towards “union of free nations in Oromia,” which surely will be the end-goal of all citizens and he nations in this globalized world, where we do see even the whole of Africa trying to come together to forge an African federation.

According to the article and according to the diagram added from Gadaa.com, the thesis of the Oromo national liberation movement is independence, the antithesis is autonomy (federation) and the synthesis is self-determination (referendum). But, we could ask: where is the contradiction among these three concepts? The Oromo national liberation movement is a striving for self-determination to decide on our own future destiny. All nations can together fight to achieve national liberty and be in a position to exercise their right for referendum, after which we can vote on the issue: ‘free Oromo state within Oromian union’ vs ‘free Oromo state without Oromian union’ (this union being either that of only oppressed nations excluding Abyssinia, or inclusive of the only nations in the present Oromian geography, or including all nations in the Horn of Africa). Autonomy can be a mid-goal leading us to an independence; why do then the author and his likes try
to create a conflict among Oromo nationalists, where actually there is no viable conflict?

According to the result of the poll in Gadaa.com, the objective of “only winning class struggle” is not the option for the Oromo people and the aim of “only self-rule in a federation” seems to be a transitional solution, but can not be a preferred part of the referendum. The “referendum” would be expected between the two concepts: the goal of “free Oromo state without a necessary union” and “free Oromo state within Oromian union of nations.” It seemed to be a nice referendum, but is now good timing to argue on this two possible final goals? Is such untimely quarrel not what our enemies want, instead of fighting together against our enemy for our common national liberty, first to come to the position of making referendum, then to leave the decision for the stakeholder nations and try to live according to the result of the public verdict? Actually the Oromo just need to take over power in Tulluu Daalatti and the other nations have to go
for referendum and decide on the alternatives of living in union with the Oromo or choose their own independence from Oromo state. I personally do accept and respect the position of the author to pursue and realize the “Gadaa republic of Oromo state without any possible union”. But Oromian unionists do have also God-given right to advocate for a “free Oromo state within Oromian union of free nations.” To see which of the two would be our final destination, let’s leave the decision for the public at large of all concerned nations.

To the Synthesis

The very interesting message from the diagram of Gadaa.com is an attempt to show that Ethiopian nationalism = Oromian nationalism in the “synthesis” part of the diagram. Was this right/wrong? Or was it conditional? For Oromo nationalists, who are fighting for the “only isolated independence of Oromo region,” it is principally wrong. For those who do have autonomy as their final goal, it is absolutely right. For the Oromian unionists, I am sure it is only conditionally false/right; it can be right, if the unitarists can accept and respect Oromo nationalism and the union will be named as Oromia. After all, Oromo nationalism is a national issue, whereas Oromian nationalism is a regional issue. If it is in this sense of the unionists, then Oromian nationalism is not in contradiction with Ethiopian nationalism. We need to differentiate the Ethiopian nationalism according to the unitarist Habesha elites from this form of Oromian unionists’ version of
Ethiopian nationalism = Oromian nationalism. In this case, future citizens of the country will be Oromians; i.e Ethiopian Nationalism (thesis) + Oromo Nationalism (anti-thesis) = Oromian Nationalism (synthesis).

Another illustration was an attempt to show as if the democratization of Oromia = liberation of Oromo region. Is this possible? It is possible only if we take democratization of Oromia as a means to the liberation of Oromo region. Whether this means will be effective to lead us to the required end or not is another question. We can raise similar question regarding armed struggle, whether it is more effective than the democratization (non-violent) way to come to our goal. Otherwise, democratization of Oromia as a goal, disregarding liberation of Oromo region, the same view to that of the unitarist Oromians is not what Oromo nationalists should accept. Oromian unionists look at democratization of Oromia as a possible good tool to help us move to our objective. Furthermore, it is really good to differentiate and try to understand the position of the unitatrist Oromians, federalist Oromians, pro-independence Oromians and that of unionist Oromians. But for
God’s sake, where is the contradiction and why should there be an animosity among them, as far as they accept and respect the future public verdict of the Oromo people at large, when we get a chance to vote on their different options or on their different goals? The question we need to answer is, how should we approach and manage the parties? Here is my suggestion, taking the present Oromian political spectrum into consideration; let’s:

– cooperate with, but always check the unitarists as long as they fight against the existing sytem of domination.

– fight unconditionally against the hegemonist TPLF in unison.

– accept and support the federalists to move one step forward in our liberation journey; we know that Oromo nationalists did opt to take this term of the objective as their own goal based on the current objective reality in Oromia.

– respect and take the objective of the pro-independence fronts as a core-objective to move two steps forward.

– look at the unionists as farsighted, who are ready to move beyond only achieving national Oromo state’s independence up to a regional Oromian union of free nations for a common benefit.

I do hope that we will come slowly, but surely, to the position of clarity as far as the Oromo’s cause, aim or question is concerned. The metaphor I brought here, putting the different terms of Oromo’s objective in a form of either “parallel circuit” or “series circuit” can make immense difference in our way of thinking and may make big effect on our contribution to the Oromo national liberation movement. Putting the three terms of the goal (autonomy, independence and union) in a “parallel circuit” makes the three terms of the objective to be seen as if they are very contradictory destinations from which we must choose one. Arranging them in a “series circuit” as if we can achieve them one after another (first achieve the autonomy, then an independence and then further a union), makes it clear, so we can see that there is no conflict among the three terms of the only one objective. I hope in due time, all of the concerned Oromo
nationalists will start to think in this form of “series framework” instead of thinking in “parallel framework”. For further clarity, I would like to put my own version of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of the hitherto effective political concepts as follows:

– thesis (original objective): unconditional and exclusive independent republic of Oromo state

– antithesis: unconditional and only unitary Oromia (unitarist Oromians’ position)

– synthesis: Oromo’s objective with its three terms (short-term is autonomy, middle-term being independence, and long-term can be a union of free nations)

Now, it will be the good time for all Oromo nationalists to agree on accepting the above mentioned synthesis part of our national liberation movement as our common ground, rather than opting to the possibility of rallying only behind the original objective and to continuously confuse the Oromo mass. Otherwise, the poll in Gadaa.com is designed based on thinking with “parallel framework” so that we are obliged to choose between the autonomy, independence and the union of free nations as the only Oromo cause. Actually, most of the Oromo nationalists seem to support all the three terms of the objective as our short-term, middle-term and long-term goals, respectively, when we do think in a “series framework.” It is not bad to observe in the poll that the majority of the voters concentrated on and voted for the “independent republic of Oromo state” as a preferable Oromo cause, which I also do think is the core and the very secure form of our
sovereignty. We know that autonomy is only the temporary solution and, of course, a union of free nations will happen only after the securing of our independence, when we give our verdict based on our free will to achieve a better benefit in the future, that is why such a union is a long-term project. The only bad thing is, when we start to look at these three terms of our objective as if they are contradictory to each other, which is actually the way of thinking we do observe in the article mentioned. Otherwise, it is good to know and to keep in mind that nowadays there are four groups of Oromo politicians:

– unitarist Oromians, who do still support the project of one Oromia, disregarding the existence of an autonomous Oromo region as a country.

– federailst Oromians, who do have an autonomous Oromo region in a federal democratic Oromia with strong multinational centeral government as their goal of struggle.

– pro-independence Oromians, who do struggle for the core-objective, an independent republic of Oromo state, as their final goal.

– unionist Oromians, who do struggle for a union of free nations in the region as their lasting goal.

Here come the two questions yet to be answered: are there really many Oromo, who want to limit the only one Oromo’s objective to the “only unitary Oromia”, to the “only federal Oromia” or to the “only independent Oromo state”? Are really the above mentioned unitarist Oromos, federalist Oromos and liberator Oromos against the noble cause of the unionists? Last but not least, the picture of the cars in gridlock (the Oromo national liberation movement in a self-imposed gridlock) shown on the front page of Gadaa.com was very wonderful picture. It described well the chaotic situation of our real and current political movement. It helped me feel and be really surprised by thinking how passive we are at least not to discuss the issue intensively and get out of the gridlock. May Waaqa help us at least to talk and write, even if we do lack a sort of stamina to act and behave in promoting the Oromo liberation movement. Finally, I would like to say
that Oromo’s objective is, in short: only one goal with three terms, i.e a short-term to achieve autonomy — a mid-term to forge independence (the core-objective) — and a long-term to foster a union of free nations. Autonomy is only the mid-goal to the core-objective; union is the post-core-objective arrangement for the sake of a possible mutual benefit, based on the future free will of nations. A big nation like the Oromo can only benefit from such a union. We need to have no illusion and no confusion on the only one Oromo’s objective with three terms to be realized one after another. In short, the synthesis of the different goals among our nationals is ‘Oromian union of free nations’, which can be boldly told to both internal Oromian community and international community. I believe, hope and love to see that we will be out of the self-imposed-gridlock in such new approach. May Waaqa bless and help us!


Check Also



Amhara Fano continued to attack Oromo civilians. In this latest incident, at least 17 people …