Amhara Fano Responds to U.S. Peace Call: Defiant Stand Amid Genocide Claims

Analysis: Armed group sets stringent preconditions while rejecting criticism of objectives

Ethiopian Tribune Staff

ADDIS ABABA – The Amhara Fano National Force (AFNF) has issued a comprehensive response to recent peace overtures from the United States Embassy, revealing both diplomatic appreciation and unwavering defiance in what represents one of the most detailed public communications from the armed resistance movement since hostilities escalated in 2023.

The statement, released in response to Ambassador Ervin Massinga’s May 23 call for peace and reconciliation, offers unprecedented insight into the political thinking and strategic positioning of a group that has emerged as one of the most significant challenges to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s federal authority.

Diplomatic Engagement Meets Armed Resistance

The AFNF’s response demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of international diplomatic language while maintaining its core position that armed resistance represents the only viable path forward. The group’s leadership welcomed Ambassador Massinga’s engagement, describing it as recognition of the “grave situation unfolding in Ethiopia,” yet simultaneously pushed back against what it perceived as implicit criticism of Fano’s objectives.

“What objective could be more legitimate or more realistic than the survival of a people under threat of extermination?” the statement asks, framing the armed struggle not as political insurgency but as existential defense.

This rhetorical positioning reflects a calculated attempt to reframe the narrative around the Amhara conflict, moving beyond traditional insurgency-counterinsurgency frameworks toward claims of genocide prevention and self-defense under international law.

Genocide Claims Take Center Stage

Perhaps most significantly, the AFNF statement places genocide accusations at the center of its political platform, describing current military operations as part of “a longstanding pattern of genocide” dating back decades. The group specifically cites violence in contested areas including Welkait Tegede Setit Humera, Raya, Dera, Metekel, and districts within the Oromia Region.

These allegations represent a direct challenge to the federal government’s legitimacy and appear designed to invoke international legal frameworks around genocide prevention. By characterizing government military operations as “genocidal war,” the AFNF positions itself not as rebels but as legitimate defenders operating under the principle of collective self-defense.

The timing of these allegations, coming amid increasing international scrutiny of Ethiopia’s human rights record, suggests a strategic effort to leverage global attention and potentially influence U.S. policy calculations in the region.

Stringent Preconditions Reveal Maximalist Position

The eight preconditions outlined by the AFNF for any peace process reveal the extent of the group’s political ambitions and suggest that negotiated settlement remains distant. The demands effectively call for complete federal withdrawal from the Amhara Region and the establishment of Fano-mediated transitional governance.

Key demands include immediate cessation of military operations, withdrawal of federal forces, dissolution of Prosperity Party structures in the region, and “peaceful transfer of power to a transitional administration wholly mediated by Fano.” These conditions go far beyond typical ceasefire arrangements and approach demands for de facto autonomy or independence.

The inclusion of territorial demands regarding “contested identity and border demarcations” in areas like Welkait and Raya indicates that the AFNF views the conflict through the lens of historical grievances and ethnic boundary disputes that predate the current government.

International Accountability and Recognition

The AFNF’s call for UN-mandated investigations and formal recognition of alleged genocide reflects an understanding that international legitimacy could prove crucial to their cause. By welcoming international human rights investigations while simultaneously accusing the federal government of blocking access, the group attempts to position itself as transparent while painting Addis Ababa as obstructionist.

The demand for formal recognition of “decades-long Amhara Genocide” represents perhaps the most ambitious aspect of their platform, seeking not just cessation of current hostilities but historical vindication and acknowledgment of past grievances.

Strategic Communication and Political Maturation

The sophistication of the AFNF statement suggests significant political maturation within the movement. The document demonstrates familiarity with international humanitarian law, diplomatic protocols, and human rights frameworks that could indicate either internal capacity building or external advisory support.

The group’s emphasis on adherence to “international humanitarian and human rights law” and claims of operating “with utmost discipline and restraint” appear designed to counter government narratives portraying Fano as undisciplined militia forces.

Implications for Peace Prospects

The AFNF response suggests that significant gaps remain between the positions of the armed group and federal authorities. The maximalist nature of the preconditions, particularly demands for federal withdrawal and Fano-mediated governance, appear designed more to establish negotiating positions than facilitate immediate dialogue.

The statement’s tone of diplomatic engagement coupled with inflexible substantive demands reflects the classic posture of an armed group seeking to demonstrate political legitimacy while maintaining military pressure. This approach often characterizes conflicts in transitional phases where armed groups feel strong enough to make demands but recognize the need for eventual political settlement.

Regional and International Dimensions

The AFNF’s direct appeal to the United States for targeted sanctions and diplomatic pressure reveals recognition that international engagement could prove decisive in the conflict’s trajectory. The group’s sophisticated understanding of U.S. diplomatic language and human rights priorities suggests awareness that Washington’s approach to Ethiopia remains fluid and potentially influenceable.

The statement’s emphasis on “democratic values” and “inclusive governance” appears calibrated to resonate with American foreign policy priorities while simultaneously challenging the legitimacy of a government that Washington has traditionally supported as a regional stability anchor.

Looking Forward

The AFNF statement represents both an escalation in political sophistication and a hardening of substantive positions that could complicate peace efforts. While the group expresses openness to “constructive engagement” and “continued dialogue,” the preconditions outlined suggest that any meaningful negotiations remain contingent on fundamental changes in federal policy and approach.

The document’s publication during a period of intensified international attention to Ethiopia’s internal conflicts indicates that the Amhara resistance movement increasingly views itself as a legitimate political actor deserving of international recognition and engagement.

Whether this diplomatic sophistication translates into political flexibility sufficient for meaningful peace negotiations remains to be seen. However, the statement clearly establishes the AFNF as a political force that international actors can no longer ignore in considering Ethiopia’s future stability and democratic trajectory.

The Ethiopian Tribune continues to monitor developments in the Amhara Region and broader Ethiopian political landscape.