O-Dispatch #10: A Response to President Isaias Afewerki’s Speech on Eritrea’s 34th Independence Anniversary

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (7 minutes)

President Isaias Afewerki’s address marking the 34th anniversary of Eritrean independence offers insight into Eritrea’s worldview—rooted in national resilience, suspicion of foreign powers, and a call for African self-reliance. Yet, as an Oromo nationalist, I find it necessary to address the distortions, omissions, and contradictions embedded in his remarks, particularly those directed—thinly veiled or otherwise—at the Oromo people and their just struggle.

On Oromummaa and the Oromo Question

Afewerki characterizes Oromummaa as an ideology manipulated by external actors, suggesting it neither reflects nor represents the Oromo people. This is an affront to history and to the lived reality of the Oromo nation. Oromummaa is not foreign; it is indigenous. It is the embodiment of our language, culture, values, political identity, and historical memory. It is a peaceful but firm assertion of who we are after generations of cultural erasure, economic marginalization, and political exclusion under successive Ethiopian regimes.

To deny the authenticity of Oromummaa is to perpetuate the very imperial assumptions that Eritrea once fought to escape. It is a betrayal of the pan-African ideal to recognize all peoples as equal and entitled to self-definition.

On Eritrea’s Claimed Neutrality in Ethiopia

The president laments the "dissipation" of reform prospects in Ethiopia, subtly blaming the Oromo resistance for unraveling peace. Let us recall: when Abiy Ahmed rose to power, it was the Oromo youth—Qeerroo and Qarree—who broke the chains of authoritarianism and opened the door to democratic transition. Yet the path was quickly diverted into a centralizing project, supported militarily and ideologically by Eritrea itself.

It is disingenuous for Eritrea to claim disappointment while having been complicit in the militarization of Ethiopian politics. Eritrean troops entered Ethiopian conflicts, not as neutral peacekeepers, but as enforcers of the very repression the Oromo people resist.

On the Right to Resistance and Self-Determination

Afewerki asserts Eritrea’s commitment to sovereignty and laments Africa’s economic and political subjugation. We agree. But let us also apply those principles consistently. Eritrea gained independence after a long and just armed struggle against imperial domination. The Oromo struggle is no different in essence. We too were conquered, our lands annexed, our institutions dismantled, our names and narratives erased.

Oromo nationalists should not forget Isaias Afwerki’s interview with One Ethiopia magazine on June 10, 2007—a publication produced by the Eritrean Ministry of Information in English, Amharic, and Tigrinya, and widely circulated in the diaspora through Eritrean embassies. At the time, his aim was to pander to the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUDP), commonly known as Kinijit, a party known for its retrograde, Amhara-centric political agenda.

In that interview, Afwerki stated: “Since they [TPLF] have no faith in the Ethiopian people as a whole, they divided them into the Amhara people, Tigre people, Oromo people, and many others. Because that is what their constitution asserts. The constitution allows the right to self-determination up to secession. We can say that the regime’s mental instability and dangerous political approach has taken a constitutional shape in the name of federalism and democracy. Ethiopia is thus exposed to a never-before-seen ethnic polarization, although it would take longer to discuss the dangerous consequences of such a situation.” (Oromo Affairs, Aug. 28, 2007)

As Oromo Affairs incisively asked in response: “If the unity and territorial integrity of the empire is truly to the benefit of the colonized nations and nationalities, then why did Eritrea fight for 30 years to decolonize itself?”

The principle that guided Eritrea to freedom—self-determination for colonized peoples—must be extended to the Oromo people. The world cannot selectively recognize struggles based on convenience or geopolitical alignment.

On Pan-Africanism and African Agency

President Afewerki speaks of African agency, dignity, and integration. These are noble goals. But African unity must not come at the expense of internal justice. True pan-Africanism cannot be built on the denial of the distinct identities and aspirations of African nations like the Oromo. The continent cannot rise while millions remain disenfranchised in their own lands.

Eritrea, of all nations, should know: dignity is not granted from above; it is reclaimed from below. We are reclaiming ours. Not in service of division, but in pursuit of justice, equity, and freedom.

Conclusion

To the Eritrean people: we recognize your sacrifices, your nation-building efforts, and your enduring resilience. Your independence stands as proof that colonized peoples can rise and chart their own path. But this lesson cannot be yours alone.

To President Afewerki: history will not be kind to those who claim the legacy of anti-colonial resistance while denying it to others. The Oromo struggle is not a footnote to be dismissed, nor a fabrication to be blamed on foreign hands. It is a movement as real and grounded as any Africa has known.

Our message is simple: the Oromo people are not seeking domination over others, but liberation from the domination of others. That is a cause no true African should oppose.

Victory to the Masses! Freedom to All Oppressed Nations!

 

O-Dispatch #9: What the Oromo Struggle Can Learn from the TPLF’s Rise to Power

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (10 minutes)

Learning from the successes and failures of friends, foes, and neutral actors alike equips a movement with a broader strategic lens. It helps avoid costly missteps, replicate effective tactics, and adapt to shifting contexts. By understanding what works and what doesn’t, movements can improve decision-making, navigate internal challenges, and respond more effectively to external dynamics. The Oromo struggle for self-determination is one of the oldest and

most complex liberation efforts in the Horn of Africa. Despite being the region’s largest ethnic group, the Oromo political movement has not yet consolidated power or sustained national influence at the level achieved by the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) in the late 20th century. The contrast between the two movements offers valuable lessons—both strategic and cautionary—for today’s Oromo leaders.

Strategic Evolution: Clarity vs. Ambiguity

The TPLF began as a Marxist-Leninist secessionist movement seeking Tigrayan independence from Ethiopia, a state it had been historically part of. However, during the 1980s, it strategically pivoted. Rebranding itself as a pan-Ethiopian revolutionary force, the TPLF presented itself as a reformist vanguard rather than a secessionist front. This led to the formation of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)—a coalition of ethnic-based parties under TPLF dominance. This repositioning enabled the TPLF, with support from the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), to overthrow the Derg regime in 1991 and take control of the Ethiopian state.

In contrast, the Oromo people, colonized by the Abyssinian Empire during Menelik II’s expansion, assert a legal and moral right to decolonization. Within that framework, independence is a right—not a privilege to be negotiated, nor simply a form of secession. The question is not whether Oromia should separate, but whether Ethiopia can justify continued control over a nation annexed by force. The OLF has remained committed to Oromo self-determination—especially in Oromo-facing communications—but has failed to clearly and consistently articulate whether it seeks full independence or a reformed federal Ethiopia. This ambiguity has weakened its domestic mobilization and international diplomacy. Meanwhile, internal fragmentation—unlike the TPLF's centralized and disciplined (if at times coercive) leadership—has further undermined the OLF’s effectiveness.

Coalition-Building and Political Reach

The TPLF’s success stemmed largely from its mastery of coalition politics. Through the EPRDF, it projected ethnic inclusivity while retaining real power. The OLF, by contrast, has remained largely Oromo-centric and has failed to forge enduring alliances with other marginalized groups such as the Sidama, Somali, or Afar. This isolation has stifled the political breadth of the Oromo struggle, even as popular support remains broad.

Armed Struggle and Governance

The TPLF conducted a disciplined guerrilla campaign, gained and maintained territorial control in Tigray, and functioned effectively as a government-in-waiting. It governed liberated areas, which boosted its domestic legitimacy and earned international recognition.

The OLF’s track record has been more inconsistent. It has alternated between armed and peaceful resistance without establishing durable territorial control or credible governance capacity. Its armed wing, the OLA, has shown growing potential and recently forced the Abiy regime into negotiations. Still, it struggles with strategic coherence and operational coordination. Unlike the TPLF in the 1980s, the OLF-OLA alliance has yet to present itself as a tactically effective or governance-ready force.

Regional Relations and Multi-National Alliances

The TPLF, once in power, managed neighboring regions like Amhara and Afar through a mix of coercion, co-optation, and federal restructuring. Though these tactics bred long-term resentment, they also allowed the TPLF to maintain control.

By contrast, the OLF’s engagement with neighboring oppressed groups has been inconsistent, often reactive, marred by mistrust, rivalry, or even open conflict. As a result, the Oromo movement has failed to transform into a broader multi-national coalition, limiting its influence and leverage.

International Diplomacy and Geopolitical Context

The TPLF's diplomatic strategy was arguably its greatest strength. Navigating the post-Cold War unipolar order, it portrayed itself as a modernizing and stabilizing force. Western powers—especially the United States—embraced the TPLF as a reliable partner in regional security and counterterrorism. This alignment delivered recognition, legitimacy, and substantial aid.

In contrast, the OLF has not cultivated a comparable global influence. Despite strong support from the Oromo diaspora, its fragmented leadership and inconsistent messaging have hampered international engagement. That said, growing global awareness of Abiy’s human rights abuses and the OLA’s emerging credibility have opened new diplomatic possibilities.

However, today’s geopolitical terrain is far less favorable. When the TPLF rose to power in the early 1990s, the global order was unipolar, Eritrea was an ally, Somalia was collapsing, and Sudan was internally preoccupied. The TPLF benefited from appearing as a stabilizing force.

Today, the Oromo struggle unfolds in a multipolar world where the U.S., China, Gulf states, and Turkey all vie for influence. The African Union remains committed to territorial integrity, and Western powers prioritize regional stability over justice. Movements labeled as separatist face steep diplomatic challenges, especially in the post-9/11 security era.

The Road Ahead: Clarity, Unity, and Credibility

So, what should the Oromo struggle do now, whether the ultimate goal is independence or the reform of the Ethiopian state?

#1. Unify the Movement: Fragmentation is a critical weakness. Popular support cannot substitute for disciplined, coherent leadership.

#2. Clarify the Goal: The movement must clearly state whether it seeks full independence or structural reform within Ethiopia. The decolonization paradigm provides a powerful legal and moral foundation—but only if the message is consistently and effectively delivered, both domestically and internationally.

#3. Reframe the Narrative: While holding firm to its principles, the movement should communicate a global-facing message centered on democracy, human rights, and inclusive governance—values that resonate beyond Oromia.

#4. Build Multi-National Coalitions: Strategic partnerships with other marginalized groups in Ethiopia are vital for legitimacy and broader political reach.

#5. Demonstrate Governance Capacity: Where influence exists, the movement must model justice, transparency, and effective service delivery to gain local and international trust.

#6. Avoid Authoritarian Pitfalls: The TPLF’s eventual downfall stemmed not from military weakness but from its authoritarian governance. The Oromo movement must learn from that and remain committed to the democratic values it espouses.

Conclusion

The TPLF rose to power through tactical flexibility, political organization, and diplomatic engagement. The Oromo movement faces a more difficult international landscape, but it also has a profound moral opportunity: not just to seize power, but to earn the trust of other oppressed nations; not just to liberate one people, but multiple oppressed nations in that empire by forming alliances; not just to survive, but to lead, grounded in clarity, justice, and enduring principles.

O-Dispatch #8 - What Oromia Can Learn from Eritrea: A Hard Look at Two Struggles for Self-Determination

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (8.5 minutes)

The fight for self-determination is rarely clean, never easy, and always political. Two places in the Horn of Africa - Eritrea and Oromia - have long fought for the right to define their own futures. One succeeded. The other is still deep in the struggle. What can Oromia learn from Eritrea's experience? Let’s cut through the noise and break down where these movements align, where they diverge, and what the Oromo movement must do differently if it wants to turn resistance into results.

Caveat: Eritrea’s path was brutal, and post-independence governance has been controversial. Oromia shouldn't copy Eritrea. But it can learn from what worked.

Different Histories, Same Demand: Freedom

Eritrea was an Italian colony, later federated (then annexed) by Ethiopia. That legal trail gave its independence bid legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

Oromia, on the other hand, was conquered and absorbed into the Ethiopian empire in the late 19th century. No international mandate. No referendum. No consent of the Oromo people. Just force.

Yet both Eritreans and Oromos developed strong national identities. Both resisted cultural erasure. Both fought back.

One Movement, Many Faces: Unity Was Key for Eritrea

Eritrea’s greatest strength? Coherence. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) wasn’t perfect, but it was disciplined, secular, and unified in message and mission. It shut down infighting and focused on the goal: independence.

Now consider Oromia. The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) was once a powerful symbol of resistance. However, years of factionalism, strategic drift, and leadership rivalries have severely weakened its influence. Today, the Oromo struggle is fragmented: the OLA militant wing operates in parts of Oromia; the so-called loyal Oromo opposition parties within Ethiopia are largely inactive, not even organizing peaceful protests; and the diaspora is often consumed by armchair activism, echo chambers, and circular debates that rarely translate into meaningful action on the ground.

Lesson #1: No movement succeeds without internal unity.

Guns, Grassroots, and Global Support

Eritrea committed fully to armed resistance—building guerrilla infrastructure, training disciplined fighters, and sustaining a 30-year war that ultimately ended in military victory in 1991.

Oromia’s approach, by contrast, has been mixed. Armed resistance is active and showing unprecedented promise, but it remains disconnected from broader peaceful movements and sporadic uprisings within the country. Coordination with the diaspora is weak, and the Ethiopian state has become adept at either co-opting or suppressing both armed and nonviolent efforts. Although there has been no meaningful diplomatic initiative to speak of, it is largely due to the OLA’s armed struggle that the Oromo cause has received even minimal recognition from third-party actors involved in mediation with the Ethiopian government.

Meanwhile, Eritrea’s diaspora played a crucial role on the global stage—lobbying, fundraising, and shaping international narratives. The Oromo diaspora, while passionate and sizable, remains too often divided and disorganized to wield comparable influence.

Lesson #2: Resistance works best when military, grassroots, and diplomatic fronts move in sync.

International Legitimacy: Eritrea Had It. Oromia Needs to Build It.

Eritrea had a legal framework - UN resolutions, federation history, and eventually a UN-backed referendum. That mattered.

Oromia doesn’t have those, yet. The Ethiopian constitution technically grants regions the right to secede. However, in practice, whether that door remains open or firmly bolted shut depends largely on the actions and resolve of Oromo political leaders and the movement they lead. While there’s no Eritrea-style precedent to lean on, there are still other legal tools: Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the concept of internal colonialism.

Lesson #3: Oromia must get smart with international law - and louder in international diplomacy.

Geography and Geopolitics Matter

Eritrea sits on the Red Sea, making it strategically valuable to both superpowers and regional players. Its geographic location has long drawn global attention - everyone had an opinion on Eritrea.

Oromia, by contrast, is landlocked, surrounded by other regions, and traditionally portrayed as deeply integrated into Ethiopia’s central state. This perception may make its path to independence appear more challenging, both logistically and politically. Yet Oromia is rich in human capital, celebrated as the birthplace of coffee, blessed with fertile lands and abundant agricultural output, and endowed with vast reserves of precious minerals beneath its soil. After all, seaports only matter if there are goods to move. Oromia can be just as strategically important as Eritrea - if not more so - depending on how its political leaders present its value to international powers, superpowers, and regional actors.

Moreover, the OLA’s success in dismantling and discrediting the Ethiopian government’s authority in expanding liberated areas is steadily reshaping the political landscape. As this continues, the world will have no choice but to take notice and form positions, just as it did with Eritrea.

To realize its full potential, Oromia must think regionally, cultivate domestic alliances, and pursue innovative ways to generate strategic relevance on the world stage.

Lesson #4: If you're not naturally strategic, you have to make yourself indispensable.

Five Hard-Earned Lessons for Oromia

1. Unify or lose. Political fragmentation is a gift to your oppressor. Eritrea didn’t win because they had more fighters. They won because they moved as one.
2. Structure your struggle. Every movement needs infrastructure: leadership, communication, logistics, legal, and diplomatic. Oromia’s struggle needs to be a machine, not a moment.
3. Control the narrative. Eritreans documented war crimes, broadcast their case, and won sympathy. Oromos must do the same—consistently and professionally.
4. Elevate the diaspora. Turn online energy into offline power. Fundraising, lobbying, international advocacy—diaspora networks should be engines, not echo chambers.
5. Negotiate from strength. Don’t ask for freedom. Build the leverage that makes the world take you seriously. That means grassroots power, not just hashtags.

Final Thought: Inspiration Isn’t Imitation

Eritrea’s path was brutal, and post-independence governance has been controversial. Oromia shouldn't copy Eritrea. But it can learn from what worked.

The Oromo struggle is not hopeless. It’s just at a crossroads. And if the movement can learn to organize like the EPLF, advocate like the Eritrean diaspora, and resist like a state-in-the-making, not just a people under siege—it might not stay stuck in history’s waiting room forever.

O-Dispatch #7: Massacres in Oromia and Kosovo: What One Struggle Can Teach the Other

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

Violence has long been the blunt instrument of regimes threatened by resistance. In the 1990s, the Serbian government used massacres to suppress Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority. Similarly, Ethiopia’s federal regime has deployed similar tactics against the Oromo people in Oromia. These parallel stories, marked by systematic repression and mass killing, highlight how power responds to dissent, and how outcomes depend not just on suffering, but on strategy.

Shared Pain, Divergent Paths

In Kosovo, state brutality reached its peak in events like the Racak Massacre, where 45 unarmed civilians were executed in 1999. The massacre became a turning point, triggering international condemnation and ultimately leading to NATO’s intervention.  That same year, the Berisha family, 48 members strong, including women and children, were massacred in Suhareka by Serbian police. These acts were not only atrocities; they were political inflection points that galvanized global support for the Kosovo cause.

Oromia, the largest ethnic group occupied by Ethiopia, has endured comparable violence without comparable attention. To mention but a few, the 2016 Irreecha festival, a peaceful cultural gathering, turned deadly when federal troops opened fire and used tear gas, causing a stampede that killed scores. More recently, traditional Oromo leaders, Abba Gadas, were executed in Guji, a symbolic attack on the heart of Oromo cultural identity. In the Hararghe and Wollega zones, drone strikes and raids have targeted entire communities, under the pretext of suppressing support for the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA).

Layered atop these large-scale attacks are precision assassinations designed to eliminate the Oromo struggle’s intellectual and cultural leadership. Hachalu Hundessa, a beloved singer and activist whose music inspired an entire generation, was gunned down in 2020—his death shaking the country and triggering a violent crackdown. In 2023, Batte Urgessa, a senior opposition figure and eloquent critic of the regime, was abducted and killed by security forces. Revolutionary artists Ebsa Adunya and Usmayyo Musa, whose songs became anthems of resistance and who helped organize Oromo youth to stand up for their rights, were also assassinated. And in a grave blow to the legal front of the movement, Abduljabbaar Hussein—a prominent human rights attorney who defended high-profile Oromo political prisoners including Jawar Mohammed and Bekele Gerba—was murdered in 2024. His death marked the silencing of a critical voice in Ethiopia’s judicial landscape, removing one of the few remaining legal shields for those challenging state power.

These killings were not isolated acts of repression—they were deliberate, targeted efforts to dismantle the Oromo struggle from every angle: cultural, political, grassroots, and legal.

Yet while the horror has been similar, the outcomes could not be more different. Kosovo’s struggle led to independence. Oromia’s remains globally marginalized.

What Made the Difference?

Much of the difference lies not in the brutality inflicted, but in how it was confronted.

Kosovar leaders, though ideologically divided, understood the necessity of speaking to the international community with one voice. Their demand was simple and consistent: end Serbian oppression and recognize Kosovo’s independence. They resisted superficial ceasefires, no talk of transitional governments, and insisted on meaningful negotiations with enforceable outcomes. Atrocities were not just documented, they were strategically framed and leveraged to draw global action. Behind the scenes, Kosovo’s leadership had already begun building the institutions of a future state, demonstrating capacity and discipline long before independence was granted.

In contrast, Oromo political leadership has been fragmented. Competing voices, mixed messages, and inconsistent engagement have undermined the Oromo cause in Oromia and abroad. Massacres are under-documented or poorly publicized. The very limited documentation that does exist has been carried out by the Oromia Support Group, led by Dr. Trevor Trueman. The Oromo struggle owes a deep debt of gratitude to him and the OSG for their invaluable work. Negotiations are often reactive, with no clear preconditions or unified platform. And while resistance continues on the ground, alternative governance models are still absent or underdeveloped.

The Diaspora Factor

The Kosovar diaspora played a decisive role in elevating the conflict from a regional crisis to an international priority. From Switzerland to the U.S., they mobilized financial resources, hired lobbyists, briefed foreign officials, and cultivated relationships with journalists and legal experts. This was not spontaneous outrage; it was a sustained campaign.

The Oromo diaspora, while passionate, has largely relied on protests and social media awareness campaigns. What’s needed now is a shift from episodic activism to institutional advocacy. That means creating permanent structures, think tanks, legal aid groups, media liaisons, that can engage power centers with credibility. It means building secure communication with leaders inside Oromia to align priorities. It means investing in long-term lobbying, legal cases, and international partnerships, not just one-off demonstrations. And above all, it means presenting the Oromo struggle with a consistent, coordinated voice across all platforms. While the Oromo Legacy Leadership and Advocacy Association (OLLA), led by Sena Jimjimo, and the Oromo Advocacy Alliance, a group focused on human rights, are making commendable efforts within their capacity, much more remains to be done. Both organizations currently lack the financial resources and the skilled, educated personnel necessary to elevate their advocacy to the level the cause demands

A Lesson in Recognition

When Kosovo declared independence in 2008, it did so not on the strength of its demand alone, but on the strength of its preparation. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice framed Kosovo as a “special case,” citing ethnic cleansing, Yugoslavia’s collapse, and years of UN oversight. In supporting Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, the US secretary of state goes on to say “In light of the conflicts of the 1990s, independence is the only viable option to promote stability in the region.” There is no mistaking what Dr. Rice is saying here. Western powers echoed this view, and the International Court of Justice later confirmed Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law.

The point is clear: legitimacy is not just asserted, it must be built, documented, and defended. Kosovo achieved this through legal framing, moral clarity, and diplomatic groundwork. Oromia can too.

The Path Is Still Open

The stories of Kosovo and Oromia are stories of resilience under fire. One led to liberation, the other remains unheard. But the silence around Oromia is not inevitable. The moral case is strong. What’s missing is the infrastructure of strategy: unified leadership, professional advocacy, disciplined diplomacy, and clear messaging.

Kosovo shows that justice is not handed down. It is earned through coherence, courage, and coordination.

Oromia’s future depends on turning pain into purpose and building the tools to make the world listen.

 

O-Dispatch #6: Reclaiming the Oromo Voice: What Leaders, Youth, and Movements Must Do Now

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

Movements don’t just collapse under repression or internal conflict; they collapse in silence. Not the silence of weariness, but the kind born from hesitation, ambiguity, and fear. That silence is growing louder in the Oromo liberation movement, and it’s threatening to unravel hard-won gains. The core question today is not whether the Oromo people desire justice, liberation, self-determination, or independence. It’s whether those who claim to lead, represent, or advocate for them are willing to speak with the moral clarity and political courage the moment demands. This is a call to act. To abandon half-truths, to shed whispered convictions, and to speak boldly and publicly about what the Oromo people have long known: that their struggle is not about marginal reforms, it’s about reclaiming dignity, identity, and sovereignty.

Whether the ultimate goal is full independence or genuine self-rule, the path forward must be marked by unapologetic conviction, strategic flexibility, and unified communication.

The foundation of any serious movement is truth. It begins with stating goals clearly. If independence is what the people seek, then that must be voiced openly. If self-determination is the principle, it must be defended in public, not reserved for closed meetings or diaspora fundraisers. Leaders cannot afford to avoid the language of liberation because they fear labels. Truth cannot liberate if it is never spoken.

In the current climate, the label of “secessionist” is a political weapon, wielded by centralist regimes to delegitimize any demand for national self-determination. But history shows us that many peoples once denounced as separatists later stood recognized as sovereign nations. Demanding independence is not a crime, it is a right, protected by Article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution and enshrined in international law. This right should not be feared but reframed: independence is not rebellion; it is justice. To advance this narrative, leaders must educate both domestic and international audiences, while Oromo youth must shed the burden of inherited guilt and reclaim a history too often distorted or dismissed.

Even for those who view independence as a long-term goal rather than an immediate demand, it must remain in public discourse. Removing it from conversation has real consequences. It turns federal reform into the ceiling instead of the floor. It signals uncertainty to both friends and foes. And it sows confusion and distrust among the people. Independence is more than an endpoint, it is a tool. Even if not pursued today, the right to demand it must be vigorously defended.

That doesn’t mean movements shouldn’t be flexible. Mature movements distinguish between principle and tactic. Tactical alliances, pauses in conflict, or negotiations are not betrayals, so long as they remain grounded in a clear, principled vision. Strategic ambiguity can be useful, but only if tied to firm long-term goals. The Oromo movement can survive internal disagreements. What it cannot survive is a vacuum of vision.

This moment demands action from every corner of the Oromo struggle.

Oromo advocacy groups in the diaspora must adopt a long-game strategy. They should take cues from the work of the Oromia Support Group, which systematically documents state atrocities. Messaging campaigns must focus not just on grievances, but on the principle of self-determination, human rights, and the legal foundation of the Oromo cause. Instead of relying solely on street protests, the diaspora must invest in professionalized storytelling, advocacy infrastructure, and coordinated lobbying efforts that move governments and media.

Political and military organizations such as the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), and the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) must stop speaking in half-measures. Their goals must be publicly clarified, in language that leaves no room for ambiguity. Political and military wings must align their narratives and embrace the legal instruments at their disposal, most notably the constitutional right to self-determination. Silence is not a strategy. Power concedes nothing to hesitation.

The Oromo youth, often at the front lines of protest and sacrifice, must also take a new direction. Their organizing must grow beyond reactive anger to rooted clarity. Cultural revival, through Oromo history, literature, and music, must power political awareness. Youth should also forge coalitions with other oppressed groups, both within Ethiopia and globally. And when current leadership hesitates or falters, young people must not be afraid to demand generational change.

A key part of this transformation lies in narrative. The digital space must become a battleground for truth. Oromo creators must invest in content that doesn’t just respond to violence but tells stories of resilience, hope, and sovereignty. Short films, podcasts, music, visual art, TikToks, and YouTube content in both Afaan Oromo and English, the likes of those produced by Birmaduu Media and others,  should reshape the way the world sees the Oromo struggle. Digital engagement must be strategic, consistent, and professional, designed not just to express frustration, but to build legitimacy and shift perception.

Ultimately, the Oromo voice must be reclaimed, not merely represented. No leader or organization can claim to speak for a people unless they are willing to say what the people know to be true: that the Oromo are not a region within someone else’s empire. They are a nation. Representation that lacks the courage to affirm that truth is not representation, it’s capitulation.

This is a pivotal moment. The silence that threatens to smother the Oromo struggle must be broken, not tomorrow, but now. The future will belong to those who claim it with purpose and speak it into existence.

 

O-Dispatch #5 - Why Independence Still Matters: Principles, History, and Justice

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

At every turning point in the history of oppressed peoples, there comes a time when they must ask—not whether freedom is convenient—but whether it is just. For the Oromo people, that question has long been answered. The struggle for independence is not simply a political position. It is a moral imperative, born from historical injustice, sustained by lived experience, and guided by a vision of collective dignity. This article revisits the principled foundation of the Oromo struggle for independence. It challenges the idea that the demand for sovereignty is outdated or extreme and asserts that it remains a valid and necessary goal rooted in truth, justice, and the right to self-determination.

1.      A History of Conquest, Not Consent

The incorporation of Oromia into the Ethiopian empire was not the result of a mutual compact—it was the outcome of violent conquest. In the late 19th century, during the reign of Emperor Menelik II, Oromo lands were annexed through military campaigns marked by destruction, enslavement, forced assimilation, and cultural erasure.

This was not a unification—it was colonization. The Oromo, once autonomous and self-governing through the Gadaa system, were reduced to subjects in a centralized imperial order that denied their language, their faiths, their governance structures, and their right to exist as a distinct people.

This legacy is not ancient history—it is a living memory, passed down through generations who still feel the weight of that historical trauma.

2.      The Foundational Goals of the Oromo Liberation Struggle

When the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) was founded in 1973, it did not emerge as a reformist movement seeking cultural recognition. It was a liberation movement with a clear and principled goal: the right of the Oromo people to exercise self-determination up to and including independence.

In its founding documents, the OLF declared:

“The fundamental objective of the Oromo national movement is to exercise the right of self-determination and terminate the existing colonial relationship.”

Other liberation bodies that followed—armed, political, or civic—have consistently traced their legitimacy to this original vision. Even when political calculations changed or tactical ambiguity became necessary, the principle of terminating the colonial relationship has remained the moral foundation of the Oromo national question.

3.      Echoes of Oromo Leaders: Jarra Abba Gada and Others

Leaders like Jarra Abba Gada, a revered commander and Baro Tumsa, a renowned thinker and unifier, in the Oromo liberation movement, spoke repeatedly and clearly about the centrality of independence. To paraphrase Jarra Abba Gadaa, the question of independence is not something we begged to inherit—it is something we must assert, because it was taken from us without our consent.

Other Oromo voices, from elders to students, have echoed this truth. Whether in the mountains of Oromia or the streets of the diaspora, the call has remained constant: freedom is not a favor. It is a right.

4.      Independence as a Moral, Not Merely Political, Demand

Too often, independence is debated purely in terms of practicality—"Is it achievable?" or "Will it bring economic hardship?" These are valid concerns, but they are secondary to the principle at stake.

Just as South Africans didn’t wait to calculate GDP projections before fighting apartheid, and just as Eritreans didn’t negotiate over federal autonomy while under occupation, the Oromo people cannot surrender their right to determine their own future in exchange for promised reforms that never arrive.

This is not about politics alone—it is about dignity, agency, and justice.

5.      Frederick Douglass and the Nature of Power

To understand why independence must be demanded—not pleaded for—one need only recall the words of the great African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who declared:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

These words ring true in Oromia today. For too long, the Oromo movement has been asked to moderate its demands, to be “realistic,” to wait for a more favorable time. But power has never yielded to patience. It yields to clarity, courage, and pressure.

Independence Still Matters—Because Truth Still Matters

The demand for independence is not outdated. It is not extreme. It is not divisive. It is a just and historically grounded response to a century of dispossession and domination. To abandon it—not as a tactic, but as a principle—is to forget the very reason the struggle began.

Whether independence is achieved in our lifetime or the next, what matters now is that we reclaim it as our rightful aspiration—boldly, unapologetically, and without shame.

Independence still matters because truth still matters. And justice delayed does not mean justice denied—unless we allow ourselves to stop demanding it.

O-Dispatch #4 - The Transitional Government Debate: A Symptom of Strategic Drift

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

In recent months, both the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) have publicly called for the formation of a transitional government in Oromia. Similarly, according to some reports, the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) made a transitional arrangement in Oromia the centerpiece of its proposal during the 2023 peace talks with the Ethiopian government in Zanzibar source: Curate Oromia. On the surface, this convergence may appear to reflect growing unity across armed and nonviolent factions. Yet beneath this shared demand lies a troubling lack of consensus, on both the purpose of the transition and the roadmap that should follow.

What we are witnessing is not strategic unity, but strategic congestion. Each group is crowding the “transitional government” discourse, championing its own vision while subtly undermining others. They argue not only over who should lead or facilitate a transition, but also whose version of a transitional government is legitimate. This infighting expose deep fissures within Oromo political leadership. Rather than leveraging a unified front to challenge the failing Prosperity Party (PP) regime, actors are locked in a zero-sum contest for symbolic dominance.

The core question, transition to what, and to where?, remains unanswered. Some vaguely suggest federal reform, others whisper independence, and still others offer no endgame at all. Without a clearly articulated destination, the transitional government proposal risks becoming another hollow container, susceptible to co-optation, devoid of direction, and echoing the failures of 2018.

This moment is a painful déjà vu for the Oromo people. Less than seven years ago, many placed their trust in the ascendant Abiy Ahmed government. That trust was based not on a negotiated agenda or mutual commitments, but on verbal assurances and personal endorsements, such as those offered by Jawar Mohammed. The result? Disillusionment, repression, and betrayal. Today’s transitional government advocates risk repeating that same error: promising change without clarity, process without purpose.

The practical viability of a regional transitional government also deserves scrutiny. Oromia is a regional state within the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. How, then, can one form a transitional government at the subnational level while the federal government, retaining control over the military, judiciary, and treasury, remains intact? Such an arrangement is either politically unserious or legally incoherent. If a genuine transition is needed, why are Oromo political forces reluctant to demand it at the federal level? Why this selective courage, loud in opposition to local structures, but silent in the face of central authority?

Even more concerning is the absence of foundational principles in negotiations and political platforms. In both the April and November 2023 peace talks in Tanzania, sources confirm that neither independence nor Article 39, the constitutional provision affirming nations’ right to self-determination, was invoked by the OLA. For an armed movement rooted in anti-colonial resistance and the dream of an independent Oromia, such omissions are not merely strategic oversights, they signal a loss of ideological compass.

This ambiguity is not unique to armed actors. Civil political groups like the OLF and OFC have also distanced themselves from invoking Article 39. While some may argue that secession is politically impractical, avoiding even symbolic gestures of self-determination weakens the moral force of the Oromo cause and confuses allies, supporters, and observers alike.

Furthermore, Oromo organizations speak of self-determination with fire when addressing their base, at rallies, commemorations, and in cultural forums, but that rhetoric fades in national and international arenas. This dual messaging creates a credibility gap, reflecting not strategic discretion but a crisis of conviction.

In contrast, successful liberation movements, from Eritrea to South Sudan to Kosovo, began by articulating a clear end-state and aligning their strategies accordingly. They did not let transitional arrangements distract them from core goals or devolve into squabbles over interim authority. Today, Oromo leaders must ask: Are we fighting for the people’s future or simply for temporary political positioning?

Unless Oromo organizations collectively define their political destination, and agree on a credible roadmap to reach it, the transitional government debate will remain a symptom, not a solution. A symptom of drift, fragmentation, and unhealed wounds from past betrayals. Only clarity of vision and unity of purpose can turn this moment into a true transition, rather than another tragic repetition.

O-Dispatch # 3 - Independence as a Negotiating Tool: When Demands Were Used for Leverage

By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

The pursuit of independence is often framed as an all-or-nothing proposition: either you achieve full statehood, or you fail. But history shows that maximalist demands - especially for independence - can be powerful tools of negotiation, even when they are not fully realized. These demands often generate leverage, shift political discourse, and force concessions that would never have been possible from moderate or ambiguous starting points. This article explores how movements that demanded independence, despite knowing it might not be immediately achievable or even desirable, secured significant political, cultural, and legal gains.

Here are some national struggles that gained significant rights because they demanded independence.

1.      Quebec (Canada): Leveraging Independence to Secure Cultural Sovereignty

The Quebec independence movement, led by the Parti Québécois and supported by mass mobilization, has held two referenda on sovereignty - in 1980 and 1995. Though both failed narrowly, the movement achieved substantial cultural, linguistic, and political gains.

Key Outcomes of the demand for independence in Quebec are:

●        The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined language rights.

●        French was made the official language in Quebec and federal accommodations followed.

●        Quebec gained more autonomy in areas such as immigration and education.

●        Even though Canada remained united, the mere threat of separation reshaped the federation.

What lesson should Oromo political groups take from Quebec’s pursuit of independence? It is that a strong, well-organized independence movement compelled the Canadian federal government to recognize and institutionalize Quebec’s distinct identity. Without the referenda and assertive demands, these protections would likely never have been secured. By adopting a similarly strategic approach, Oromo political actors can help ensure that Oromia’s unique identity is safeguarded and never again subjected to the threats it faces today.

2.      Scotland (UK): Autonomy Gained Through Pro-Independence Pressure

The Scottish National Party (SNP) long advocated for full independence. A 2014 referendum, though unsuccessful, captured 45% support. Since then, the UK government has granted Scotland expanded devolution powers in response to rising nationalist sentiment.

What has Scotland achieved as a result?

●        Creation of the Scottish Parliament (1999) and expanded powers since.

●        Increased control over health, education, and taxation policy.

●        Scotland’s pro-EU stance post-Brexit has elevated its international voice. 

The key lesson for the Oromo liberation movement is that persistent demands for independence can reshape a state's internal structure. In the case of the UK, even without achieving full independence, Scotland emerged as a semi-autonomous political entity with meaningful policy authority - driven largely by the pressure of secession. Similarly, Oromia, as a regional state within Ethiopia, can strengthen its self-rule by consistently advancing the call for independence.

3.      Palestinian National Movement: From Maximalist Demand to Incremental Gains

The Palestinian national cause began with calls for the complete liberation of historic Palestine. Over decades, facing geopolitical realities and international pressure, the movement adapted its strategy but maintained its core demand: statehood and dignity.

What have Palestinians achieved as a result?

●        The Oslo Accords of 1993 led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority and limited self-governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

●        The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) gained global diplomatic recognition.

●        Palestine achieved observer state status at the United Nations in 2012. 

What should the Oromo liberation movement learn from Palestine’s experience? While full independence remains out of reach, the PLO’s unwavering commitment to sovereignty secured incremental recognition, international support, and partial statehood. Had it relied solely on moderate demands, those efforts might have been ignored. Likewise, without a persistent and principled demand for independence, the Oromo struggle risks continued dismissal as merely an internal Ethiopian matter - an unfortunate label it already faces.

Why Maximalist Demands Matter

Movements that demand more than what is “pragmatically” possible often end up achieving more than movements that start with modest goals. Why?

●        They shift the baseline of negotiation. What is considered “reasonable” is always relative; bold demands reset expectations.

●        They energize the base. Movements need a moral cause and a bold vision to mobilize youth, diaspora, and supporters.

●        They create space for compromise. Ironically, demanding more can make it easier to achieve middle-ground outcomes on better terms.

Relevance to the Oromo Liberation Movement

The Oromo movement has too often refrained from boldly and publicly articulating its commitment to independence or even self-determination in front of the Ethiopian state and the international community, despite many leaders and fighters privately supporting these goals. This reluctance weakens its negotiating position and limits the scope of achievable outcomes.

By putting independence on the table:

●        The movement can frame structural autonomy as a concession, not a starting point.

●        It affirms the historical justice of the Oromo cause, even when tactically flexible.

●        It builds long-term leverage, keeping aspirations high and options open.

Ask Boldly, Win Strategically

While this author believes independence should be the goal for Oromia, it need not be viewed solely as an end in itself. It can also serve as a strategic tool - both for those who support full independence and for those who envision other outcomes. The most effective movements are those that make bold demands, negotiate wisely, and remain grounded in principle. Regardless of whether Oromia achieves statehood in the near term, firmly and unapologetically asserting the right to independence will strengthen the position of those shaping its future.

The moral of the story is that these movements show that demanding independence, even symbolically or strategically, can shift political landscapes, strengthen cultural identities, and secure legal reforms - even if actual secession is delayed or unrealized. The act of demanding more than is immediately achievable often creates the space to win what is otherwise unreachable through moderate appeals alone.

You don’t win by asking for what’s acceptable - you win by demanding what’s just.