Dropping the Substance for the Shadow? – Messay Kebede

October 22nd, 2009 Print Print Email Email

The problem with Jawar’s latest response, “Underestimating, Misunderstanding, and Mishandling the Power of Nationalism: Rejoinder to Professor Messay’s Responses,” is that it moves further away from the main reason for our online debate, namely, the piece he wrote about the OLF in which he declares the organization “damaged beyond repair” and repeatedly speaks of its “demise.” His thesis is that inefficient leadership is responsible for this demise. My point was to ask him to look further or deeper, as ideological inappropriateness could also cause inefficiency. It is not clear to me why Jawar absolutely refuses to acknowledge that the ideology of an organization can impact on its efficiency.

My suspicious is that Jawar is now under enormous pressure from other nationalist Oromo. As a result, he effects a reversal: I become an enemy of the OLF while he himself rediscovers terms highly appreciative of the achievements of the organization. This does not come as a surprise since the absolute primacy of group solidarity characteristic of ethnic politics always ends up by silencing critical stands, even if they are legitimate.

That said, I agree with the last paragraph of Jawar’s reply in which he asks us to deal properly with Oromo identity and interest, provided that he tells us how the one-sided affirmation of a particular identity can agree with the need to promote pan-Ethiopian characteristics, without which there is no national unity. My quarrel is never against the affirmation of a particular identity; it is against those who at the same time do not see the need to develop pan-Ethiopian characteristics, not to mention those that are openly secessionists. I invite Jawar to read some of the many articles I wrote in which I promote the notion of a rainbow-nation, that is, a political and cultural solution crowing ethnic claims with a transcendent identity.

As to a detailed assessment of his reply, I make the following remarks:

I. Jawar writes: Messay “refuses to accept that organizational efficiency is primarily a result of strategy and committed leadership.” My reply: how is one to assess the efficiency, strategy, and the level of commitment of an organization without involving its ideology? No need here to come up with a sophisticated definition of ideology: one online dictionary defines ideology as “a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions.” Is it logical to argue that what defines goals, expectations, and actions has nothing to do with efficiency, all the more so as Jawar tells us that “an organization should be evaluated based on stated objectives?” Clearly, wrong objectives can make an organization inefficient.

2. Jawar complains about my “lack of objectivity”; that is why I (and people like me) “underestimate, misunderstand and mishandle nationalist movements.” This appeal to objectivity is baffling when we all know that politics is the clash of different interests. The ideal way of dealing with political conflicts is not by asking the one party to be objective. Not only does this approach forget that politics is the art of concession, but it also creates an imbalance. While the one opponent has the right to be subjective by speaking of the nation he wants to bring to existence, I am asked to silence my feelings about the nation that I want to defend. Rather than objectivity, the right attitude here is the effort to reach mutual accommodation.

3. According to Jawar, “had the OLF ideology failed, there would not exist a land known as Oromia in [the] country.” Maybe I am referring to an imaginary history, but recent events ascertain that Oromia was a gift of the TPLF, which represents another nation. Credit should be given where credit is due, even if it is for a sinister project. At any rate, Oromia was not established by indigenous victorious forces. And if Oromo are invited to be grateful to Tigrean conquerors for the creation of Oromia, I wonder why recognition is not extended to the primary benefactor, who is none other than Emperor Menilik. The latter should be praised for uniting the Oromo under the Ethiopian state, thereby saving them from utter dispersion under different colonial rulers, all the more so as this time Oromo were full participants in the conquest, as witnessed by Ras Gobena’s epic.

4. When Jawar accuses me of underestimating the force of Oromo nationalism, I respond that he has misread my previous article in which I state the following: “if the Oromo had really wanted to separate from the rest of the country, no force on earth could have stopped them.” Obviously, the problem is elsewhere. Jawar reminds me of the sacrifices that Oromo are paying for Oromia. He forgets one important thing, to wit, that more Oromo have died for the integrity of Ethiopia than for Oromia. A superficial look at the ethnic composition of the Derg’s army is enough to evince the enormity of Oromo sacrifices. Instead of one-sided affirmation, let us talk of dual commitment, that is, of ethnic self-assertion but also of common aspiration with other ethnic groups toward a nation based on citizenship or territory.

5. Speaking of Medrek, Jawar says: those who created the organization “have made a U-turn by embracing the reality as it is shown with their swift acceptance of Afaan Oromo as a national language.” Jawar fails to mention that this acceptance was made possible by the unconditional commitment to Ethiopia’s integrity, forcefully expressed through the rejection of secession. In my previous article, I have argued that the ground for mutual concessions is commitment to unity, which I portrayed as the building of a common house. What secessionists refuse to understand is that the so-called right to self-determination up to secession creates a dissimilarity that hinders democratic decisions, as it allows one group to practice political blackmail through the threat of secession unless it obtains all what it wants.

6. For Jawar, the nationalist awakening of the Oromo is a major transformational force, for “without the awakening of the giant, oppressed minorities of the South would still be called “bariya,” “Shanqilla,” “Walamo.” I do not deny that the pressure of Oromo identity constitutes a major force in the Ethiopian politics. However, I ask one more time that credit be given where credit is due. The terms “galla”, “wollamo,” etc., were banned, not by an ethnic political party, but by the Ethiopian student movement and the Derg, which both had multiethnic views. You do not have to be a member of an ethnic party to fight for the equal treatment of peoples’ culture and beliefs. There are no ethnic parties in the US, and yet people are protected in their diversity. As to the main inspiration behind ethnic politics, it is not justice and the equal treatment of peoples; rather, it is the control of state power by elites vying to monopolize scarce resources.

7. I agree with Jawar when he says that “Ethiopia is an unfinished project.” I will even go further by stating that it is a failed project. The reasons for the failure need not preoccupy us here. Even so, I find it hard to believe that ethnonationalist discourse of the kind I am hearing is liable to resume the project. When the whole issue is to marry a native attachment with a transcendent identity, the affirmation of an exclusive form of nationalism is not to finish the project; it is to sabotage it.

8. To underscore the force of nationalism, Jawar asks: “Why did “ethnic” movements outlive class struggle?” In other words, why in Ethiopia did the ethnic movements of the TPLF and EPLF defeat the defenders of socialist revolution? The notion that blood is thicker than interest is precisely the manipulative argumentation that elites use to mobilize the people. I say “manipulative” because it taps natural sentiments associated with relatedness but for the purpose of empowering elites. Both the failures of Leninist socialism and fascist regimes teach us that giving more power to states and elites, whatever their declared aims are—class interest or kinship––is not the road to liberation; the latter occurs through the containment of power. Political liberation is not a family affair. People become free when they limit and divide state power, not when they let it become boundless under the pretext of achieving a cherished goal. What is true of ethics is also true of politics: the end never justifies the means.

9. That is why we should establish political systems in which the primacy of individual and universal rights overtops the criteria of blood, class interest, religion, etc. Unlike the other criteria, individual and universal rights work toward the containment of state power by protecting the individual against unfriendly and seemingly friendly forces. Despite talks of liberation, neither the TPLF nor the EPLF has provided their respective ethnic groups with anything resembling democratic governance. Most disconcerting here is Jawar’s inconsistencies: he speaks of the TPLF and EPLF as models of liberation movements while perfectly knowing their failure, which has only exacerbated Oromo frustration. I conjure Jawar to read Dr. Negasso Gidada’s article portraying the functioning of a Stalinist political system in Wallaga. The spectacle of Oromo elites suppressing the Oromo people in the name of liberation forcefully shows the danger of ethnic politics and the need to place individual rights at the center of the struggle. What the people of Wallega needs is a federal protection of their individual rights. The height of the paradox is that, no less than the Oromo and other ethnic groups, the Tigrean people too need to be rescued by a trans-ethnic state. This is to say that Ethiopian nationalism is none other than the preeminence of individual rights over ethnic states effected through the erection of a trans-ethnic or national federal power.

10. To the question why ethnic movements outlived class struggle, the ultimate answer is that Ethiopian nationalism has been seriously undermined by the failures of socialist ideology. What explains the defeat is not the strength of the ethnic movements, but, as the great Ethiopian historian, Gebru Tareke, puts it in his recently published momentous book, “the revolutionary government ultimately lost because it failed to deliver on its big promises: freedom, equality, and prosperity” (The Ethiopian Revolution: War in the Horn of Africa, p. 2). Indeed the dictatorial method, the divisive goals, and the economic failures of the Derg combined to shatter the efficiency of the armed forces. Contrary to Jawar’s claims, here is a pertinent case of nationalist defeat that was caused by a dissolving ideology. Jawar should have seen the pertinence of the case since he maintains that the Eritrean issue could have been solved if the Derg had “negotiated for ‘Federation.’” Precisely, the inability to negotiate was how Ethiopian nationalism was made inefficient by a totalitarian ideology.
11. Jawar makes me say that “leftist ideology is responsible for growth of ‘ethnic’ nationalism, secessionist demand, and armed struggle” and then contests my alleged statement by citing liberation movements that are not leftist. Yet, my reference to leftist ideology was only echoing his own analysis of the legacy hampering the OLF. To quote him, “OLF is a foster child of the student movement that brought the revolution; as such it shares some common organizational behaviors and characteristics with all other organizations that came out that era, such as the EPRP, TPLF and EPLF”; “the political forces that emerged from the student movement were led by individuals who worshiped Mao Zedong and Stalin, so they embraced such undemocratic, rigid and control freak organizational model.” True, there are non-leftist nationalist movements, but in the particular case of Ethiopia, ethnonationalist movements have originated from a split of the student movement with which they share extremism and a vision of political struggle modeled on a zero-sum game. All the events and tragedies that occurred since 1974 are various manifestations of the rise of elites with ideologies advocating the exclusive control of state power as a means of appropriation of scarce resources. Secessionism or ethnonationalism is one of such manifestations, since it is how elites take up the cause of cultural particularism (language, religion, common descent, etc.) and argue for the natural correspondence between state and culture. In this way, they exclude their rivals as aliens and establish an exclusive entitlement to power.

  1. Ogina
    | #1

    Mesay Kebede the notorious anti-Oromo Ethiopianist,
    just enjoy the following, it may heal you from your eternal mantra about unconditional unity of your Imiye:

    Medrek’s weak point:- rejection of self-determination!

    Medrek is not bad compromise alliance for the involved political organizations representing most of the nations in the empire. It can be a good alternative to replace the Weyane regime. The only weak point where the Weyane can capitalize on is Medrek’s stand on the right of nations to self-determination. Ironically Medrek wrote in the introductory part of its mini-programm, that it strives to accept and respect all human rights which are part and parcel of UN charter and been ratified by the government of Ethiopia. But why did it exclude this important right of nations?

    It was always clear that all Abesha politicians who do want to act as popes of democracy keep silent when it comes to the right of nations to self-determination, which is part of the democracy they all talk about. Is there any half-baked democracy? Their version of democracy includes everything which helps them to keep the empire intact, but not self-determination of nations and peoples. To the clarity of my opinion, let me quote here, what is all about self-determination in short from UNPO website.

    “All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    What is Self-determination?
    Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people’s choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

    The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of the UNPO. For some, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people’s traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination.

    Self-determination in International Law
    The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:

    All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    The right to self-determination of peoples is recognized in many other international and regional instruments, including the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted b the UN General Assembly in 1970, 2, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975, 3, the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1981, 4, the CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in 1990, 5, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993. 6, It has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case 7, the Western Sahara case 8, and the East Timor case 9, in which its erga omnes character was confirmed. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right to self-determination has been elaborated upon by the UN Human Rights Committee 10, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 11, and numerous leading international jurists.

    That the right to self-determination is part of so called hard law has been affirmed also by the International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples brought together by UNESCO from 1985 to 1991, 12, it came to the conclusion that (1) peoples’ rights are recognized in international law; (2) the list of such rights is not very clear, but also that (3) hard law does in any event include the right to self-determination and the right to existence, in the sense of the Genocide Convention.

    The inclusion of the right to self-determination in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, referred to above, emphasizes that self-determination is an integral part of human rights law which has a universal application. At the same time, it is recognized that compliance with the right of self-determination is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural.

    The concept of self-determination is a very powerful one. As Wolfgang Danspeckgruber put it: “No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, as steep in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination.” It evokes emotions, expectations and fears which often lead to conflict and bloodshed. Some experts argued that the title holders should be or are limited in international law. Others believed in the need to limit the possible outcome for all or categories of title holders. Ultimately, the best approach is to view the right to self-determination in its broad sense, as a process providing a wide range of possible outcomes dependent on the situations, needs, interests and conditions of concerned parties. The principle and fundamental right to self-determination of all peoples is firmly established in international law.” End of the quote!

    So if Medrek claims to accept and respect international law, which is ratified by Ethiopia and why in this case of the right to self-detrermination, which is acknowledged even by Weyane regime, did it opt to the rejection? Can this really bring the heartly support from the oppressed nations like Oromo and others for Medrek? May be just the hatred against Weyane might persuade the people to vote for Medrek. But is that a long lasting support to its programme?

    Actually self-determination is the middle position for both forces of unconditional unity and fronts of unconditional independence. It simply suggests, let the concerned public decide in referendum, instead of imposing the two extreme positions (unconditional unity and unconditional independence) on the peoples. I think here Oromo freedom fighters have already done their home work in the last ten years by abandoning their far left position of demanding unconditional independence and opting for the self-determination, whereas Amhara democratic forces still pray their far right mantra of unconditional unity.

    In Medrek it should have been the Amhara democratic forces like UDJ, who had to move from their far right position to the middle position of accepting union based on self-determination. Paradoxically, it is the federalist Oromo parties who abandoned the middle position they had to insist on and moved to the far right position of Amharas. Is this good compromise? From Oromo point of view, it is just equal to a surrender, not an optimal compromise. In my last article, I just said Medrek is the hitherto good compromise solution, but not optimal. The optimal compromise solution is that which brings both sides of far positions (far right unconditional unity and far left unconditional independence) to the middle position aka self-determination.

    If we look at the politics of the empire very exactely, the main conflict areas are not on the issues like democracy, individual freedom, justice, equality, human right, peace, good governance, rule of law, development. The actual difference the Empire’s politcal elites do have is on the following only three issues:

    - type of unity (unconditional unity Vs conditional union)
    - type of federation (kilil-federation Vs xeqilaigizat-federation)
    - type of method to be used for the decision on the above two (force Vs consensus Vs referendum)!

    *Conservative Amharas like AEUP say unconditional unity with xeqilaigizat-federation by all meanses.
    *Liberal Amharas like UDJ try unconditional unity with xeqilaigizat-federation per polity’s consensus.
    *Weyane Tegarus in TPLF want unconditional unity with fake kilil-federation per force.
    *Medrek tries unconditional unity with true kilil-federation per polity’s consensus aka per predetermination.
    *AFD will try conditional union (union based on free will) with true kilil-federation per public’s referendum aka per self-determination.
    *ULFO member organizations want to achieve unconditional independence of Oromia by all meanses.

    As far as the above three very important criteria are concerned, UDJ is not yet true part of Medrek! Both of them are on the same page regarding the type of unity and the type of method, but they do differ in the type of federation. So it is right to classify UDJ separately as done here. Then the question to be answered is, which one is the legitimate regarding the interest of the public at large? I think firstly AFD’s position as an optiomal compromise solution and secondly Medrek’s as an unfair compromise solution!!

    If AFD’s optimal position is hard to swallow for Abeshas at the moment, Medrek is the good compromise they can live with and for Oromos of course Medrek’s position is the minimum we can accept. Let’s now live with it temporarily for Amhara’s wish of Ethiopian unity and Amharinya as federal language as well as Oromo’s desire of Oromian autonomy and Afaan Oromo as federal language are accepted and respected. It is actually good more for uniting most of the opposition groups at home to forge an alliance against Weyane. For Oromo parties, it can be a good tactical move, but not a lasting strategical solution for the complex problem of the empire. For the main political conflict at home seems now to be consolidating to a struggle between kilil-federalists and xeqilaigizat-federalists, it is good news to hear/read that both federalists in the opposition have started to work together like in Medrek against the fascist Weyane. So Medrek is a good start for coming together of the opposition, but for the optimal solution to be realized the lasting common denominator of the opposition must be self-determination of nations. Otherwise, it will be seen in the near future that Weyane will start to capitalize on this weak point of Medrek and will try to rally oppressed nations including Oromo behind its puppet organizations like OPDO!

  2. Gobena
    | #2

    You may not reenforce your argument with suspicion.
    “My suspicious is that Jawar is now under enormous pressure from other nationalist Oromo”

    “Oromia was a gift of the TPLF”. That is an insult to the Oromo people, who have paid and paying every price to achieve this goal.

    Anyway, thank you for your time!

  3. Bekele
    | #3

    Dear editors,

    It is in the best interest of your viewers if you give equal chance by posting opposing views in a very crucial issue of Ethiopia. Youc hose to publish that of Messay only and your viewers are left on one side of the story. These are the kind of poltics that do not advance an understanding between varous groupings and you have your own.

  4. Qum-Neguer
    | #4

    Here are two intellectuals (Messay and Jewar) providing a courteous and reasoned discussion of the very pertinent issues of nationalism vs ethnicism. Both deserve appreciation and thanks.

    With all its attendant problems, including the involvement of certain individuals, such as Seyae, who were responsible for commiting gross crimes against Ethiopia’s national interests and were never brought to book, Medrek seems to be attempting to integrate the dichotomous interests of Ethiopia’s unity with ethnic inclinations.

    Without going into any further analysis, I would like to express the hope that I will one day see Messay and Jewar presenting a joint paper in which their opposing views will have been reconciled in the interests of Ethipia’s 85 million people.

  5. Tarekegne
    | #5

    Great Job Dr Messay, I like this

    “And if Oromo are invited to be grateful to Tigrean conquerors for the creation of Oromia, I wonder why recognition is not extended to the primary benefactor, who is none other than Emperor Menilik. The latter should be praised for uniting the Oromo under the Ethiopian state, thereby saving them from utter dispersion under different colonial rulers, all the more so as this time Oromo were full participants in the conquest, as witnessed by Ras Gobena’s epic”

  6. Robele Ababya
    | #6

    The center-piece of debate in the 21st century is creating a political environmet in which the people choose their leaders freely on merits regardless of how big or small the is the ethnic origin of candidates vying for high office.

    The argument that Oromos were victims of suppression is untenable. What is true is that all Ethiopians are suffering under the misrule of EPRDF of which OLF was a part.

  7. zama
    | #7

    I have followed Dr. Messays and jawar’s exchange and have found it very enlightning. I think the level of the discours and the civility, shows a marked progress in the culture of our poletical debate. This commendable culture, should apply to all levels of our poletical realm.
    Our goal is democratic Ethiopia for all its citizens!

  8. yikerbelen
    | #8

    Thank Prof Messay Kebede.I have been following all your articles and I found full of substances as usual. OLF is a sham for human being. Since the creation of Adam by Almighty God untill now , OLF is the first and the last leftist a sham organization, which claims it self as a representative of the majority ethnice group in Ethiopia and fight for separation of that majority ethnice group from minority ethnice groups instead of fighting to control state power through democratical election and lead a unify nation towards prosperity. What is very interesting in OLF’S, most of the leaders including ato dawide ibssa are mixed mostly from AMHARA. That is the main reason why they have deeper hatred to Amhara.That is why OLF failed because of their last goal [ idealogy] is not accepted by the indigious Oromo’s people.What the oromo’s people want to have and what OLF wants to do are totally different. The people have shown what they want to have in 2005 election by voting for CUDP even if OLF called the people not to participate in the election process.OLF

  9. JIGSA
    | #9

    people the time is a time to prepare the ethiopian people take back their country from tribalist barberic rule of the tigrai people liberation front leader meleese zenawi.Melesse zenawi and his mafia group are in power since 1991 and looting the ethiopian people day and night this is the issue of the day.for the last 19 years woyane TPLFis in power still in power after steeling the 2005 ethiopian elections.These shameful woyane TPLF is now what is left is the ethiopian people land i read a report on nazeret.com that THE TPLF regime is ready to sell the land for the highest bider,which remaind me of an amharic say “BELICHE LIMUT” kind of thing.The time is to try to stop woyane tplf from selling the ethiopian people poor farmers land this is the issue.DEATH TO WOYANE TPLF.VICTORY TO THE ETHIOPIAN PEOPLE!!!

  10. Basamen zare
    | #10

    I apologize 1st. for people who don’t have a geez font, this is strictly የሃበሻ ጉዳይ በመሆኑ ነው:: ይህ ሰው ሰራሽ ረሃብ በተለይ ያሁኑ ከበፊቶቹ ትምህርት ያላገኘንበት :ያሁኑ የመለስ ጌስታፖ መንግስት ልመናን ትልቅ የገንዘብ መሰብሰቢያ ድርጅት (ENTERPRISE) በማድረጉ ነው ::
    የአለም ባንክ ገንዘብ የወያኔን አባላት ትላልቅ የህንጻ አከራይ ባለቤቶች ከማድረጉ ሌላ በስተቀር, ለኢትዮጵያ ገበሬ ሲባል የተደረገ አንዳችም የችግር መልስ አለመደረጉ ይሕውና አይን ያፈጠጠ ልመና ላይ ገባን : ቢቢሲ በቀጥታ ተጠያቂ ለማድረግ የሞከረው ይህንኑ አገራችንን የፖለቲካ ማሳቂያ ያደረጋትን (gestapo)መንግስት ነው ::
    አርቲፊሻይል የሆነውን የወያኔን ሻጥር ካወቅን ቆየት ብንልም , አሁን የመጣብን ብሄራዊ አደጋ ደግሞ የግድ አንድ ዲያስፖራ አቀፍ ማአክላዊ, በኮንግሬስ የተደገፈና ሙሉ ትብብር ያልተነፈገው ዓስቸኻይ የእርዳታ አገናኝ ኮሚሽን ያስፈልገናል::

    ለምሳሌ:-1) 2 ሃይኒከን በቀን ከጠጣን,ዓንድ ጠጥተን የአንዱን ዋጋ ለዚህ ዕርዳታ ኮሚሽን ብናውል..
    2) 3 በቀን ከመብላት 2ቴ በልተን አንዱን ለዕርዳታችን ብናውል
    3) ብላክ ሌብል ዊስኪ ልማድ ያለብን የመጠጥ ዓርበኞች ለጊዜው ታግሰን የኢኮኖሚ ውስኪ ብንል…
    4) ዓንዱ ገንዘብ አስገኚ ዘዴ ደግሞ በየኮሚኒታችን በማንፈልገው የግል ንብረት ላይ (yardsale) ማካሄድን
    5) ብዙዎቻችን ካቅማችን በላይ በመኖር ያላቅማችን ልብስና ሸቀጥ ሸማች ሱሰኞች መሆናችንን አትክዱኝም

    ስለዚህ እስራኤልን በዕግርዋ ያቆማትን አምላክ ለዕኛም እጆቹን የማይዘረጋበት ምንም ምክንያት አይኖርም; የዕስራእኤል ልጆች ተፈላልገው (ያውም ዓለ ኢንተርኔት) ገንዘባቸውንና ዕውቀታቸውን አሰባስበው እንዲህ ኅያል አገር ለማረግ ያበቃቸው አንድነትና በዕምነታቸው ጽኑ በመሆናቸው ነው ::

    አሁንም ባስቸኻይ ጊዜያችንን ሳናጠፋና ስለ (terror group OLF thugs) ከምንጨቃጨቅ ሃያል ዜጎች መሆናችንን እንስመስክር::

  11. dejen
    | #11

    i appreciat this kind discussion and i strongly believe that this kind of environment is(should be) part and parcel of the all kinds of war to liberate thethe needy country from the enemy of all kinds of the socio-fabrics of the country which is the TPLF.having said that, i would like remind all that both writers are entitled to their comments and we have to refrain our comments from being GENERALISED ANALYSIS that reflects the views of the concerned people and nationalities.
    offcorse we have to be honest but we should not be naive enaugh to ignore the realities on the ground which has been going on for decades.

  12. Beka
    | #12

    This “qorqoro ras” calling him self professor insulting Oromo’s by saying Oromia is weyane’s gift to Oromo. Shame on you “My friend” How dare you are to say so. Who are you to speak and decide for my people? I see old mentality in your expression. Change your self with time. Don’t warry about Oromo’s they will servive under any cercumstace. You are the new slaves of weyane now. They are enjoying by making you mad.

    To editor’s of Abugida
    Please, be fair to both sides as a media,otherwise you will be “a good friend” of Messay. We know you support individual right so be fair to Jawar too. Jawar deserve it. He is chalenging your guy Messay intelectually. Do not forget that you are media. Respect your readers. We deserve to compare both opinions.

  13. Anonymous
    | #13

    Dear Professor Messay Kebede; I would like to thank you for being the forceful voice of millions including me an Ethiopian nationalist OROMO. ‘yeleba ayinederek ….’; it is unbelievable that OLF is trying to still the credit that belongs to others for libration of oromos and all other nationalities from the yoke of feudal system’s ‘gebar sireat’. Even as an Oromo, i heard the name of OLF three years before the fall of the Derg.And saw them as one of the victorous force,from nowhere, when the Derg fell. But, through out my life what I and the ethiopian people witnessed is thousand and thousand Amhara democrats with their compatrats from other nationalities, from the begining of the Ethiopian student movement and during the Revolution, selflessly sacrifiased their precious life for national equality in Ethiopia.During that long period,I have lost so many Amhara frieds with whom i grew up.It is hard to forget good friends let alone compatrotes.I have only love for Amharas.Still, it is unacceptable and destructive not being able to negociate and compromise with this democrat generation of Amhara. The problem is olf’s ideology of independence.For this unattianable objective,the olf exposed the oromo people for futher unnecessary and ruthless supression and exploitation by one ethinic group of mafia. our non-replacable natural resource is pillaged in daylight.our people are more destitute than ever before.In short, olf is responsible for instolling tplf on oromos and the ethiopian people as a whole.
    Lastly, the sleepiing gaint is not olf. The sleeping gaint is children of oromo and Amhara parents. It is long overdue since this force is silent. I think they have underestimated their power in deciding the future of Ethiopia.We know that there are millions and millions of Ethiopians from parents of different nationalities.It is high time that this force get organized.
    Professor Messay, keep up your good job. and thank you for your boldness and frankness.

  14. yikerbelen
    | #14

    Anonymous, Thank you for your fair comment. Ethiopia has lost Over 100,000 educated children only from Amhara ethnice group since the end of haileselasie repressive regime , the derg untill he left minilik’s palace for melese naziwai.The tegeres narrow minded and racists have been killing since dedebit untill this movement. All these sacrrifies to bring the last solution through democractical election for our common people and country. OLF was nowhere untill TPLF became close to addis ababa. TPLF collected all the namely existed OLF-ERS to use them for their divided ,and rule policy and OLF has played a significant role in support TPLF by dividing oromo and amhara. OLF is directly responsible for the suffering Our oroms brothers and sisters by TPLF .we know there are millions of ethiopians who carry both the oromo and amhara’s blood [ mixed from these two powerfull and majority ethnice groups], we hope they will come together ,and playa big role to re-join these two ethnice groups and fight for freedom and democracy. We know there is no any problem between these people, they are still living together.

  15. yikerbelen
    | #15

    OGina,all what you are talking about selfdeteremination works only for those countries which werr under colony. You can not apply in Ethiopia because Ethiopia is one free nation . First let us read more historical books and come to talk. Atse minilik along with ras gobena had re- unified all ethiopians under Ethiopia’s umbrella. That doesn;t mean there was not Ethiopia before ASTE MENILIK. read about aste sisinious who was an oromos’ gudefecha and later they crown his as an ethiopia’s king because his father who fought against geragn mehamde was an ethiopian’s king. it was in the 16c. I do not understand why our oromosm brothers and sisters are trying to deny the fact and stick with the right selfdetermeination. By they way , Is there election with OLF? When there is no election with in OLF, how could you talk about democracy or about the right of self deteremination. 40 years old idealogy leads nowhere, but exposed innocent people for un necessary suffering .

  16. Menlik
    | #16

    people wake up, it is weyane TPLF dividing oromo, and amhara

    VIDEO: EPPF’s 10th Anniversary Conference Report | Amharic News (October 26, 2009)

Comments are closed.