As a matter of fact, a reader wrote to me, and asked me precisely this question, namely why I fight for the independence of the Oromos and not of the Kurds. I have therefore to make my position clear; it pertains to the Ideal of Independence of every people in the world.
I have therefore to make my position clear; it pertains to the Ideal of Independence of every people in the world. This ideal is not the result of the philosophical considerations of the Renaissance and the Modern World. If people think so, the reason is that they confuse it with the formation of the modern concept of Nation that did not exist until the Renaissance in NW Europe, and until now in the cases of several people who remained marginal to the development of the Modern World.
Independence: a Great Value or a Non-Value
Independence was a great value since the Antiquity, and many battles have been engaged throughout centuries and millennia to defend the Independence of a country. It was at the same time a non Value. How?
It depended on the Weltanschauung, the theory of the world, the system of philosophical, religious and ideological values one people was adhering to. For the Ancient Nubians, who viewed their participation in the Ancient Egyptian world as the natural expression of their human identity, and shared the same Weltanschauung as the Ancient Egyptians, believing in the Universality of the Nile Valley, Independence, on the basis of just race, language and religion differences, was meaningless.
The Ancient Empires embodied in most of the cases the effort and the path to a Dream of Universality. Various peoples did not feel ‘oppressed’ and actually were not ‘oppressed’ within the Akkadian, the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Persian, the Macedonian and the Roman Empires. Several rebellions we attest here and there are due to the particularities of a moment (an empire in war raises taxation, and consequently faraway and unthreatened provinces with different peoples than that of the mainland revolt), a perversity (lack of tolerant policy or monarch) or a new development.
However, when uniformity started prevailing over common path, religious fanaticism appeared for the first time as great scale phenomenon. With the religious, theological, philosophical and ideological clashes of the Late Antiquity, tolerance became synonym of threat, and the religious uniformity helped form different types of empire whereby strict orthodoxy had to be overwhelmingly imposed. This was the European experiment as in the Islamic World – until the beginning of the Ottoman decadence, so early 17th century – there was a multitude of theologies, philosophies, ideologies and even religions.
The Christian uniformity in Western Europe had its price; this consisted mostly in the survival of an underground ‘world’ and associations that were prohibited in the daylight of the Christian Middle Ages’ feuds, states and empires. It was a continuous fight between the Roman establishment and the manifestations of the incessant fire of heresies, the Arians, the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Cathars, the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucian Order, and the Freemasons that gradually came to surface. Peoples, kings, nobles, intellectuals and merchants were used by either part as tools in their fight.
This fight led to the First Declaration of Independence; as ‘ideal’, Independence is a negative ideal, the word itself is a negative word starting by ‘in-‘ and signifying lack of dependence, interconnection, participation. This Declaration of an independent state goes as back as the beginning of the Ottoman Empire! The Byzantine Empire was still there, and the Islamic State was present in Andalusia! Even more strikingly, Luther had not appear and there were no Protestants and no Anglicans in the world!
Independence as proclaimed first by Scotland
The Declaration of Arbroath, 6 April 1320, was a means to proclaim the Independence of Scotland as a sovereign state, and was submitted to the Pope of Rome by a delegation of Scottish noblesse. Written in Latin, the Declaration introduced the concept of ‘popular sovereignty’, namely that a ruler can be chosen by the population of his country, not only God. Despite the fact that at those days Scotland was inhabited almost exclusively by the Scots – earlier peoples like the Picts having been assimilated or extinct –, the Declaration makes no mention of one, two or more peoples co-existing within the same country.
What is very interesting in that historical text is that gives a numerical limit of what a country can be! It states that even if only 100 Scots are left in life, they will never accept to be under English rule! Economic viability is not an issue for the authors of the text, namely two Scottish priests. The Ideal of Independence is highly portrayed in the text through examples from the – known through the Bible only at those days – 2nd millennium Antiquity, namely the Israelite Exodus from Egypt. It is to say few thousands of people, or even more marked, as we said, 100 people suffice to shape an independent state!
The Modern Concept of Nation
The Declaration of Arbroath bears evidence to the concept of Independence, but not to the modern concept of nation. Here we have to stress that ‘people’ and ‘nation’ are two different terms; we have also to make clear that in the early 14th century there was no concept of Nation, as we understand it now. The King of a country (there was no country without a King, except the country was a small principality or fiefdom belonging to a noble man under the tutelage of the Pope, an Emperor or a King) was the country, the nation – what people called ‘nation’ at those days.
Although of Latin origin, the word nation cannot be clarified through references to Latin texts mentioning ‘nations’; Roman philosophers made a clear distinction between the Romans as Civitas and the other peoples, the Germans, the Greeks, the Macedonians, the Illyrians, the Thracians, the Phrygians, the Egyptians, the Aramaeans and others, whom they called ‘nationes’. But what terms like natio (in Latin) and ethnos (in Ancient Greek) truly meant we have difficulty to accurately represent and interpret.
Of course, it would contribute to further confusion if we associated the words ‘natio’ and ‘ethnos’ in the Antiquity only because we do correlate them today. ‘Ethnos’ in Greek was mainly translated as ‘Gentes’ in Latin, and this relates to ‘Gentiles’.
With the rise of Christianity as official and only religion within the Roman Empire, the Roman Civitas simply ceased to exist. According to the Christian Roman version of History, the Gentiles had accepted the religion of the saviour, and there was no point to make the distinction ‘Chosen People – Gentiles’ anymore. The Latin word ‘natio’ took therefore a simple genealogical connotation in the Middle Ages, and that is why the Greek speaking administration of the Constantinople – based state named it ‘Eastern Roman Empire’ (Anatolike Romaike Autokratoria) or (after 600 CE) Romania (alluding clearly to Rome). For this reason, even after the schism, the Roman Pope considered the Oriental State as ‘his domain’.
The modern term ‘nation’ came out of the need to ideologically dissociate the king from the country, creating therefore a vague idea of the diachronic presence and activity of a people on the planet. Basically, but not exclusively, there has to be a community of elements shared among the same population, namely origin, language, religion, culture and cultural inheritance.
As it was politically motivated, it lacked terminological clarity, teleological definition, ideological substance, and philosophical reason. In other words, we never got a clear definition of the term ‘nation’, we never obtained an explicit mention of the new concept’s target, we never found rich ideological contents in it (compared to the concept of ‘People’), and we never came across a philosophical explanation of this new concept’s ‘raison d’ etre’. What is even worse in the case on the modern concept of nation is that there was no moral justification of its formation.
Why torture is not moral? We can write volumes about it, based on philosophical opuses of Montesquieu and Rouseau.
Why a ‘nation’ is morally imperative? We cannot answer.
Why should a people achieve Independence? We can answer extensively.
What differentiates a people from a nation? In the pre-19th century philosophers’ texts, almost nothing.
The theory that ‘nation’ is the diachronic dimension of a people’s existence is philosophically nationalist; it dates back to the century of the Romanticism and the nationalisms.
Beyond any doubt, the philosophers who contributed to the formation of the modern concept of ‘nation’ would terribly regret the 19th century emergence of nationalisms. The original effort was geared mainly to minimize the Catholic Church’s grip on power, but is this a morally acceptable reason for the Descent to the Hell of the nationalisms?
Various peoples had long lived peacefully in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation without being Germans! Various peoples had long lived in the Ottoman Empire without being Turks!
For the needs and the interests of the Freemasonic lodges – in their incessant strive against the Papal political power – hundreds of millions were engulfed in inhuman wars that finally provoked two greater, World Wars. What it necessary?
The Curse of Nationalisms
Seen as a diachronic ‘value’ through the eyes of Romanticist philosophers, ideologists, intellectuals, academia, diplomats, and statesmen, the nation is a ‘holy’ element in a definitely unholy world. The terrible clash between the profane nature of the ‘nation’ concept promoters and the consecration of the concept itself has not been thoroughly focused on so far. Circles of power that sponsor all sorts of attacks against anything ‘Holy’ were those who at the same time created the new concept and made it ‘holy’.
Unbelievably paranoid literature was subsequently produced, supported by art, only to be criminally versed into the living culture of people who had vague idea about their supposed ancestors (true or wrong) and would laugh at the idea that their ancestors were mystified by a ‘holy’ union embodied by the concept of Nation!
The average Turk of Amasya in 1770 would laugh at the myth of Ergenekon, in the same way the average Greek of Izmir in 1740 would laugh at the idea of a continuity between of Sophocles and himself. The average Aramaean of Mosul and Urumiyeh in 1720 would not find the slightest relation between themselves and the Ancient Assyrian King Shamshi Adad I, who became a matter of idiotic concern for Aramaeans who fell victims of the French Orientalist – nationalist propaganda. Needless to say it, all the Muslim inhabitants of Damascus in 1830 would reject the idea of them being ‘Arabs’; they would say that they are Syrians (:Aramaeans) who became Muslim.
The rise of the nationalisms was mostly characterized by two activities:
1. the extended clash between the Freemasonic lodges and the Catholic Church
and
2. the criminal exportation of the nationalist concepts to the colonized world.
The former plunged Europe into endless rebellions, revolutions, oppressive regimes, and wars.
The latter submerged Asia and Africa into unsolicited, undeserved and unprecedented bloodshed, being the principal reason of the currently prevailing underdevelopment and obscurantism.
As there was political motivation, the proper formation of nationalisms strangled the real History, and gave birth to miserable lies that massive populations, scientifically besotted, believed in paranoid manner, and were adequately led to Death. Practically speaking, every aspect of historical human activity became victim of criminal falsification that immediately took the form of venomous misinformation geared for political use. School manuals, university paperbacks, mass media, political discourses, and national constitutional texts changed the average people culture, transformed the peoples’ identity, and often made the offspring hate their ancestry, and same origin people kill each other believing that they are enemies as descending from opposite lineage!
All that mattered was the economic and political interest of the countries that diffused the national falsehood – in a very partial manner, this must also be said. Hungarians had to ‘learn’ that they are different than the Austrians, but the Bretons, the Corsicans and the Occitanians were only French!
The world’s most criminal country and establishment, Freemasonic France, convinced South Balkan Albanians that they are …. Greeks at the same time it prohibited Bretons speak Breton in the streets (let alone the schools) of occupied Brittany.
For what reason should Serbs control Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Albanians within Yugoslavia, at the same time the Ottoman and Austrian – Hungarian Empires had to be dissolved?
For what reason today’s Estonians are an independent nation, and Basks are controlled, tyrannized and demonized as terrorists by the French and the Castilians (Spaniards)?
For what reason Slovenes are independent and Catalans are not?
The only reason is the paranoid nature of nationalisms, and the criminal colonial ventures of France and England, and the apostate Freemasonic lodges that manipulate both regimes.
The worst sort of nationalisms was undeniably the national voluntarism. Elaborated by Ernest Renan, the criminal system was compiled to justify the worst historical alterations and the most provocative political maneuvering; in brief, it supported the idea that if a Chinese believes he is Portuguese, he is a Portuguese. If we now see this paranoid theory applied in cases of neighboring peoples, we realize how easily wars and genocides can be provoked.
With the political implementation of the concept of nationalism, according to which the borders of the state must coincide with the borders of the nation, the world was plunged into the disastrous 20th century wars, and one has to admit that if there had never been a Soviet Union, most probably there would have been more wars in Europe and the rest of the world.
Yet, the world economy pushed things in a different way; the rise of the US as supreme power in the aftermath of WW II, the economic collapse of England and France in the late 40s, the annihilation of Germany, the global aspirations of the Soviet camp, the collapse of the Welfare State capitalism in the 80s, and the return of the former socialist countries to the world of market economy, plus groundbreaking technological advances, led out to the Global World of the Environmental Disasters. To meet the challenge, various establishments realized that their economies would never have the depth of the US economy as long as they were ‘small’ realms of 30 or 60 million people each. The effort of European unification clearly demonstrated the limits of France and England that, in order to pursue their colonial policies, have to exploit their supposed partners in the EU on whom they attempt to impose their colonial foreign policy as European ‘common’ foreign policy.
Quite indicatively, Czechoslovakia was split and recomposed within the EU!
Yet, the EU biases keep three countries on European continent unrecognized: Kosovo, Transnistria, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
What future for peoples, nations and nationalisms in 2007?
This is the question we must put in front of us in a world of dozens of peoples oppressed and tyrannized, at a moment when genocides still happen and the world’s main powers – some of them more particularly – tolerate and accept the practice as part of political realism. Hubert Vedrine, the shameless, Socialist former Foreign Minister of France, even institutionalized a provocative term ‘Droit-de-l’-Hommism’ (Human-Rights-ism), which illuminates perfectly what sort of political trickery the term has been for the colonial powers, and how little they cared about Values and Principles.
Every political decision should be based on a moral concept and choice; this is a permanent axiom throughout the History of the Mankind. With the present political establishments plunged in extreme corruption, we have to take the current situation into consideration when examining developments.
Certainly, it remains a permanent dream of the Mankind to institute a universal state, a super-confederation whereby all peoples will enjoy freedom and mutual respect of their identity. The tendency towards this development is currently strong; however, it would be an aberration to establish a political-economic union without offering same rights to all the participant peoples, and it would be an abnormality not to found this universal or global institution on definitely healthy and authentically human moral foundations, principles and virtues. Instead of implementing the best, this effort would unleash the worst.
The aforementioned question has therefore to be rephrased as following:
What Values and Principles for the peoples, nations, and nationalisms in 2007?
While adopting universal values, namely Freedom, Equity, Justice, Equality, Democracy, and Tolerance, one should consider the deficiencies, inconsistencies and conflicts occurred in the forced implementation of these principles in parts of the world where they were rather imported through political parties and elites that had studied abroad. This issue has not yet been adequately focused on so far.
Why introduce a system of Democracy that was conceived abroad instead of developing an already existing local system of traditional democratic participation in the Common Affairs (‘Res publica’)?
Why should a Third World political class refer to foreign intellectuals as regards Tolerance or Freedom, instead of attempting to identify these Values and Principles in the traditional social – behavioural code of their own people that always lived at the margin of the developments that shaped the Western societies?
Identity – Cultural Authenticity
In view of the long expected and hopefully forthcoming global state, Identity as Authenticity becomes a Top Value. What is the point of various peoples, representing different traditions, becoming parts of a global state, if this would imply the cultural alienation and the national disfiguration of all the participants?
Even worse, would that not be even more immoral, if some peoples preserve their cultural identity, other peoples lose theirs, other peoples are led to a cultural amalgamation, and other peoples are forced to assimilate with neighbouring ethnic groups?
If there is prime importance value for a people or ethnic group, this is the people’s preservation of cultural identity and national heritage. The latter should be considered as authentic, as long as it reflects traditional views devoid of modern nationalistic elements.
Preservation of the Cultural Identity and Authenticity leads us to a certain number of associate values and principles:
Education – Linguistic Preservation
Education means instruction in one’s native language. In the same way a German schoolchild learns everything in German, involving German Language, German Literature, German History, World History, (History of) Religion, Mathematics, Physics, Philosophy, Cosmology, Biology, Computer and Information Technology, every people, every different ethnic group has the right to, and must be helped to get, Education for the Primary, Secondary, and University levels.
In case the language of an ethnic group is not written, this should become the major concern of the otherwise useless UNESCO that so far has unfortunately helped prolong colonial cultural and educational dependence, and linguistic eradication of the world’s endangered languages.
Writing down one people’s language is conditio sine qua non for the rational survival of that people, and for the survival of its basic means of self-identification, namely the language. Education must be primarily a matter of instruction in the native language, and the proper development of the ethnic group’s language must be that group’s premier concern.
Why should the Oromos become an independent nation, if English were to become main language of instruction in the Primary and Secondary schools, and in the Universities, instead of Afaan Oromo?
One should add that writing down a language is not an easy affair, and the writing system choice is critical. One should first examine the historical origins of the ethnic group in question, and then consider the easiest way for the ethnic group or people to integrate in the present world community. What must be particularly avoided as choice is the writing system of a neighboring people that might have been a long date oppressor.
Let’s take as example Mahran region and Soqotra island, provinces of Yemen; Mahrani and Soqotri have not yet been written. Yemen’s official language is Arabic, which superceded Ancient Yemenite because of the country’s islamization. Mahrani and Soqotri are the only survivors of the Ancient Yemenite languages that although Semitic were very different from Arabic and close to Gueze (Ancient Abyssinian). Consequently, Arabic is the only threat to Mahrani and Soqotri, and for the Mahrani and Soqotri people – who are undeniably the same nation as the rest of the Yemenites – to avoid linguistic assimilation with the Arabic speaking populations, any other writing system should be considered good, except Arabic.
Religion – Preservation of Traditional Faith
To avoid further accusations for interference, major religious systems’ representatives should stop propagating faiths that are irrelevant and alien to many African and Asiatic peoples. UNESCO should set up a body specialized in the preservation and the survival of endangered historical religions and traditional faiths. The world would be poorer without the Gnostic Mandaeans of Iraq, the Yazidi Kurds, the Waqqafana Oromo followers, and the Dogon nation of Mali.
Economic and technological cooperation cannot be in barter trade with diffusion of Christianity and Islam. It is a most immoral page of the World History.
Behavioural System – Inheritance and Development
Furthermore, attention should be in the preservation of the traditional behavioural system of every people that have not achieved national independence, economic development, and technological progress. Behavioural alienation, social-anthropological imitation, and subsequent destitution of basic traditional behavioural traits were very common among many peoples that have been widely exposed to Western European and American influences, with disastrous results. It would be essential that the subject becomes a matter of major concern among not only undeveloped peoples but also industrialized and technologically advanced countries’ alienated populations.
Based on the aforementioned, we can view the demand of various peoples for national independence through a rather holistic approach. Any demand is reasonable, but at the same time it must be credible. It must reflect the genuine need of a people for overall expansion in all the fields of cultural, educational, religious and social activities. Such demand must guarantee that after the establishment of an independent state – homeland for the people in question, a democratic society and an authentic cultural environment will be functioning perfectly well.
Is Independence an Absolute Value?
In this case, one should wonder whether formal independence is an absolute value by itself. This would be wrong to assume; without the implementation of a plan for linguistic preservation, educational renaissance, cultural reassertion, social behavioural reaffirmation, without a search for the previously oppressed nation’s Authentic Identity, without a clear statement that the independence would serve educational purposes, eradicate illiteracy, boost indigenous cultural and behavioural traits, help better cultivate local traditional faiths and preserve social habits, independence becomes a hollow and meaningless word.
If independence is the means for a small group to rise to power, satisfy their greed, and produce nothing, if independence leads to economic and political dependence on interfering colonial powers, if independence turns out to be the ultimate panacea, then independence should never come!
To give an example, Eritrea’s independence was a most welcome event in 1991. Today, 16 years after the augur development, we check the sad record to only discover that Eritrean adfministration entered in war with Yemen, Sudan and Abyssinia, closed down the only university that had functioned for some years in Asmara, and left the various peoples of the multinational – multicultural country in the same tragic position they were before the proclamation of the independence. What positive change did the simple advent of independence offer the various peoples of Eritrea?
Truly speaking, nothing!
Yet, one may contend that at least now the Eritreans do not face the terrible Mengistu bombardments like that of Nakfa. This may be correct, but all would agree that you don’t need independence to avoid bombardments by the military aircraft of your own country!
Kurds in Turkey, Catalans in Spain, Turks in Greece have never been bombarded by Turkish, Spanish and Greek aircraft.
To complete the overview, we should add that the political intentions and the international relations matter as well. Who would accept today a new country to emerge as materialization of an entire people’s hopes, if this people worked with al Qaeda, and promoted Islamic Terrorism? Who would accept today a new state to be formed only to immediately enter in war with neighbors or to start in its turn oppressing its own minorities?
UN sponsored and guarded referenda for peoples and minorities
Peoples seeking International Recognition as Independent states – nations should be offered the possibility to immediately apply to the UN for referendum to be held under UN sponsorship and direct involvement, and in cases of positive vote, they should be granted international recognition and UN protection.
The same right must be offered to all ethnic, linguistic and religious groups that consist in minorities outside the borders of their homeland, if they form the majority of a population in a certain region or province. The Turks of Bulgaria, the Hungarians of Romania, the Russians of Estonia, the Azeris of Iran and a pleiad of similar cases must be effectively dealt with. In case of positive vote, these populations will have the right to both, independence and reunification with the homeland of which they had been detached for various reasons.
The same right should be offered to populations sharing the same language, ancestry, religion and culture, and living in a certain province or region of their country. For instance, if the Germans of Bavaria wish to secede from Germany and form an independent state, they should have the right to hold a UN sponsored and guarded referendum.
Any state that rejects the implementation of UN directives for referendum in a certain province or region should be expulsed from the UN, and considered an outcast of the international community, with immediately announced economic sanctions and isolation.
Mass transportations, acts of genocide, and extrajudicial killings should be reason for imminent arrival of UN forces.
In cases of complaints as regards past practices, f. i. the ethnic cleansing practiced by Iraq against the Aramaean Christian populations that were forced to emigrate, the complaints should be examined and properly tackled, involving return, naturalization of all the descendants of an émigré, and recompense.
States bear responsibility for the duration of their present form of existence; the USA do not bear responsibility for acts perpetrated on American soil during British rule, today’s Russia should not be held responsible for the deeds of the Soviet regime, the Federal Republic of Germany should be held accountable for the Nazi regime’s policies, and the French Republic’s establishment should not be blamed for political choices and practices of the Ancien Regime (before 1789).
What are the Criteria for International Recognition?
Acceptance of submitted demands for referendum for National Independence should be based on following criteria:
1. The area in which the non-independent people lives should be clearly demarcated within a country; same origin people should not be present in great numbers in other parts of that country. This would provoke further wars between the old and the new states.
Scots live in Scotland; there are no Scots in significant numbers in Cornwall or East Anglia. If there were, Scotland’s independence would not be considered as a complete fact by them, and soon they would ask more, which would eventually trigger wars.
2. The people seeking independence should not encompass other, minor, ethnic and religious groups within its territory for they would turn out to become again minorities within another state. This becomes even more important in case these minor ethnic groups express objection for the formation of a new state.
In Ogaden, there are few Amhara who belong to the ethnic group that tyrannized Abyssinia; similarly in Turkish Kurdistan there are some Turks. So far the situation seems being parallel. However, it is not, as in Ogaden there are no Sidamas – another ethnic group living in Abyssinia – to denounce the formation of a new country, named Ogaden.
Quite contrarily, in Turkish Kurdistan there are Aramaeans who feel their situation will be deteriorated if they are minority (not in Turkey as they have been so far but) in a new country named Kurdistan. Similarly, in the so-called Iraqi Kurdistan, there are Aramaeans and Turkmens who strongly oppose the emergence of a new state whereby they would be a minority.
3. It should be clear that following the secession, the new state would not enter in war with its various neighbours, in the way Eritrea did with three out of its four neighbors.
We have no indication that Scotland would enter in war with England or that Oromo Ethiopia would declare war to Sidama land, Ogaden, Sudan and/or Kenya. But we are not sure at all that an independent Kurdistan within present Iraqi territory would not clash with Turkey and Iran or than an independent Kurdistan within present Turkish territory would not clash with Turkey, Armenia, Syria, and Iran. Contrarily, we feel safe to claim that an independent Ogaden would not declare war to any neighboring state, Djibouti, Somaliland, Puntland, Somalia, Oromo Ethiopia and Afar land.
4. The people in search of independence should be a linguistically, culturally and religiously unified group so that it be ensured that after the long awaited independence they would not split into endless fratricide strives about the final control within the new state’s borders. In case a people seeking independence is divided into two groups the languages of which differ as much as Galician (Gallego) or Catalan differ from Castilian Spanish, this people should be consider as two peoples, and dealt with accordingly. If there are more than 15 different languages spoken among populations described under one only ethnic name by the pretenders to independence, the case should be absolutely rejected, except sufficient proof be produced to demonstrate that all 15 (or more) languages will be proclaimed as national and official languages, and that all will be used in the primary and secondary schools. Any attempt to impose one language over the rest in that case shows that we have to deal with an ostensible hold up, a sheer political bias whereby there will be only a change of language and not structure.
As a matter of fact, it would be repugnantly immoral and absolutely inhuman to create a fake Kurdistan only to replace Turkish by Kurmandja and to impose the latter on the Zza and the other multitude of Kurdish languages that seem programmed to vanish.
5. The leading political fronts, movements, parties, and organizations of a people demanding independence should clearly demonstrate an absolute dedication to the aforementioned ideals and principles of Identity – Cultural Authenticity, Education – Linguistic Preservation, Religion – Preservation of Traditional Faith, Behavioural System – Inheritance and Development. Otherwise, we have to deal with political biases of rather totalitarian character, small thuggish gangs that intend to feed their greed by usurping the Noble Cause of Independence of a people for their profit.
6. Last but not least, it should be verified that there is no colonial involvement in the support of a people’s desire for independence. We have abundant proof from Uganda to Eritrea and from Egypt to Algeria that wherever and whenever colonial powers expressed an interest and favoured the independence of a local people, they did so in order to promote their own interests, the exploitation of the ‘people’ in question, and its entanglement in ignorance, illiteracy, poverty and biased dilemmas. The worst possible choice for any Kurd, Oromo, Beja, Nubian, Sidama, Fur or Baluchi leader is to become the ally of a Western power that by making him a puppet will ensure disasters for his people in the long run.
If the innocent face of the pseudo-humanist ‘French doctor’ yesterday promoted to colonial (foreign) minister is able to deceive some people in despair, the best we have to suggest him is this:
- There will be no independent Kurdistan before an independent Corsica, an independent Brittany, and an independent Euskadi.
And if this person wants to demonstrate his concern for humanist purposes, it is high time that he does so in his pseudo-democratic homeland where so many peoples have been tortured and tyrannized mercilessly and inhumanly.
France should be decomposed first.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment