In an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW) on August 24, veteran opposition figure Eskinder Nega confirmed that he remains an ordinary AFNM member but said members have received “no information whatsoever” from the leadership about the reported Tsimdo alliance with Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and others. He said AFNM members have instead been learning about developments through the media and some members have submitted a letter containing seven points to the movement’s Politburo (full UMD Media english translation of the interview at the bottom).
1. Eskinder: TPLF Relations Were a “Red Line” When AFNM Was Formed
Eskinder said relations with the TPLF were specifically discussed during negotiations that brought two Fano organizations together to form AFNM.
The organizations had other significant ideological differences. One side advocated Amhara nationalism, while Eskinder’s former organization operated under the formulation “Our starting point is Amhara; our destination is Ethiopia.” Eskinder said his side compromised on such disagreements because Fano unity was considered more important.
But relations with the TPLF and what he called “TPLF-like organizations” constituted a red line. Eskinder said the issue was extensively discussed and an agreed position was reached before the merger, with his former organization’s position ultimately accepted.
According to Eskinder, what subsequently began as rumors about contacts with the TPLF gradually became more credible. Some AFNM leaders who had previously dismissed the claims as propaganda eventually began making statements suggesting such discussions were real, and more recently some have spoken as if an agreement has already been concluded.
2. Eskinder: Negotiations, Mandate and Who Decides
Eskinder is not opposing negotiations with Tsimdo. He said AFNM leaders have the right to explore alliances, meet other forces and negotiate, but cannot turn such talks into binding policy on their own.
He argues that an alliance as consequential as Tsimdo must be approved by the appropriate organizational structures and ultimately by the fighters themselves, particularly because it could turn forces they previously fought into allies.
Eskinder also questions the mandate of the Zemene Kassie-led leadership, saying it was appointed temporarily during the Fano merger rather than elected by a congress. In his view, even an elected leadership should not make such a fundamental decision without consulting the fighters.
Eskinder does not claim that most fighters oppose Tsimdo. He says the only way to know is to let them debate and vote. If the leadership proceeds without them, he argues, responsibility for the decision and its consequences should rest with those leaders.
3. Eskinder’s Controversial Record on Tigray
Eskinder’s current position is complicated by his broader wartime political posture during the Tigray war and on Tigray in general.
He did not merely criticize the TPLF from a distance, after leaving prison, he publicly supported the military struggle against Tigrayan forces and visited fronts to thank those fighting them. Following his release from prison in January 2022, Eskinder publicly called for the destruction of the Tigray’s fighting force and military capability, reportedly saying: “First, the TPLF army that is fighting has to be destroyed.” He also visited different battlefronts and thanked fighters for their role in fighting Tigrayan forces, placing him publicly alongside forces that had been engaged in the war against Tigray. Tigrayan activists and organizations have characterized his rhetoric much more severely, accusing him of promoting exterminatory attitudes toward Tigrayan forces and, in some accounts, Tigrayans more broadly.
Those accusations have also been connected to controversial columns published years earlier in the now-defunct Asqual newspaper associated with Eskinder and his wife, journalist Serkalem Fasil. Critics have circulated passages discussing Nazi Germany, Hitler and Jews that they argue glorified aspects of Nazi methods and employed them as analogies in Ethiopian ethnic politics against Tigrayans.
4. Zemene’s and Fano’s Tigray-War Record
The historical contradiction surrounding Tsimdo does not apply only to Eskinder.
Just eight days before Eskinder’s DW interview, Zemene Kassie gave a notably different interpretation of Fano’s relationship with Tigray during the 2020–2022 war.
In an interview published by the Swiss newspaper Le Temps on August 16, Zemene described the Tigray war as “appalling” and argued that grievances accumulated during the EPRDF/TPLF era had been exploited to mobilize much of Ethiopia against Tigray.
But when confronted with the participation of Amhara forces on the federal side, he substantially minimized Fano’s involvement:
“Fano barely existed at that time, and its participation in that war was not significant.”
There is an important qualification to this. Fano in 2020–2022 was not the same centralized organizational entity as today’s AFNM. It consisted of decentralized formations, while Amhara Special Forces, militias and Fano groups were frequently blurred together in descriptions of the conflict.
But Zemene’s own reported wartime activities complicate a broader claim that Fano participation was insignificant.
After Tigrayan forces advance in 2021, Zemene and associates reportedly established the Amhara Popular Force, with Zemene as its leader. His forces subsequently deployed outside Gojjam and reportedly fought Tigrayan forces in Western Wollo alongside the Ethiopian National Defence Force.
By June 2022, Zemene himself was publicly speaking of thousands of Fano fighters under his command.
The distinction therefore matters, Zemene can plausibly argue that today’s institutionalized Fano did not exist in its present form in November 2020. That is different from saying Fano formations played no significant role as the war subsequently expanded.
In a recent Africa Report article published on August 18, Asres Mare, a member of the Politburo of the Amhara Fano National Movement (AFNM), presents the Fano insurgency not merely as an armed rebellion but as what he calls a struggle for the survival of the Amhara people. He argues that the movement predates the Pretoria Agreement and grew after peaceful appeals to the federal government allegedly failed. More significantly for the emergence of AFNM, Asres says that Fano has evolved from a dispersed resistance network into a more organized fighting force with an increasingly structured leadership, and that the creation of AFNM has improved coordination, strategic planning and military operations.
5. A July Letter on Eskinder–AFNM Rift Predating Tsimdo
Tsimdo is also not the beginning of the organizational conflict between Eskinder and AFNM’s leadership.
A letter signed by Zemene Kassie on July 10, 2026 says Eskinder was originally appointed head of AFNM’s Policy and Strategy Department when the movement was formed on January 17, 2026.
Eskinder stepped down from that leadership position three days later while remaining an ordinary member.
The July letter subsequently accused him of acting outside organizational procedures, particularly through his involvement with an Addis Ababa Media Council, and instructed him to cease unauthorized activities and repeated media appearances.
That creates a striking institutional mirror.
In July, Zemene’s leadership accused Eskinder of bypassing AFNM’s organizational rules. In August, Eskinder is essentially applying the same principle upward, arguing that Zemene’s leadership cannot bypass AFNM structures when making a far more consequential decision about Tsimdo.
Eskinder confirmed to DW that he remains an ordinary AFNM member. He attributed his withdrawal from leadership partly to ideological disagreements, what he called parochialism inside the Amhara struggle and unidentified outside “long hands,” which he declined to name.
The creation of AFNM was intended to overcome Fano’s fragmentation into competing commands, personalities and political centers.
Tsimdo may now be its first major strategic stress test.
The dispute leaves several fundamental questions unanswered: Has AFNM formally joined Tsimdo? What precisely was agreed? Who authorized it? And do the fighters themselves support the change?
Eskinder refuses to answer the last question for them.
His argument is that they must be asked.
That is what makes the August 24 interview more than another disagreement among Fano personalities.
The irony is considerable: one prominent Fano leader is minimizing yesterday’s war as he builds today’s alliance; another is invoking yesterday’s war to insist that the alliance requires consent.
Tsimdo therefore confronts both Fano and its prospective Tigrayan partners with a question larger than their shared opposition to Abiy Ahmed:
Can yesterday’s enemies become today’s allies simply because they now share a common enemy, or must they first explain to the fighters, victims and communities they represent what changed, what was resolved, what remains unresolved, and who authorized the transformation?
=========================================
Full UMD Media translation of Eskider Nega’s Amharic German DW interview.
Interviewer: Mr. Eskinder Nega, thank you for agreeing to answer our questions. Recently, we have seen news of your killing or death circulating widely on unverified social media pages. Indeed, this is not the first time false information about your death has been spread. Have you determined the source or purpose behind the spread of this false information? Let us start here if you could briefly tell us.
Eskinder Nega: Okay, thank you very much. It is good to start from here. Because lately, friends and relatives have spent the past few days very anxious. Many of them cannot reach me directly, as you know, because the location is not convenient. So, many have spent the past few days calling my wife in particular to ask. I am sincerely happy to have the opportunity to clarify that on this occasion. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.
By God’s will, no harm has come to me. Indeed, over these past four years, I have escaped several assassination attempts, by God’s will. So perhaps those saying I am dead might be assuming based on that. By the way, regarding these assassination attempts, there are those actually caught from the air and from the ground, and those not caught. But what we know concretely is that they tried to execute them from the air via drones, and on the ground by moving people. So I think it might be related to that. On the other hand, it could also be wishful thinking.
Interviewer: Let me clarify things to this extent—Mr. Eskinder, were those targeted only by government security forces or by other armed groups as well?
Eskinder Nega: The regime’s is clear; since it is clear, yes. As for the rest, it is better if I do not comment for now. It is known, it is a well-documented matter, so time will reveal it in the future. As I said, there is also wishful thinking involved. On one hand, due to the existing political differences—and in Ethiopian culture, there is no habit of resolving political differences peacefully; our background history does not indicate that, it is about killing—so I suspect it might be related to that as well. On the other hand, there is also a tendency, particularly on the regime’s part, to fan this as an agenda to create division within Fano. Therefore, such rumors arise from various directions. But in the end, as I said earlier, everything is in God’s hands. This is to say I am fine so far. And I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank friends and relatives for your concern.
Interviewer: Fine, thank you. When the Fano armed organizations operating in various parts of the Amhara region came together into unity, including the organization operating in Shewa that you used to lead, AFAN (Amhara Fano National Movement) was founded. Information had emerged that you were given a responsibility within the movement, but you did not accept that responsibility, opting instead to continue as a ordinary member. Was that information correct? If not, could you tell us your current status?
Eskinder Nega: Yes, the information is correct. There was a process when both organizations, AFAN and AFAD, came together into unity. In between, there were negotiations and talks. A unity facilitating committee was formed, and there were processes on our side and on AFAN’s side. Naturally, in this process, in this struggle within the Amhara struggle, there are unquestionable differences of opinion in our country, but what has overshadowed the differences of opinion is narrow tribalism (cliquishness). Tribalism has taken a huge space and created a major crack in our struggle, in the Amhara struggle, in the survival struggle. While that was fracturing things, long hands from outside of Fano and outside of Amhara entered into it. Combined together—the differences of opinion, as I said, the tribalism, and the long hands from outside of Fano and Amhara—created a situation where I could not continue in leadership.
Interviewer: Mr. Eskinder, can you mention who these "long hands" you referred to are? Who are they?
Eskinder Nega: Let me pass on it for now; since it is not the time and place, let me pass. Many can guess. Long hands have entered, and from that perspective, I was unable to continue in leadership. By the way, I have no specific grievance regarding this; we are in a struggle, and various things happen during a struggle. It is for the future.
Interviewer: Participating as a member in the movement is one thing. What is your role in the movement now?
Eskinder Nega: I am an ordinary member; I operate as an ordinary member. A member has many responsibilities; there are various activities taking place everywhere, and I participate according to those activities. About 98-99% of members operate as ordinary members, that is what it means. To that extent, it does not mean every single one of us shoots on the battlefield; everyone is given work according to their capacity, and I carry out that work.
Interviewer: Given what you have told me, we have heard that AFAN, in which you are enrolled as a member, formed a coalition with other rebels in Ethiopia. How do you view this coalition that has been formed? Since you are a member of the movement, I raise this question assuming you know the process, also because the issue has generated much discussion.
Eskinder Nega: Very good question. By the way, regarding this matter, a letter was submitted recently to our Politburo. Our Politburo is the highest authority within the executive branch. For members of AFAN at the member level, no information was passed down to us from above; there is no information at all. What we are hearing and following from the media is rumors. It is regarding this that AFAN members submitted a letter to the Politburo. Seven points were included in it. Briefly, since it is very crucial, what is this issue?
Regarding the coalition:
For the past few months, it was an issue that initially appeared faintly in the media, but later gained momentum, and over the past two weeks, it is being said that it is completely finalized, even by senior leadership members of the organization. A few, of course—not all leadership members of the organization are like that, but a few have spoken to that extent. This is the framework, the current framework we are in. As you know, this issue, especially regarding the TPLF, was in the air before AFAN was established when AFAD and AFAN existed, but it was at the level of rumor, and there was very high outrage on AFAN’s side, calling it a lie and propaganda.
By the way, this issue was raised when AFAD and AFAN were established, discussed thoroughly, and given direction. I will not get into that for now, but we raised it, and a clear agreement was reached on AFAD’s side as to what position should be taken. I want to say an agreement was reached on what position AFAN should hold on this matter. By the way, as an organization, the only issue AFAD drew a red line on and took a position where we must agree was regarding merging or uniting with the TPLF. It accepted all other preconditions; there were many issues it did not fully agree with, but for the sake of unity, it let them pass, holding that unity is greater and we must unite without preconditions.
Among those, by the way, was regarding the organization’s ideology. Regarding the organization’s ideology, when AFAN said the organization’s ideology must be Amhara nationalism, AFAD was operating with the ideology of "Our origin is Amhara, our destination is Ethiopia". Even registering that as a difference, AFAD accepted it, saying it is not greater than unity, and Fano unity must first be realized.
However, on what the relationship with TPLF and TPLF-like organizations should be, agreement was reached on that. As far as I know, AFAD’s position was accepted. And after AFAN was established, as I said, what was heard as rumors before AFAN was established kept growing. First, it was at the level of talk, then some leaders of the organization began giving comments confirming the reality. In the end, now it is being spoken of as a completed deal. So, let me state this as the first point; this is the framework for the letter now submitted to the Politburo by AFAN members.
The second point: As is known, an executive body in any organization, including AFAN, can think about, study, and has the authority and power to negotiate forming coalitions with any forces. Taking AFAN to align under the umbrella of these Tsimdos forces is not something to be viewed as extraordinary—meaning it does not open the door to criticism in a special way. As I said, any organization can think, study, talk, and even state if something is possible. It can take that assembly. So the letter submitted now is not opposing this; it is not an opposition asking why you talked or met, and the Politburo recognizes that the Executive Committee has this right.
The third key point: Saying the executive body can think about coalitions it believes should be made does not mean it can approve or execute them solely on its own decision. This is the key thing. It can go, talk, facilitate, and there can be an agreement up to signing. But this has no force of implementation; making an agreement to work together up to signing is not the official position of the organization. It is a procedure that opens a path leading there, and it can go that far. After doing that, it must take the organization’s position to the Central Committee, or depending on the gravity of the issue, direct participation and approval of members is expected. The coalition intended with the Tsimdo forces is one that requires direct member participation and decision-making authority.
The fourth point: We are currently fighting not in peaceful politics, but in an armed struggle. In an armed struggle, we are paying in blood; blood is being shed on both sides. Both are Ethiopians, and much blood is being spilled. If blood is being shed to this extent, this issue should be presented directly to all members for a decision. By the way, this procedure is not unique to us in AFAN; it is an international procedure. It is an accepted and applicable procedure in struggles worldwide: when an issue is very fundamental, it is presented directly to the army. The army gathers and decides on it, decided solely by vote, and the position of the majority is implemented. The position that loses the vote accepts the majority’s view and continues.
At what level is the agreement intended to be executed with the Tsimdo forces right now? Is it decided at the Central Committee level? The Central Committee, by the way, is seen as the legislative body within an organization. Is it viewed at its level, or when we weigh whether it requires direct member participation, it unquestionably demands member participation. Why? When we look at their background history, the organizations gathered under the umbrella of Tsimdo are known for being anti-Amhara and anti-Ethiopian. That is not a name we affixed to them, but their identity known to the world. They have their own history and stance on their own politics. Whether that is correct or not is another matter, but they are known to this extent. Therefore, if a coalition is to be formed with these forces, and if we went out to fight against these forces and are shedding our blood, this matter must be decided directly by the members.
The sixth point: It is very crucial, and I think emphasis should be placed on it. Why? Because the current leadership of AFAN is a transitional leadership, not legally and democratically elected through an organizational congress, but formed temporarily to facilitate Fano unity. As I said, seven months ago, when AFAD and AFAN merged to form AFAN, no organizational congress was held. What was done? An organizational congress will be held in due course. For the time being, it was decided to set up a transitional leadership to facilitate this unity, and the temporary leadership came by assignment, appointed by assignment rather than election. Therefore, its main given mandate is to facilitate this unity. Even if a coalition were to be formed with these forces as mentioned earlier, it is something that not only fundamentally impacts but changes the nature, objective, and direction of our struggle, so this leadership lacks the democratic and legal standing to make a decision on this matter alone. This is very, very crucial. But as I set out earlier, even if it were a legally and democratically elected leadership through an organizational congress, given the weight of the matter, it is not an issue that can be decided by leadership decision alone. So this is what was raised in the letter.
And finally, the point raised in this letter is that, as members, we have submitted this legal and democratic question. If a coalition with Tsimdo forces is made by the decision of the temporarily structured AFAN leadership, we want it to be clear to history and the public that the majority of AFAN members knew nothing about it and did not participate in the decision. The outcome of this effort is the responsibility of the leadership.
Interviewer: Could you answer to what extent their request reflects the views of the majority of the movement’s members and fighters?
Eskinder Nega: We will only know accurately when the army gathers, discusses, and votes. Whether on the right or the left, to get the true answer, it must be presented to the army for a decision. It should be done to this extent. So I should not say right now whether they support it or not. But there must be a genuine face-to-face discussion with the army. By the way, the discussion happening on social media right now is on social media, and as we have followed, it is mostly not pleasant, useless, and involves insults. That is one thing; second, those having this discussion are not on the ground here, not directly participating in the struggle—they are all outside Ethiopia in the diaspora. They have the right to express their views; no one questions that, it is their right. We are fighting over country matters, and any Ethiopian has the right to give their opinion on country matters; we do not question that. However, the right to decide belongs directly to the fighter on the ground who is paying in blood.
Interviewer: Mr. Eskinder Nega, it is known that you fought for human rights and press freedom for years. After that, you founded a political party and attempted to engage in peaceful political struggle. Following that, you have now reached the stage of operating as a member of the Amhara Fano Popular Movement. You have transitioned from a struggle of ideas to an armed struggle. Can it be said that things are going the way you envisioned, or do you regret your decision?
Eskinder Nega: Oh, I do not regret the decision. Because what led me into armed struggle was not a question of democracy; as you said, I gave my whole life to the struggle for democracy. After returning from America, what I fought and paid a price for was to see a democratic system realized in Ethiopia. After 20 years, when this current regime came to power, a question greater than democracy emerged—a question it placed second, which is the question of survival. It became necessary to enter armed struggle, and that has brought results; it has brought results, we are seeing it bring results. I am not saying it has uprooted it from its foundation, but it has made an impact. If we persevere on this path, the threat of genocide that has occurred will be averted. Therefore, I have my small share in achieving this—much smaller than other leaders, but I feel immense satisfaction in fulfilling that share.
Interviewer: Very good, Mr. Eskinder Nega, thank you very much for giving us your time and agreeing to have this extended time with us. On behalf of Deutsche Welle Radio listeners, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Eskinder Nega: Okay, I also thank you sincerely.
Originally published on UMD Media Facebook on 2026-08-24T09:00:00-06:00. Source: https://www.facebook.com/getachew.UMDMedia