The test of leadership in Moyale is whether both communities can remain secure while their disputes are resolved through law
By Mohamud A. Ahmed – Cagaweyne
A family in Moyale should not have to win a territorial argument to remain safely at home. Its protection should not depend on which flag flies nearby, which language its children speak, or how effectively its suffering can be converted into political attention.
When those conditions become uncertain, a boundary dispute becomes a question about citizenship itself: whether people can trust public authority even when those exercising it do not share their identity or political position.
I write as an Ethiopian who is Somali and comes from the Somali Region. Somali suffering reaches me with the intimacy of belonging. That attachment imposes a responsibility to recognize Oromo suffering with the seriousness I ask others to accord Somali families. Belonging gives me a reason to speak; it does not exempt me from the discipline of fairness.
Nor does loyalty require endorsing every claim advanced in our name. A community can be wronged while some who claim to defend it act irresponsibly. Its grievances can be legitimate while its proposed remedies are dangerous. Political maturity begins with the ability to hold those truths together.
Moyale requires that maturity from public officials and from those whose influence comes without the burdens of office.
A confrontation becomes especially dangerous when those explaining its necessity acquire more influence than those enduring its consequences. From distant offices and comfortable homes, escalation becomes eloquent. Negotiation invites suspicion. Families exposed to violence are expected to demonstrate loyalty by accepting risks their advocates will never face.
The mother seeking shelter owes nobody a performance of political defiance. The elderly man abandoning his home should not have to justify his desire to survive. Their protection must remain the measure against which political claims are judged.
The competing accounts of Moyale illustrate why precision matters. Somali residents have accused Oromo forces of initiating attacks and destroying property. Oromo residents and officials have accused Somali regional forces of aggression and territorial encroachment. Reporting by Addis Standard recorded these opposing allegations without establishing either account as a complete explanation.
The questions that follow are specific. Who initiated particular attacks? Which forces were deployed, under whose command and with what instructions? Who harmed civilians? Which agreements were made, and who failed to observe them?
Answers require testimony, records, communications, and independently examined accounts of events. Equal protection is a governing obligation. Equal blame is a conclusion that evidence may or may not support.
Fairness demands consistent standards, not predetermined symmetry.
The danger grows when particular incidents are transformed into explanations of entire peoples. An armed actor becomes the embodiment of millions. A local grievance becomes proof of an unlimited territorial ambition. An inflammatory statement is accepted as the authentic voice of a community, while quieter voices are dismissed as irrelevant.
Some public arguments emphasize external exploitation: the possibility that regional rivals, political networks or hostile commentators are using Moyale to widen Ethiopia’s divisions. Others insist that such explanations obscure domestic failures and the conduct of local armed actors.
Both concerns deserve examination. Neither cancels the other.
A grievance can be genuine and still be exploited. External interests can benefit from violence without directing every incident. Local officials remain answerable for their decisions even where foreign actors seek advantage.
But rhetoric, political sympathy, financing and operational direction are different claims. Evidence of one does not establish all four. Allegations of interference must be investigated with the same rigor as allegations against domestic actors.
References to “dark forces” become meaningful when attached to conduct: incitement, intimidation, weapons trafficking, deliberate misinformation, attacks on civilians or obstruction of credible peace efforts. The task is to establish who did what, rather than summon an invisible adversary capable of explaining everything.
That discipline should also govern judgments about Prime Minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed. Making him the automatic explanation for every decision by every actor is neither analytically serious nor politically useful.
Federal responsibility deserves scrutiny. Yet direct involvement, failures of supervision, and shortcomings in a response are distinct possibilities, requiring different evidence and remedies. Complexity cannot absolve authority, but accusation must not erase complexity.
Politicians and commentators outside Ethiopia deserve scrutiny when they introduce Moyale into their own political rivalries. Concern expressed from abroad is not inherently interference. Its credibility depends on whether it advances civilian protection, verified facts and negotiation, or merely supplies sharper accusations for a frightened audience.
A local conflict must not become an instrument through which others pursue ambitions its residents never chose.
Federal leadership can help prevent that outcome. The immediate objectives should be coordinated civilian protection, a credible process for examining alleged abuses, support for safe and voluntary return, and a time-bound framework for addressing outstanding issues through lawful institutions.
By securing an enforceable settlement, the Prime Minister could demonstrate that Ethiopia’s institutions can protect distinct identities while resolving disputes within a common political order. That would strengthen public confidence at home and reduce opportunities for exploitation abroad.
President Mustafe Muhumed Omer and President Shimelis Abdisa should receive support when they restrain escalation and pursue agreement. They also carry clear obligations to account for institutions under their authority.
Neither administration should be expected to abandon legitimate claims to prove its commitment to peace. Both should ensure that those claims are pursued without endangering civilians or permitting unlawful conduct.
Reports from late October and early November described negotiations between Somali and Oromo representatives. Their existence matters, although meetings alone do not establish the effectiveness of a peace process.
The practical questions are whether representatives can make binding decisions, whether instructions reach those responsible for implementing them, and whether residents experience greater safety afterward.
Authorities should explain how violations can be reported, which institution must respond, and how an ignored complaint can be escalated. Where investigations are underway, their arrangements should be communicated and findings released as security considerations, witness protection and due process permit.
Protection must also endure beyond an immediate deployment. Every intervention should be assessed against sustained outcomes: safe roads, humanitarian access, functioning services and families able to return without anticipating another flight.
Public confidence grows when institutions make their responsibilities visible and apply their standards consistently. It weakens when citizens believe that protection depends on political relationships or communal affiliation.
A Somali family should not need control of every local institution to feel secure. An Oromo family should not fear that losing a political argument means losing its place in the town. Administrative claims must be examined lawfully while residents’ rights remain protected.
Those who inflame the conflict should face the same practical scrutiny.
If you encourage confrontation, explain who will protect those exposed to it. If you reject negotiation, identify an attainable alternative. If you promise victory, account for its consequences for families who must continue living beside their neighbors.
There is no honor in making another household pay for your public image.
Some may gain attention or temporary relevance from escalation. Others may discover commercial or strategic opportunities in disorder. These possibilities warrant examination, without substituting assumptions about motive for evidence of conduct.
The immediate responsibility of communities is to judge the advice offered in their name.
Manipulation often begins by recognizing real pain. Once a speaker is accepted as a defender, questioning that speaker can feel like questioning the suffering itself. But the ability to express a community’s anger does not establish the wisdom to guide its future.
A person may describe an injustice accurately and recommend a course that multiplies it.
I direct that warning first toward agitators within my own community, and equally toward those mobilizing Oromo audiences. Elders, religious leaders, intellectuals, and civil society should help distinguish legitimate advocacy from reckless instruction. Their authority is most valuable when it improves judgment under pressure.
Social media makes that responsibility more demanding. An image can cross borders before its origin is verified. A statement intended to impress supporters can reach frightened neighbors or people looking for a justification to retaliate. Its author cannot control every consequence.
Before amplifying a claim, we should examine its source, date, and context. Before repeating an accusation, we should ask whether it identifies particular conduct or assigns guilt to an entire people.
These precautions protect genuine suffering from being appropriated for another purpose.
The relationship at stake is larger than the confrontation.
Somali and Oromo regional states share a boundary commonly estimated at approximately 1,400 kilometers. Across that frontier, lives are connected through commerce, pastoral livelihoods, intermarriage and longstanding social relationships. Bilingual households and everyday exchanges further complicate the political fiction of two neatly separated societies.
These communities will remain neighbors for generations. Today’s officeholders will leave office. Today’s commentators will lose audiences. Families will still need markets, roads, schools, water and relationships across the boundary.
That permanence should discipline temporary ambition.
A territorial advantage can leave both communities poorer, less secure and more dependent on force. The actor claiming victory may gain something; the society expected to sustain the outcome can still lose far more.
We must therefore reject efforts to turn Moyale into a proxy battleground or use its grievances to open another front in southeastern Ethiopia. Evidence of such efforts should be investigated firmly. Neither community should surrender its legitimate claims, and neither should allow those claims to become raw material for someone else’s regional strategy.
Political choices must answer to the people who will remain after the immediate controversy has passed.
A practical settlement should give those people something larger to protect. A Moyale Peace and Prosperity Compact could serve as an implementation framework within existing federal and regional institutions, aligned with lawful negotiations rather than replacing them.
It should begin with civilian security, safe movement, essential services and procedures for addressing violations. It should support property remedies, livelihood recovery and an agreed process for disputed administrative questions.
Each commitment needs a responsible institution, a timetable and a means of reporting failure. Women, young people, elders, religious leaders, traders and displaced residents should help set priorities and assess delivery. Those living with the consequences must have a meaningful role in shaping the remedies.
Recovery should make cooperation useful in daily life. Reliable water, rehabilitated markets, safe transport and transparent assistance to affected enterprises can strengthen the constituency for peace. Infrastructure should proceed through lawful land arrangements, meaningful consultation and fair remedies for those affected.
The road through Moyale can separate neighborhoods while sustaining both. It carries patients, students, workers and goods. Its value grows when people can use it safely; confrontation diminishes its usefulness to everyone.
Economic cooperation will not dissolve historical grievances. It can give residents practical reasons to preserve communication while those grievances are addressed.
A serious agreement will not give every participant every outcome sought. Its essential achievement must be to ensure that disagreement no longer threatens a family’s right to remain, work, and raise children safely.
We can recognize Somali grievances while protecting Oromo dignity. We can investigate external interference while holding domestic actors accountable. We can support the Prime Minister and both regional presidents in securing peace while expecting public authority to remain answerable for its conduct.
These commitments belong together.
The measure of success is a Moyale in which neither community needs the other’s defeat to believe in its own future.
Somali and Oromo families must never be asked to destroy their shared tomorrow so that someone else can win today’s argument.
About the Author
Mohamud A. Ahmed – Cagaweyne is a Columnist, Political and Security Analyst, Researcher and Greenlight Advisors Group. He lives in the Somali Region of Ethiopia and could be reached at +251 900 644 648 or +254 759 717 898( WhatsApp)