O-Dispatch #18: You don’t get what you don’t demand: Why Tactical Silence on Independence Is a Risky Gamble for the Oromo Liberation Movement

(Don’t wait to demand independence until you are strong. Become strong because you demand independence.)

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (13 minutes)

Several Oromo leaders have argued for a tactical delay in demanding Oromia's independence. Their reasoning: open calls for independence might alienate potential international allies and damage the movement's diplomatic credibility. Instead, they advocate for strategic ambiguity—focusing first on toppling the current regime, then pursuing independence once stronger. While this may seem tactically sound at first, historical and strategic analysis reveal that such an approach is deeply flawed. More often than not, movements that postpone core demands in the name of diplomacy end up marginalized, co-opted, or erased from the very future they fought to shape.

This essay respectfully challenges that logic and offers examples from other liberation movements to argue why clarity, not silence, is the path to genuine liberation.

---

The Logic Behind “Tactical Silence”

The rationale can be summarized as follows:

“Calling for independence now risks alienating allies. Let’s first build international legitimacy and political strength, then raise the independence demand later.”

This phased approach might appear cautious and smart—but in reality, it often confuses short-term diplomacy with long-term capitulation. Suppressing core objectives to avoid friction often leads to strategic disunity and ultimately weakens a movement’s bargaining power.

But even more importantly, this exact strategy—toppling the current regime first, and then pursuing what we want later—has already failed the Oromo people multiple times:

• After the fall of Haile Selassie, the Oromo supported the revolution but were sidelined in the creation of the new order.
• After the fall of the Derg regime, the OLF entered the transitional government, only to be betrayed and forced into exile.
• After the fall of TPLF dominance in 2018, Oromo leaders again supported a transitional opening without asserting independence, and were systematically suppressed once the regime consolidated power.

Why should we believe, this same strategy will work now when it has failed us at every historical turn?

Why Delaying the Independence Demand Is Dangerous

Firstly, It Breeds Internal Confusion and Fragmentation

A movement that doesn’t clearly articulate its end goal invites internal splintering:

• Some members push for full independence.
• Others advocate for federal reform.
• Still others settle for inclusion in state structures.

Without a shared destination, unity dissolves, moral clarity fades, and factions emerge. A good example for this situation from our struggle would be the OLF's Return to Ethiopia in 2018 and the Strategic Ambiguity and Fragmentation that followed its return. Upon its return, the organization avoided making its end goal publicly and consistently clear. Instead of restating a clear position (e.g., “we are entering this political space to negotiate the peaceful realization of an independent Oromia”), the OLF leadership emphasized peaceful struggle and democratization. There is no telling if the shift was strategic or genuine. As a result, Supporters, cadres, and rival factions interpreted the ambiguity differently. As a result, one wing, led by Dawud Ibsa, continued to position the OLF as a liberation movement but was criticized for lacking operational clarity and decisiveness. A rival faction emerged under Ararso Biqila and others, who were co-opted by Abiy Ahmed. The Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), formerly the armed wing of the OL, refused to disarm, citing betrayal of the liberation cause. This group eventually separated formally, accusing the political wing of abandoning the goal of independence. The resultant outcome was a splintered organization into a registered (further splintered) party seeking reform within Ethiopia (Led by Ob. Dawud Ibsa and another by Ararso Bikila), a militarized group insisting on armed struggle for full independence (or so we thought), and a disillusioned grassroots activists and youth (Qeerroo) caught between conflicting signals.

The "shared destination" was no longer clear. Without an agreed-upon end goal, different actors pursued different visions of the future. The once somewhat united national movement became a patchwork of rival groups, undermining collective strength. The absence of a bold, principled destination weakened the moral and rhetorical power of the Oromo cause on the world stage. The Oromo case illustrates how deferring or avoiding a clear demand for full statehood led to internal fragmentation, confusion over purpose, and loss of external credibility, where, after half-century-old struggle, the world continues to ask, “What do Oromos want?”. This is precisely what happens when movements lack a shared destination.

Secondly, by Delaying the Independence Demand, You Forfeit Negotiation Leverage

If a movement doesn’t declare independence upfront, future negotiations lack credibility. When independence is finally raised, adversaries can dismiss it as a post-hoc demand.

A compelling example of this case is South Sudan — a liberation struggle that initially avoided demanding full independence, resulting in weak negotiating leverage and delayed freedom, until it ultimately shifted to a clear demand for secession, endured prolonged war, and finally achieved nationhood. Following the First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972), Southern Sudanese leaders—primarily the Anyanya movement—entered into negotiations with the Khartoum government. Rather than demanding independence, they agreed to the Addis Ababa Agreement, which offered regional autonomy within a united Sudan. By avoiding the independence question, Southern Sudanese leaders gave the central government room to regroup, betray the deal, and reconsolidate control.

The betrayal of the Addis Ababa Agreement and imposition of Sharia law triggered the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005). This time, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) initially pursued a vision of a “New Sudan”—a democratic, secular, and reformed united Sudan.

• This vision was vague and idealistic, lacking clear popular support in the South.
• Southern Sudanese civilians, having experienced Khartoum’s duplicity, increasingly pushed for outright secession.

By the early 2000s, especially under international mediation, the SPLM began shifting decisively to a clear demand for independence. This culminated in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which granted the South a six-year interim period followed by a referendum on independence. In 2011, South Sudan voted overwhelmingly (98.8%) for independence in a peaceful referendum. It became the world’s newest country after nearly five decades of intermittent war and over two million deaths.

Initial avoidance of the independence demand (1972, 1983) weakened negotiations and delayed liberation.  Internal divisions and unclear strategy made the SPLM vulnerable to co-optation and pressure from Khartoum and international actors.  Only after embracing the explicit demand for secession, backed by grassroots will and military struggle, did South Sudan gain the leverage to negotiate a path to freedom.

South Sudan’s journey shows that deferring the demand for independence in hopes of reform or autonomy can prolong suffering and invite betrayal. It wasn’t until the movement unified around a clear, non-negotiable goal, full independence, that nationhood became attainable.

Thirdly, International Powers Value Clarity Over Silence.

Western governments respect disciplined, transparent movements, even if their goals are bold. Movements that obscure their aims to appear “moderate” risk being perceived as opportunistic or incoherent. International powers, though often cautious, respect and eventually support liberation movements that show consistency, clarity, and moral conviction. Movements that hedge, hide, or postpone their end goal to appear more “moderate” or “strategic” often lose credibility, get outmaneuvered, or are left in limbo.

Even small nations can gain international backing when they articulate a principled and consistent goal over decades. The Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (FRETILIN) consistently demanded independence from the outset, even during brutal Indonesian occupation. Despite international powers initially supporting Indonesia for strategic reasons, FRETILIN’s moral clarity and the people’s unwavering demand eventually won global sympathy. After the 1999 referendum (organized by the UN), Timor-Leste became independent in 2002.

In the case of Kosovo, Clarity allowed key global powers to justify support even without UN consensus. Delaying the declaration would have made Kosovo a pawn in endless negotiations. Kosovo made independence its central demand, linking it to human rights and international law. After years of repression, the Kosovo Liberation Army and later the provisional institutions of Kosovo clearly declared the intent to establish a sovereign state. Despite diplomatic caution early on, the final strategy was open, decisive, and coordinated. Though not recognized by all states, over 100 countries—including the U.S. and most EU states—recognized Kosovo’s independence declared in 2008.

In each of these cases, clarity, not moderation, earned them global legitimacy.

In both 1991 and 2018, Oromo leaders participated in transitional governments without placing independence on the agenda. Their cooperation was exploited, and they were ultimately sidelined or betrayed once the regime consolidated power. To this day, most western powers ask, “what do Oromos want?”

Lessons from the Oromo Struggle

This isn’t theoretical for the Oromo nation; Oromo leaders have already tried the “wait-and-see” approach on independence and have paid for that decision.

In 1991, the OLF joined the transitional government of Ethiopia, accepting federalism. The Result was betrayal and exile. In 2005, Reformist Oromos joined the elections. The Result was crackdowns and marginalization. In 2018, Oromo leaders embraced Abiy Ahmed’s reformist image. The result, as we are witnessing today, is suppression and reversal.

Every time the independence demand was softened or postponed, it backfired. Silence did not bring peace or freedom or international support, which our leaders value higher than rallying their nation under the same objective. Without fail, this method has brought betrayal. Then why continue to try the same failed method over and over again?

What should Oromo Leaders Do to gain diplomatic support?

The solution is not to postpone core demands of the struggle which the organization has on its political program: “Hundeen akeeka qabsoo kanaa, mirga hiree murteeffannaa ummata Oromoo argamsiisuuf, sirna kolonii Oromiyaa irraa kaasudhan, Oromiyaa kolonii, hacuuccaa fi saamicha bifa hundaa jalaa bilisa baasuun mootummaa Walaba Oromiyaa dhaabuu dha.” (2017)

This is not a call for reckless declarations, but for disciplined clarity aligned with the organization’s self-declared political program. It is no good for leaders of an organization to ask their supporters to not question whether their actions align with their political program on paper. Instead, they should:

• Frame the struggle as anti-colonial, not anti-Ethiopian.
• Emphasize themes of justice, decolonization, and regional stability.
• Build alliances by showing that independence is a path to lasting peace, not chaos.

Diplomatic silence isn’t strategic—it’s surrender. The movement must be internally aligned around independence, with leaders preparing for it and the international community aware that it's a serious and legitimate objective.

The Future Demands Clarity

“You don’t get what you don’t demand.”

Postponing the call for independence in the name of strategy is a recipe for repeated betrayal. The Oromo people have already paid the price for silence.

Independence shouldn’t be delayed.

It should be planned for, built toward, and openly affirmed.

• It’s what the people believe in.
• It’s what unites the base.
• It’s what gives the movement legitimacy.

Don’t wait to demand independence until you are strong.

Become strong because you demand independence.