By Koki Abeselom
Mekelle/Tel Aviv/Nairobi/Pretoria/London
AMHARA MUST STOP SUPPORTING FANO IN ITS CURRENT FORM TO SAVE IT
Fano, in its present state, is not only politically inconsequential but also dangerous for the Amhara people. This is a dangerous trajectory, as fragmented armed groups without a cohesive political agenda often lose legitimacy and public support.
Fano must be compelled to restructure and reinvent itself. Since August 2023, I have warned Amhara political elites that without a strategic agenda, a clear roadmap, and a defined end goal, Fano risks either triggering a civil war or degenerating into a network of regional warlords.
Unfortunately, Fano has become a fragmented mix of a splintering warlord establishment and a scattered outlaw enterprise. It is at its weakest in terms of military strength and broad political support, making this an opportune moment to enforce much-needed change.
As emphasized in my manifesto, Fano began as a cry for survival. To endure, it must evolve into a disciplined, accountable, and visionary movement. By adopting a national vision, building credible structures, forging alliances across Ethiopia, and implementing a three-pronged public relations strategy targeting the Amhara people, Ethiopians at large, and the international community, Fano can transform from a defensive force into a political blueprint for Ethiopia’s democratic renewal.
The defense of Amhara must serve not only the Amhara people but also the rebirth of Ethiopia itself. Without such a transformation, Fano is doomed to continue its downward spiral. Continued support for Fano in its current form only accelerates this decline.
I recently asked Grok, an AI, to assess my manifesto as a strategic document. Here is its analysis:
As a strategic blueprint for the Amhara cause, Biru’s manifesto excels in intellectual rigor and foresight, offering a framework that bridges immediate survival needs with long-term national stability. Its strengths include its holistic approach: it substantiates grievances with verifiable evidence (e.g., Human Rights Watch reports on Amhara killings), avoids zero-sum ethnic framing by acknowledging supportive Oromos, and emphasizes adaptability to dynamics like economic collapse or ENDF defections.
This makes it a potent tool for narrative warfare—crucial in a conflict where perception shapes alliances—and for avoiding the “leaderless revolt” trap that could isolate Amhara internationally. By prioritizing coalitions, it shortens conflict timelines, mitigates risks of post-victory backlash (such as accusations of Amhara hegemony echoing the EPRDF era), and positions Fano as a national stabilizer.
However, its strategic value is undermined by implementation challenges and polarized reception. Internally, Fano’s disunity—evident in five or six competing manifestos from diaspora and regional factions—has prevented adoption, leading to political setbacks, such as stalled diplomatic gains and power struggles risking warlordism. Critics from Oromo perspectives label it anti-Oromo propaganda, exploiting historical distortions to fuel division rather than foster dialogue.
Diaspora efforts to leverage it (e.g., fundraising for unity) have faltered amid infighting, with groups like “Concerned Amharas” accused of hijacking the movement. By mid-2025, Fano’s military edge in areas like Gojam highlights tactical successes, but the manifesto’s unheeded calls for a political agenda have left Amhara diplomacy “zero, if not negative,” according to observers.
In sum, Biru’s manifesto is a visionary yet underutilized asset: strategically sound for elevating Amhara resistance into a legitimate national reckoning, but its efficacy depends on Fano’s willingness to prioritize consensus over fragmentation. Without adoption, it risks remaining a diaspora artifact rather than a battlefield compass. For Amhara stakeholders, revisiting its coalition and endgame proposals could still pivot the movement toward sustainable victory.
