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.
The legacy of colonialism continues to shape the geopolitical landscape of the modern world, often determining which groups are granted the right to self-determination and which are denied. A particularly striking comparison is that between the Kosovo Albanians, who were able to form an internationally recognized state, and the Oromians of Ethiopia, who remain within the borders established during colonial and post-colonial state formation. This disparity reveals the selective nature of international support for independence movements.
ReplyDeleteModern African borders are a direct result of colonial decisions, most notably the Berlin Conference of 1884–85, where European powers divided the continent without regard to the ethnic, linguistic, or cultural realities of its peoples. The Oromians, one of the largest ethnic groups in Ethiopia, are a clear example of a nation whose identity and autonomy have been constrained by these artificial borders. Despite aspirations for self-determination, Oromians remain within a federal system that has historically limited meaningful autonomy and representation.
In contrast, Kosovo Albanians achieved independence following the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia. With the support of NATO intervention and alignment with Western powers, Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and received widespread international recognition. This case highlights the geopolitical selectivity in how the right to self-determination is granted or withheld. In practice, international law on self-determination is often applied inconsistently, influenced more by strategic interests than by principles of equity or justice.
Institutions like the United Nations Security Council exemplify the structural limitations of the international system. Dominated by permanent members with veto power, the Security Council reflects the post-World War II power structure and often upholds the interests of dominant states. As such, it plays a significant role in reinforcing existing borders and legitimizing the governance of post-colonial states, regardless of the will of the populations within them.
The result is a form of neo-colonialism, where former colonies remain under indirect control through economic dependency, foreign policy alignment, or elite governance structures shaped by former colonial powers. This system ensures that while states may be nominally independent, their sovereignty is often compromised by external interests. For groups like the Oromians, this means that calls for autonomy or independence are not judged solely on their merit but are filtered through a global system designed to maintain existing power hierarchies.
While the comparison between Kosovo and Oromia is useful in highlighting global double standards, it is important to recognize the distinct historical and political contexts of each. Kosovo’s independence followed years of ethnic conflict and international military intervention, whereas Oromia’s situation is rooted in Ethiopia’s unique federal and imperial history. Still, the disparity in international responses speaks volumes about the unequal distribution of the right to self-determination.
In conclusion, the cases of Kosovo and Oromia reveal a deeply uneven global landscape in which the right to form a nation-state is not universally accessible. Instead, it is a privilege extended selectively—often to those whose interests align with powerful global actors. For many post-colonial societies, true independence remains elusive, and self-determination continues to be a contested and politicized ideal. Understanding and addressing these disparities requires a critical re-evaluation of international norms, institutions, and the power structures that sustain them.
Thank you for this powerful and thought-provoking reflection. The comparison with Kosovo is indeed striking and helps illuminate the inconsistencies in how the principle of self-determination is applied globally.
ReplyDeleteThat said, while the critique is well-reasoned and grounded in historical reality, I believe the moment also calls for a shift from analysis to actionable vision. What do we, as Oromo scholars, professionals, and diaspora leaders, do in light of these structural injustices?
Should we:
• Develop a strategic advocacy platform that internationalizes the Oromo cause with clear legal and diplomatic objectives?
• Build transnational coalitions with other stateless nations to demand reform in how international institutions recognize and respond to self-determination claims?
• Reinvest in internal cohesion, political unity, and media infrastructure to counter fragmentation and present a credible alternative political future?
Without a roadmap, even the most accurate diagnosis can become an echo in the void. It’s time we pair critical analysis with bold, coordinated action—locally, regionally, and globally. I hope your powerful insights can inspire further conversation not just about why we are where we are, but how we get to where we must be. I hope your next post will focus on coordinated, actionable vision.