O-Dispatch #1 - Strategic Silence or Strategic Error? The Costs of Not Demanding Independence

By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

In the calculus of liberation movements, silence is never neutral. When a people’s fundamental aspiration is omitted from official discourse - whether deliberately or by omission - it sends a message not only to adversaries, but also to allies, sympathizers, and future generations. For the Oromo liberation movement, the continued silence around the demand for independence is not merely a tactical pause; it is a strategic error with far-reaching consequences. The Power of the Maximalist Position In negotiation theory, one of the most fundamental principles is clear: you never start with your minimum demand. Instead, you assert your maximalist position, allowing room to negotiate downward while still protecting core interests.

Every seasoned negotiator understands this. So why has the Oromo liberation movement, particularly its leading organizations, failed to apply this basic strategy in political negotiations?

The case of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) in the Tanzania peace talks of 2023 is illustrative. According to credible sources close to both rounds of talks - in April and November - independence was never raised as a principle or even as a fallback negotiating position. In fact, there is no evidence that even the right to self-determination was demanded. For an armed movement born from a history of resistance, whose very origins were tied to the vision of an independent Oromia, this omission is not just puzzling - it is alarming. According to news sources, the Oromo Liberation Army’s (OLA) proposal to establish a transitional government was the main point of contention in the week-long peace talks with the Ethiopian government held on the Tanzanian island of Zanzibar ((See "Transitional Government proposal divided OLA and Ethiopian government in the Tanzania talks", May 11, 2023, on Curate Oromia website.

The OLA is not alone. Peaceful Oromo political organizations such as the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) also avoid invoking Article 39 of the Ethiopian constitution, which explicitly guarantees the right of nations and nationalities to self-determination, including secession. While its enforceability may be questionable under current political conditions, the article itself is a symbolic and legal instrument of immense potential. For any organization in the Oromo liberation movement - whether its chosen path is armed resistance or non-violent political engagement - to avoid demanding even what the Ethiopian constitution allows, albeit on paper, is inconceivable. It not only weakens the legitimacy of their claim but also undermines the seriousness with which the Oromo cause is projected to both domestic and international audiences.

What makes this even more troubling is the dissonance between internal and external messaging. Nearly all Oromo organizations continue to claim that they are fighting for the right to self-determination when speaking to the Oromo public. They invoke it in speeches, slogans, and declarations. But when they stand before the Ethiopian state or the international community, they fall silent. The very demand they claim to defend is whispered in private and abandoned in public. This duplicity not only erodes credibility but signals a lack of conviction at the most critical moments of engagement.

What Is Lost When We Stay Silent?

1.   Loss of Bargaining Power: Without a bold and clearly stated maximalist goal, all negotiations begin from a compromised position. The Oromo cause is immediately placed on the defensive - seeking rights within a system that has historically denied those rights - rather than demanding the full scope of justice and negotiating from there.

2.   Demoralization of the Base: When organizations fail to voice what many in the grassroots believe, a gap emerges between leadership and people. Oromo youth and public, who have led uprisings, filled prisons, and buried their comrades, did not risk everything for ambiguous reforms. They deserve clarity and boldness in return.

3.   Loss of Moral Clarity: Framing the struggle merely around rights within the current system dilutes the historical, cultural, and moral foundation of the Oromo national question. This struggle was never just about equitable governance - it was, and still is, about reclaiming stolen sovereignty.

4.   Strategic Ambiguity Encourages Fragmentation: When leadership fails to articulate a clear destination, multiple factions emerge, each interpreting the path differently. Confusion replaces unity, and energy is spent on internal debates rather than external gains.

Global View: Territorial Integrity vs. Political Reality

While international law - including the UN Charter and the African Union’s Constitutive Act - formally emphasizes territorial integrity and colonial borders, in practice, independence outcomes have been accepted under specific political, legal, and humanitarian conditions. The principle is restrictive, but exceptions are possible and have been repeatedly exercised.

Post–Cold War examples such as Eritrea (1993), South Sudan (2011), Kosovo (2008), Slovenia, and Croatia demonstrate this reality. All of these cases have the following in common - some of which Oromia already shares and others it must work to achieve:

1. A prolonged history of marginalization or violence.
2. Collapse or major weakening of the central state.
3. International sympathy rooted in humanitarian or geopolitical concerns.
4. Strong internal cohesion and defined leadership in the liberated territories. 

Implications for the Oromo Movement

Independence Is Not Illegal - But Conditional: The global system does not ban decolonization or secession. It discourages them under “normal” conditions, but often accepts them when:

·            It results from a negotiated political settlement, or

·            It arises in the aftermath of state collapse, genocide, or unresolvable conflict. 

Leverage, Not Silence: This reinforces the strategic value of keeping the demand for independence alive - even if not immediately actionable:

• ·        It strengthens bargaining positions in any political settlement.
• ·         It ensures that structural injustice is not normalized within the federalist status quo.
• ·         It signals that Oromo aspirations extend beyond token inclusion or symbolic reforms. 

C. The Oromo Case Has Many Preconditions for Independence: The Oromo people meet several criteria evident in other successful liberation cases:

1. Historical conquest and forced incorporation into the Ethiopian empire.
2. Repeated massacres, such as the Bishoftu Irreecha Massacre (2016) and the Guji and Borana Massacres (2018–2022).
3. Militarized repression and sustained denial of meaningful autonomy.
4. A weak, discredited federal state unable to deliver justice or sustained peace.

 What’s still missing:

• Strong internal cohesion and a unified political front with a clearly articulated roadmap.
• Sustained international visibility and diplomatic engagement to garner global sympathy.
• Strategic alliances with other marginalized nationalities to broaden the legitimacy and regional weight of the demand.

Silence Is Not Strategy. It Is Surrender.

To lead a people with dignity, one must articulate their deepest aspirations - even when doing so is inconvenient. The Oromo struggle cannot afford ambiguity. The absence of a clearly voiced demand for independence - or even for the foundational right to self-determination - undermines the movement’s leverage, alienates its base, and confuses the broader public.

Whether one ultimately envisions independence or not, keeping it on the table - loudly and unapologetically - is both principled and strategic. It is time for Oromo political and military leaders to reclaim this demand, not just as a long-term vision, but as an essential pillar of negotiation and resistance.

Power concedes nothing without a demand. The Oromo people deserve nothing less than the full expression of their rightful claim.

Have your say!