Enough with the Smear Campaign Against Eskinder Nega

By Sisay Mulu (Amoraw)

In response to Anteneh Shiferaw’s article titled “Characterizing the Most Disciplined Fano Leaders with African Dictators is Not Short of Treason!!”, published on Borkena.com on September 14th, this essay offers a partial defense of Eskinder Nega. Eng. Anteneh’s article paints Eskinder as a force of betrayal, distortion, uninvited hijacker, and shortsightedness within the Amhara Fano resistance movement. As a Fano Fighter and leader who has always come out for the survival and empowerment of the Amhara people, Eskinder finds himself unable to answer the barrage of baseless claims thrown at him. It is, therefore, upon those who have access to the internet and a laptop and know the truth to stand up for his defense.

I agree that in a serious endeavor like a fight for justice and survival, no leader should be immune from scrutiny, but there is a critical distinction between constructive criticism and deliberate misrepresentation. Hence, this is not about shielding Eskinder from due criticism but exposing the weaknesses and lies behind the unending effort to discredit him. 

The blatant personal attacks and conspiracy theories surrounding Eskinder are not just false; they threaten the unity and momentum of the Fano movement at a time when solidarity is crucial. In this defense, I take up the most salient of these claims made against him and show why they are not only mistaken but also dangerous to the larger cause of the Amhara people. It is time we take his leadership for what it is worth and discard the baseless conspiracies designed to undermine one of Fano’s most important figures.

1. Eskinder’s Legitimate Role in the Fano Movement

The claim that Eskinder Nega is not legitimate to hold a leadership role within the Fano struggle is not patently false; it is the dangerous diminishment of his Amhara heritage. This is a grassroots movement, as the author himself admits it, and yet he fails to recognize this grassroot call in the rally of the Amharas across all spectrums from those in the diaspora to those born in and outside the traditional Amhara regions. When the call for arms finally came, Eskinder was among the few who answered to stand shoulder to shoulder with their Fano brethren against the Abiy Ahmed regime’s existential threats. 

Many months before a single bullet would be fired against government forces, Eskinder was in the countryside of the Amhara region, meeting with Fano leaders and organizers alike, and members of the local community to discuss the forthcoming struggle. What more legitimate right could there possibly be than to answer the call, be on the ground, engage with grassroots leaders, join the fight on the battlefield, and be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for one’s people? What greater claim to legitimacy could there ever be than standing ready to sacrifice everything for the survival of the Amhara people? 

Accusations regarding the formation of the Amhara Popular Front and misappropriation of funds are, besides being groundless, typical of social media gossip again whipped up by individuals vested in the sidelining of one of the formidable and genuine Fano leaders. These critics, who are disturbed by Eskinder’s ability to mobilize and reunite the cause of the Amhara, aim to discredit him, and remove him from his position to install figures that will dupe the movement for less noble motives. The baseless allegations against him are not backed by any evidence; in fact, they expose the emptiness at the core of a smear campaign. 

Another interesting thing is that Eskinder’s role in the Fano movement did not start in tranquility but during tumult after the conflict with the TPLF. But while the Amhara Fanos were allied with federal forces against TPLF, Eskinder was suffering unjust imprisonment under Abiy Ahmed, a sure testimonial to his sacrifice and dedication. This kind of leadership does not really need that one should be a combatant from word go. Eskindir’s subsequent involvement was characterized by intellectual depth, advocacy, and local and international mobilization—elements crucial to any effective armed struggle. On several video recordings coming from the battlefield, Eskinder represented knowledge in various community gatherings; he informed the local Amharas about what was at stake in the conflict and empowered them not just with weapons, but with knowledge. His interviews with international media could well articulate the just cause of the Fano and the urgent need to dismantle the genocidal regime in power. 

In fact, his efforts to form the AFPO underpin the commitment to unification of the Fano forces and, as such, belie  the intention to hijack the movement. This was a move for consolidation and strength, not a move toward division. To say that Eskinder’s involvement is about hijacking the Fano cause simply because his role has transcended the battlefield is to misunderstand the nature of resistance. The early and progressive contributions of Eskinder mobilized the diaspora and natives with the much-needed resources, advocacy, and diplomatic support. His leadership is the very embodiment of what it means to be a leader: strategic foresight combined with grassroots engagement and international advocacy—which keeps Fano’s struggle for justice and freedom afloat.

2. Inconsistency or Strategic Adaptability?

The other accusation that Eskinder Nega is inconsistent in his stance toward negotiations with the Abiy Ahmed regime is not only unjust but shows a deep misunderstanding of political maneuvering in times of conflict. The Amhara people find themselves in a just war—a war which became the only viable option after enduring decades of state-sanctioned genocidal violence. Fano’s resistance is not based on refusal to peace, but rather based on understanding that armed struggle is the only way to ensure survival of the Amhara people and a sustainable peace.

In the context of Just War Theory, war is not necessarily in opposition to peace, but it is sometimes a necessary step for peace. A just war is only waged for legitimate reasons, either in protection of innocent lives or in national self-defense, and it should seek restoration of peace and justice. The doctrine of just war presents war as one of the last means of implementing a policy after exhausting all the other means. The Fano movement fits squarely within these principles. Having no other option to survive, Fano has taken up arms against a genocidal regime that has declared its intent to destroy the Amhara people. The only force that had both moral and practical justification for its actions, Fano stands as the true embodiment of the just war theory.

In this light, Eskinder’s stance on negotiations with the Abiy Ahmed regime is not indicative of inconsistency but strategic adaptability and political maneuvering. Being the responsible leader that he is, Eskinder knows full well that while armed resistance may be necessary, strategic flexibility in showing the world that the cause of the Amhara is not anti-peace is of quintessential importance. Discussing negotiation with an oppressive regime is not surrender but an opportunity to show the world and the international community that the Amhara are fighting not because they hate somebody but to win peace and justice. Eskinder highlights that any possibility of negotiation—only after the unity of Fano is secured—must be understood in the great strategy that strengthens the movement and portrays the Amhara struggle as one borne out of justice and not out of love for endless conflict. That is not inconsistency; that is Politics 101.

What’s more, the allegation that Eskinder ‘chose to negotiate’ with the regime—while he denied it during interviews—is hugely simplistic and distorts his position. Political leaders often have to phrase their messages according to which constituency they are speaking to and to whom, and on how things change on the ground. In fact, Eskinder’s shades-of-gray position on the question of negotiation was never to rush into negotiations with a genocidal regime but, rather, to show the world that Fano is a force of stability, not chaos. Indeed, Eskinder has always made sure to put the priority on Fano’s unity and strength before any possibility of negotiation could be discussed, which highlights that peace cannot come at the expense of justice or the survival of the Amhara people.

What the critics don’t understand is that flexibility in messaging is not a sign of inconsistency; it is a sign of wisdom in any legitimate resistance movement. The political acumen of Eskinder has allowed him to posture Fano not only as a military force but also as a symbol of hope to all Amhara people. In other words, he is able to express Fano’s just cause in the two poles of the local communities and the international arena, while at the same time keeping the movement together. He emphasized that armed resistance must be matched by a political approach. The words and actions of Eskinder have demonstrated that though Fano is waging a necessary war, its ultimate goal is lasting peace based on justice and equality.

In essence, the critique of Eskinder’s negotiation stance misses the bigger picture: his leadership is not flawed due to inconsistency but rather to a strategic flexibility inherent in any resistance movement. The struggle by Fano is a just war; similarly, the subtle approach of Eskinder toward negotiation reflects variegated and balanced armed resistance with the long-term goal of peace. But what makes him readily adaptable is not a weakness, but one of his principal strengths, which has been, and will continue to be essential for the continued survival and success of the just struggle regarding the Amhara people.”

3. Eskinder’s Ongoing Battle for a Unified Fano (From APF to AFPO)

The claim that Eskinder Nega has divided the Fano movement is disingenuous and proves to be an intentional distortion of the fact that cannot stand critical scrutiny. Far from divisive, Eskinder has been one of the few leaders who tirelessly work to unite the various Fano factions. When Eskinder formed the APF, the aim was clear: to consolidate all those loose Fano groups into one strong front. It wasn’t an easy job, but it was a critically needed and noble effort toward strengthening the Amhara Fano. When the latter, quite naturally for every movement composed of resistance groups that are leaderless and decentralized, did not immediately take off, Eskinder did not abandon his mission. That perennial struggle for unity included the dissolving of the APF and its subsequent merger with Zemene Kassie’s Amhara Popular Forces into what is called the Amhara Fano Popular Forces, the AFPF. Although that alliance would not last, this was not for lack of effort or vision on Eskinder’s part.

Blaming Eskinder for the difficulties in unifying the Fano’s factions is not only disingenuous but also scapegoating of a leader who has worked in harsh conditions and worst of circumstances to bring cohesion to a grassroots leaderless movement that is intrinsically hard to organize. What is being ignored herein is the invisible hands working across time and space, both from the diaspora and within Ethiopia, to keep the Fano movement fragmented and unorganized. These are forces that thrive on division, and they have actively sought to undermine Eskinder’s efforts at every turn. Blaming Eskinder for ALL the difficulties in uniting Fano amounts to blaming the victim. This is a narrative that has been cooked up just to divert attention from the real issue—the fact that some external actors who do not want to see a strong united Fano force are at play.

The AFPO was formed shortly after one more attempt by Eskinder to unite the Fano factions. Contrary to the unfounded allegations that have been leveled, the intention was not to divide, but to bring together different factions under one umbrella. Thus far, this endeavor has not resulted in bringing all Fano factions together under a single umbrella, but it has nonetheless yielded important gains, with those joining AFPO working across provincial boundaries. This is no minor feat within a movement that, by its very nature, suffers non-stop internal power struggles along with external threats. The author of the accusations conveniently ignores the fact that such challenges are part and parcel of any resistance movement, let alone one still in its infancy and heavily reliant on public resources.

Such insinuations are not only unfounded but highly ironic in suggesting that Eskinder has somehow ‘damaged’ Fano by dividing leaders. The real threat to Fano’s unity emanates from those who level these baseless accusations and from those who fail to put aside their personal ambitions and power rivalries for the great service of the Amhara people. To be sure, AFPO is not without imperfections, neither is it an answer to all of Amhara’s prayers, but it is a crucial step forward in most encouraging ways. Instead, Eskinder’s efforts at unity through AFPO need to be applauded. He and his comrades have been instrumental in laying the groundwork for future cooperation among the various factions.

The actual divisive forces within Fano come not from Eskinder but from other, far more insidious forces: government-affiliated individuals, paid YouTubers, and organizations in the diaspora posing as Amhara interests while working against organic unity. These actors, together with their cliques, see Eskinder as a threat to their ambitions and launched a delegitimization campaign through ad hominem personal attacks against him and his compatriots. In reality, as has always been unequivocally stressed, the real enemy of the division is not Eskinder, but those very few cliques who see him as standing in their way. In fact, accusations against Eskinder are no more than a smokescreen, meant to distract people from the real forces at work that aim to undermine Fano’s unity. Actually, Eskinder has been instrumental in keeping Fano factions together through such initiatives as APF, AFPF, and now AFPO, in keeping the resistance alive and moving. Now is the time to realize attacks against Eskinder Nega amount to nothing but unfounded, and it shall be harmful to the greater cause of the Amhara people.

4. Fano’s Broader Vision: Eskinder’s Role in Shaping It

The argument that Eskinder Nega’s suggestion of creating a transitional government and eradicating ethnic politics is not good enough to deal with the entrenched plight of the Amhara people is fundamentally myopic. This view from the author grossly underestimates the complexity of the Amhara struggle and underestimates the long-term strategy needed to bring down the structures of oppression instituted against Amharas for decades. The vision of Eskinder and I believe all other Fanos is neither short-sighted nor myopic to realize that putting an end to ethnic politics and forming a transitional government are basic steps, or building blocks to ensure the creation of a fair and just Ethiopia serving all ethnic groups, inclusive of the Amhara.

The fascistic anti-Amhara system disguised as ethnic Political System has been one of the most important tools used to annihilate Amharas and breed animosity and violence against the Amhara people. But in defending the abolition of that structure, Eskinder and his comrades are brought face to face with one of the root causes of the suffering inflicted upon the Amhara. So long as present systems remain intact, every effort at halting the genocide of the Amhara and creating a just and peaceful society would be burdened by the same forces that have caused inequality and conflict for half a century. It is just not a political move to end the present system but part of the necessary process of collapsing the scaffold that has given legitimacy for displacing, marginalizing, and genocide against the Amhara.

At the same time, such claims as Eskinder’s proposals are a ‘shortcut’ represent a gross distortion of Fano’s larger strategy. Eskinder, like all other members of the Amhara Fano, have been crystal clear about the scope of tasks standing before the Amhara people and that this struggle goes far beyond the fall of the current system. They are advocating for a transitional government, and that is not a goal in and of itself but one simplistic solution to the problems of the Amhara people. It is calculated, strategic—a means to an end that ushers in a more comprehensive process of necessary change.

By pushing for the coming of a transitional government, Amhara Fano lays the ground for a national dialogue to which all stakeholders are welcomed. The process is to address not only the political system that has fueled Amhara suffering but also the historical grievance too long denied or exacerbated by successive regimes. The vision of justice by Fano’s like Eskinder includes, but is not limited to, the whole scale of acknowledgment of the massive land theft by the ruling system against the Amhara and a call for justice and reparations regarding the genocide and atrocities committed against the Amhara people in the last several decades. It is not an afterthought for Amhara Fano but rather part and parcel of how a new Ethiopia would look, where justice will apply, and the complaints of the Amhara people would find a place that has been ignored for so long.

Besides this, the formation of a transitional government is of prime importance as a ground for more general political reforms. I believe Eskinder fully understands that entrenched power structures, which have sustained violence and inequality into enduring brutal systems, can only be uprooted by a transitional government that cleans the slate on which new political systems may be established inclusively. This is not about short cuts, it’s buying a foundation for the long-term survival and prosperity of the Amhara people, and others. In a country as divided as Ethiopia, with ethnic loyalties abused to maintain control, any attempt to bridge that divide is necessarily conducted at the political level first. Something Eskinder would know, and his call for a transitional government reflects deep insight into what would secure lasting peace.

But beyond the internal political structure, Eskinder’s approach is reasoned—both at the international level of diplomacy and advocacy. Presenting the Amhara cause to the world, Eskinder is trying to garner international backing so that the plight of the Amhara people would cease to be an internal matter but an affair touching humanity worldwide. The ability to articulate the Amhara struggle in terms that do resonate with international norms of justice, human rights, and self-determination empowers his movement even further, placing the Amhara cause within the large context of global human rights. Eskinder’s conversation with Jeff Pearce is not restricted to Ethiopia; rather, it is one that envisages the power of global alliances in bringing about meaningful change.

In other words, a critique that Eskinder’s proposals fall short of the target, or represent a ‘shortcut,’ is highly defective and reveals an inability to appreciate the greater vision being pursued by him. Eskinder is not addressing the symptoms of Amhara suffering but is going after the root causes: calling for the demolition of ethnic federalism and thus laying the ground for a new Ethiopia founded on justice, equality, and unity. The call for a transitional government and abolition of ethnic politics is not an end in itself but a crucial step toward the more profound and enduring transformation that would redress historical injustices perpetrated against the Amhara people. The leadership of Eskinder is crucial in framing this broader vision for the success of the resistance of the Amhara people and in creating a more just Ethiopia for all.

Editor’s note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com

__

To Publish an Article On borkena , please send submission to info@borkena.com for consideration.

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

Add your business to Borkena Business Listing/Business Directory  Jobs

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter ) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian news updates regularly. Ethiopia  To share information or for  submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com