Professor Siyoum misrepresented Mr. Hassan’s argument that the Ogaden region was not part of Ethiopia before Menelik’s invasion. Mr. Hassan didn’t say Ogaden was a recognised nation before the invasion. He said it was governed by clan elders, much the same way Northern Ethiopia (which comprised of present day Amhara, Eritrea, and Tigrai) was ruled by autonomous kings. I have sufficiently read about the ‘era of princes’ (Zemene Masafint) to know that there was no center of power nor international recognition for any of the kings in Northern Ethiopia for most part of their existence. The professor should not therefore contest what is uncontestable: it is the majority view that Menelik created the modern Ethiopia, of which Ogaden is part of.
As for Ogadeni’s feeling towards Ethiopia, it is a current issue and perhaps the Professor should rally a whole host of Ogadeni men and women in the free world waving the Ethiopian flag to convince us rather than come up with categorical ‘I know for you’slogans.
Professor Siyoum also tried to paint Menelik as non-Amhara and went into details about the Emperor’s childhood only to offer the wile ‘he grew up with his lifelong Oromo friends’as a refutation. Professor Siyoum could have saved us an inane debate on a pointless subject, if he had accepted Menelik was indeed an Amhara but argued that who Menelik was is inconsequential to the debate about whether Ogadenians are Ethiopians or not. I don’t want to extend this point further, for I believe it is a false debate which has no relevance to the real issues that need to be discussed. It suffices to say that it is an indisputable historical fact that Imperial Ethiopia was created in the image of the Amhara and their all-conquering king Menelik.
By volunteering to share the excerpt from the letter Atse Yohannis’s wrote to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, the Professor also inadvertently exposed the flaw in the king’s territorial claim. It is easy to scoff at the contents of the excerpt as a delusional claim of an over-ambitious king with inadequate knowledge of geography, but a closer scrutiny shows that there is a contradiction in it. While the king mentioned the sea as the border to the East and South, he also said his border extends upto the city of Harar which was ‘taken from Ethiopia by Ahmed Gragn’. If the King thought Harar was his border, how could he also claim Mogadisho and the Sea, which is a further two thousand or so Kilometers away? It is a farce.
Professor Seyoum should also get real when he says the whole of Somalia belonged to Ethiopia. We only hear this from some sections of Ethiopian elites who relish in brewing delectable delusions for easy delights. To present unverified claims of Atse Yohannis who did not even know where Shoa was, let alone Ogaden, as evidence that Ethiopia’s border extended to Somalia is sheer folly. May I remind Professor Siyoum that Siyad Barre once declared present day Adama (Nazret), which he called Haadaame – a Somali name, belongs to Somalia. Shall we therefore negate King Yohannis’s claim with Siyad Barre’s and go even? If at all, Siyad Barre’s knowledge of geography was much advanced than that of the king. The professor should not mistake telltales for history.
History is not a physical science. It is a systematic recording of events where a careful synthesis of these events is made to chronicle and analyse the evoultion of ideas, people and environment. Sadly, it is written by mortal human beings whose objectivity and impartiality is a function of their interest and orientations. That is why there is often two stories to a singe historical occurrence. What I want to say is that there are other parallel storylines to each of Professor Siyoum’s stories on Menelik, the existence or non-existence of nations and nationalities in Ethiopia, and the boundaries of old Ethiopia. He should realise these storylines in most cases do not concur with his storylines or the one’s told by the historians he quoted. And if he is so certain of his version’s authenticity over the others, he would have to present verifiable evidence over and above words spewed out with hysterical nationalistic fervor.
Profesor Siyoum gave us a reference list of Paulos Gnogno, Teshome, Birhanu, Kasa and Kasa, Taddesse Beyene, Shiferaw Bekele, Messay Kebede, Negede Mateme Bete. Almost all of these historians are from the Northern Ethiopia, from the Amhara ethnic group to be specific. That by itself doesn’t invalidate their accounts, but if one wants to provide unbiased historical references, it perhaps would have been appropriate to add some from those who dispute the accounts of mainstrean Ethiopian historians.
Of course, Professor Seyoum also quoted from Professor Richard Pankhrust and Dr. Lapiso G. Dilebo. We know Dr. Richard’s researchs on Ethiopian history were heavily impacted by his assimilation with the Northern elites. As far as Dr. Lapiso is concerned, he is a sort of mavrick historian. A good number of Ethiopians cheekily sing the ‘Dr. Lapiso, ye-tarik Lapis (meaning Dr. Lapiso, the eraser of history) jingle to redicule his pedigree as a historian. I couldn’t resist the temptation to share this ad hominem sneer on Dr. Lapiso, although I realise it is superfluous to the debate and doesn’t prove anything.
During the interview, Ato Aschalaw asked Mr. Hassan if it wouldn’t be better for the Ogaden people to live and prosper within Ethiopia, hinting that the lesson from Somalia shows that being a nation-state is not a guarante for peaceful coexistence. Mr. Hassan said he prefers unity over division and that he understands the globalisation trend, but that any unity should be achieved through consent and consensus not by conquest and coercion. Full marks for Hassan there.
Both Ato Aschalaw and the Professor have a point in saying that being a nation-state does not offer warranty from fragmentation, much as being a country of diversity doesn’t necessarily lead to disharmony and breakup. But they fail to see how people who have been occupied, oppressed, killed, raped and rediculed feel about unity with those who have colonised them. To the extent Professor Siyoum and Ato Aschalaw refuse to see the possibility of the existence of a reality different than theirs, they will not be able to be part of the solution to Ethiopia’s complex problems.
If Hassan as an Ogadeni and Kumsa as an Oromo feel they are not Ethiopian, clearly there must be a problem. If Professor Siyoum believes this is all Meles Zenawi’s creation and it will go away when he is toppled, then he belongs to the zoo where the long-necked ostrich buries its head in the sand. Alababsaw biyaarsu, ba-aram yimalesu (if you don’t plow deep, you will end up with weeds – literally) goes the Amharic adage. Ethiopia will not be at peace with itself as long as various nations and nationalities are denied their democratic rights including the right for self-determination.
Fixation with historical muddle will not cure the current ailment of Ethiopia. We cannot find answers for the problems we have today by endlessly debating history. The real discussion ought to be on the contemporary political situation in Ethiopia and how to address future challenges. The right debate should be how to bridge the gap between the various groups who oppose the clanish TPLF regime and who embrace democracy as a way out of Ethiopia’s never-ending political and identity crisis, but who follow different ideologies, policies and strategies to achieve this.
It is parochial to see the ONLF resistance through the prism of secession only. ONLF’s legitimate struggle against tyranny needs to be understood and appreciated by progressve Ethiopians if they want genuine dialogue on solving Ethiopia’s political ciris to start. We expect this appreciation from those who care about Ethiopia. As Ogaden intellectuals, the advice we have always been giving to the ONLF is that they should not cut any deal with TPLF on matters concering Ethiopia, for TPLF doesn’t have an Ethiopian agenda at all and therefore doesn’t represent Ethiopia.
As a valedictory rebuke, I don’t accept Ato Aschalew’s statement that Ethiopians feel the pain of “their Ogaden compatriots”. We can’t judge the hearts of people, but we haven’t heard enough concern from Ethiopians when TPLF launched a genocidal campaign against our people. We know how Ethiopians mourned and continue to mourn the over two hundred children killed in Addis Ababa during the 2005 elections. We didn’t hear them cry for the tens of thousands who perished in Ogaden since 1991. We have the feeling they are not mouring our dead silently as well. I have even personally met some anti-TPLF Ethiopians who think the only good thing that came from TPLF is the destruction of Somalia and the killing of barbaric (‘aramane’) rebellious Ogadenis. And we think most highland Ethiopians actually don’t want the people in what is known as Ogaden, but actually worry the beautiful Ethiopian map could be disfigured if Ogaden was to go. It is about the Map, never the people!
