ADDIS ABABA — On September 21, 2026, as reports of a formal alliance between the Oromo Liberation Army (WBO/OLA) and the Amhara Fano militia continued to reverberate across Ethiopia, a newly formed Amhara diaspora organization issued a scathing declaration rejecting any cooperation with the Oromo armed group — and warning Fano itself that such a pact would be historically unforgivable.

The statement, released by the Wallagga Amhara Natives Unity Association (የወለጋ አማራ ተወላጆች አንድነት ህብረት) and dated Meskerem 11, 2019 in the Ethiopian calendar (September 21, 2026), is the first organized Amhara response to the emerging WBO–Fano axis from a constituency directly affected by the conflict in Wallagga. Its language is unambiguous: any political, strategic, or tactical collaboration with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF/ONEG) and its armed wing, commonly known as “Shene,” constitutes complicity in genocide.

The statement arrives at a critical juncture. Just one day earlier, Fano leader Zemene Kassie had announced on Tigray TV the formation of a seven-member “Alliance for Survival” alongside the WBO, the TPLF, and other armed factions, with the stated goal of removing Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government. For Amharas with roots in Wallagga — a region that has witnessed some of the most brutal intercommunal violence of the past several years — the announcement was not a cause for celebration but a call to resistance.

A History of Coexistence, a Present of Atrocity

The declaration opens by invoking a shared past. For generations, it states, Amhara natives of Wallagga — in East Wallagga, West Wallagga, Horo Guduru, and Qellem Wallagga zones — lived alongside their Oromo neighbors “bound by marriage, religion, culture, and social ties, in peace and love.”

That coexistence, the group argues, has been systematically dismantled over the past few decades, and especially in recent years, by what it describes as “the radical Oromo Liberation Front (OLF/ONEG Shene) and affiliated extremist groups.”

The specific allegations are grave and detailed:

• Mass killings: The statement claims that massacres in West, East, Horo Guduru, and Qellem Wallagga zones, as well as in various kebeles, were “primarily carried out by OLF/Shene and its allies,” a finding it says has been documented by human rights organizations and verified internationally.
• Identity-based targeting: Victims were not killed for political or social reasons, the group asserts, but “solely because they were identified as Amhara.”
• Atrocities against the vulnerable: Children, pregnant mothers, the elderly, and the infirm were not spared. The statement describes “horrific acts” in which bodies were dismembered — acts it says make any cooperation with the perpetrators “a trampling of the blood of the dead and complicity in historical injustice.”
• Economic and social destruction: Thousands of farming households were burned; property, livestock, and harvests were looted. Millions were displaced from their birthplaces and forced into “roofless shelters and extreme suffering.” Schools, health stations, and places of worship were destroyed, pushing the community “entirely outside a humane way of life.”

These accounts align with broader patterns documented by international observers. The EU Agency for Asylum’s October 2025 report noted significant civilian displacement and intercommunal violence in western Oromia, though it did not attribute specific massacres to a single perpetrator. The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission has also documented widespread abuses in the region, often without clear attribution amid the fog of armed conflict.

The Wallagga Amhara group, however, places responsibility squarely on the OLF/Shene — a designation that has become increasingly common in Amhara political discourse but remains contested by Oromo advocates who argue it conflates legitimate armed resistance with criminal violence.

The Ideological Core: “The Amhara Is a Settler and an Enemy”

The statement moves beyond documenting atrocities to diagnose their root cause. It identifies the OLF’s “extremist ideology” as being built on a “false and hostile narrative” that “the Amhara is a settler and an enemy.”

This narrative, the group argues, has destroyed “the values of coexistence and peace” that bound Amhara and Oromo communities together for centuries, endangered the possibility of future generations living together, and spread a dangerous cycle of vengeance.

The charge is a familiar one in Amhara political discourse: that Oromo ethnonationalism, as expressed by the OLF and its offshoots, treats Amharas in regions like Wallagga as foreign interlopers who must be expelled or eliminated. Oromo scholars and activists have long disputed this characterization, arguing that Amhara settlement in Wallagga was historically encouraged by imperial governments and that the OLF’s primary grievance is with a centralized state, not with Amhara individuals.

Yet the Wallagga group’s testimony reflects a lived experience that cannot be dismissed as mere propaganda. For Amharas in western Oromia, the past several years have brought displacement, violence, and a pervasive sense of being targeted for their identity — a reality that shapes their reception of any political alliance involving Oromo armed groups.

A Moral Reckoning, Not Just a Political One

The statement’s fourth major argument elevates the objection from political calculation to moral principle. It condemns what it calls “the loss of political and moral principle” — the willingness to pursue political advantage “above human life, justice, and truth.”

“To ignore the lost lives of thousands, the destroyed wealth, and the tears that have flowed,” it reads, “and to cooperate with a murderous group is not to stand for justice but to become an accomplice to the crime.”

This moral framing is significant. It suggests that for the Wallagga Amhara group, the question of WBO–Fano cooperation is not merely about strategic efficacy — whether the alliance can achieve its stated goal of toppling Abiy — but about whether such cooperation is permissible at all, given the WBO’s alleged role in atrocities. The declaration positions itself as a moral red line, not a tactical objection.

It also implicitly challenges the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that appears to underpin the “Alliance for Survival.” For the Wallagga Amhara group, the WBO is not a potential partner against a common foe but an existential threat in its own right.

Direct Warnings to Fano and Amhara Political Forces

The statement’s most consequential section is its direct message to Fano and to any Amhara political organization considering collaboration with the WBO.

“Any political organization, association, or coalition claiming to represent the Amhara people,” it warns, “must understand that any negotiation or agreement with these extremist groups is a denial of the people’s blood and bones, will find no acceptance among our people, and will be held accountable by history.”

This is not a call for dialogue. It is an ultimatum: any Amhara force that aligns with the WBO forfeits its claim to represent the Amhara people.

The warning is especially pointed given that Fano itself is not a monolithic organization. The Fano movement encompasses numerous factions with varying degrees of centralization and differing attitudes toward Oromo armed groups. Some Fano commanders in Gojjam and Gondar have focused their operations against the federal government, while those in Wallagga and northern Shawa have been directly engaged in clashes with the WBO. The Wallagga Amhara statement appears designed to strengthen the hand of Fano factions opposed to any WBO deal — and to deter those who might see tactical advantage in such an alliance.

It also implicitly criticizes any Amhara political leadership that would negotiate with the WBO without the consent of affected communities. The statement positions the Wallagga Amhara diaspora as a veto-holding constituency, asserting that its experience of violence gives it the authority to determine what Amhara political forces may and may not do.

A Call for Justice, Not Just Rejection

The declaration is not solely negative. It also lays out a positive program:

• International accountability: It calls for the atrocities against Wallagga Amharas to be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and independent bodies, with perpetrators and their coordinators brought to justice.
• Return and compensation: It demands that displaced Amharas be allowed to return to their lands “in peace and with full guarantees,” that they receive compensation for destroyed property, and that social services be restored — calling on both the Ethiopian government and the international community to fulfill their responsibilities.
• A call to the Oromo people: In a notable gesture, the statement distinguishes between “the radical few and political merchants” and “our Oromo brothers,” urging Oromo elders, religious leaders, and youth to join in resisting “this destructive force” and to preserve “the brotherhood that has lasted for centuries.”
• A call to the Amhara people and opposition forces: It urges Amhara political organizations to reject any negotiation with “these extremist groups” and warns that such deals will not be accepted by the people.

The dual appeal — rejecting Oromo armed groups while extending a hand to the Oromo people — reflects a strategic distinction common in Amhara political discourse: separating “the people” from “the armed group” and appealing to the former against the latter. Whether this distinction resonates with Oromo audiences, particularly those who view the WBO as a legitimate liberation army, is another matter.

The Broader Implications

The Wallagga Amhara statement is significant on several levels.

First, it demonstrates that the WBO–Fano alliance is not merely an elite-level arrangement but one that will face resistance from constituencies directly affected by the conflict. The Wallagga Amhara diaspora — organized, vocal, and deeply invested in the fate of their homeland — represents a significant obstacle to any durable cooperation between the two armed groups.

Second, it exposes the internal contradictions of the “Alliance for Survival.” The alliance’s stated purpose is to unite armed groups against a common enemy — Abiy’s government. But for many Amharas in Wallagga, the WBO is not a potential ally but the primary perpetrator of violence against their community. The statement effectively asks: How can Fano claim to defend Amhara interests while allying with those accused of massacring Amharas?

Third, it raises questions about the representativeness of the forces negotiating in the “Alliance for Survival.” The Wallagga Amhara group’s assertion that any deal with the WBO lacks popular legitimacy among Amharas suggests that the alliance’s architects may be speaking for themselves rather than for their claimed constituencies.

Fourth, it highlights the intractability of the underlying conflict. The statement does not merely oppose cooperation; it calls for international criminal accountability for the WBO’s alleged atrocities. This is not a position that leaves room for political negotiation. It is a demand for justice that, if pursued, would foreclose any possibility of alliance.

Fifth, it underscores the fragmentation of Amhara political representation. The Wallagga Amhara Unity Association is one of many Amhara diaspora organizations, and its positions may not reflect those of Amhara political forces elsewhere. But its willingness to directly challenge Fano’s strategic direction suggests that the Amhara political landscape is far from unified behind the “Alliance for Survival.”

Conclusion: A Line in the Blood

The Wallagga Amhara Natives Unity Association’s declaration is not a conventional political statement. It is a testimony of grief, a demand for justice, and a warning to those who would trade principle for tactical advantage.

Its core message is stark: for Amharas of Wallagga, the WBO is not a potential partner in a shared struggle against Abiy. It is the force that killed their families, burned their homes, and drove them from their lands. Any Fano leader who shakes hands with the WBO, the statement suggests, shakes hands with the blood of Wallagga’s dead.

Whether this warning will be heeded — by Fano, by other Amhara political forces, or by the architects of the “Alliance for Survival” — remains to be seen. But as Ethiopia’s armed opposition scrambles to form a united front against Addis Ababa, the Wallagga Amhara declaration is a reminder that the deepest divisions may not be between the government and its opponents, but among the opponents themselves.

“Justice for our massacred and displaced kin in Wallagga!” the statement concludes. “The true coexistence and brotherhood of our peoples will prevail!”

For now, those words read less as a prediction than as a prayer — and a warning that the road to any united opposition runs through the blood-soaked fields of western Oromia.