Fano’s Rebellion: A prelude to Stalemate or Resolution?

By Mohamud A. Ahmed

Addis Abeba – In the labyrinth of Ethiopia’s political landscape, an age-old rhythm of resistance and centralization replays itself. Fano, the self-styled guardian of Amhara’s identity, stands now as one of the latest actors in this evolving drama. Their defiance against the Ethiopian Federal Defense Forces echoes both the historical echoes of valour and the grievances born of marginalisation. And while skirmishes flare along the edges of the Ethiopian heartland, the looming question haunts the horizon: Can the insurgent Fano forces truly challenge Ethiopia’s military juggernaut, or is the march toward confrontation a prologue to eventual defeat or compromise?

The answer is buried in the layers of Ethiopia’s complex political, social, and geopolitical fabric. What follows is an analysis of the battlefield, not just of weaponry and tactics, but of history, identity, and ambition, tempered by the poetry of resilience and the inevitability of change.

The Imbalance of Power: Federal Might vs. Militia Defiance

At first glance, the chasm separating Fano and the Ethiopian Federal Defense Forces seems insurmountable. The Ethiopian army, seasoned through years of conflict—from the Eritrean border wars to the Tigray conflict—boasts an arsenal of modern weaponry, air-power, and logistical support far beyond Fano’s reach. The Federal Army’s strength is drawn not merely from its military capacity but from the deeply entrenched authority of the Ethiopian state, whose reach extends into the coffers of international diplomacy and aid.

By contrast, Fano’s forces, a loosely organised and under-resourced militia, rely on asymmetric guerrilla tactics. What they lack in technology, they compensate for with familiarity with the landscape and, more crucially, the unshakable support of some segments of the Amhara populace, whose historical memory of both glory and betrayal fuels the fervour of resistance. It is not sheer firepower that emboldens Fano but a deeply ingrained sense of identity. They are the soldiers of Amhara’s past, seeking to defend its future as guardians of a cultural ethos that feels encroached upon by an increasingly distant and unresponsive central government.

Amhara: A Victim of Circumstances?

Amhara’s current predicament cannot be understood without delving into its dominant role in Ethiopian history. For centuries, Amhara leadership shaped the identity and direction of the Ethiopian state. This historical dominance has made Amhara a powerful symbol of Ethiopian sovereignty, but it has also cast them as a target for resentment among other ethnic groups who felt marginalised or oppressed by the central government. Some may view Amhara’s current suffering, both through external and internal challenges, as a form of karma—a historical reckoning for years of perceived dominance and exclusionary practices.

However, this perspective fails to recognize the complexities at play. While Amhara elites were once central to Ethiopian governance, ordinary Amhara have also experienced marginalisation in various ways, especially as Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism has shifted the power dynamics over the years. In today’s Ethiopia, it seems that no ethnic group is immune to the storm of conflict that touches every corner of the country. The cycle of marginalisation now threatens the very foundation of national unity, and Amhara finds itself caught in this whirlwind, both a victim and a player in the ongoing political struggle.

The Fire Burns, Yet Does Not Consume: Popular Support and Regional Dynamics

Fano’s survival, despite its military inferiority, is inextricably tied to its resonance with the Amhara people. Herein lies the heart of the matter. The Amhara region is not just a geographical territory; it is an ancient bastion of Ethiopian sovereignty, where the first breaths of empire took shape. Amhara’s rich history of leadership and cultural influence over Ethiopia renders any conflict within its borders politically symbolic, more than simply military.

Fano’s strength lies in the intangible: its ability to wield cultural legitimacy and rally support through the language of grievance and preservation. Popular backing within Amhara provides Fano with the shelter of a people who perceive the federal government’s policies—particularly concerning land disputes with neighbouring regions like Tigray—as dismissive of their concerns, or worse, antagonistic. This is where the battlefield extends beyond bullets and into hearts and minds. The fire that fuels Fano’s resistance burns deep, but as with all fires, it requires constant feeding.

Yet, regional dynamics cannot be overlooked. Amhara’s quest for autonomy runs parallel to Ethiopia’s intricate ethnic federalism, which allows regions some degree of self-rule while maintaining overarching central authority. This delicate balance could tip. If Fano’s rebellion grows in strength, it could embolden other regions, potentially creating a wider fissure in Ethiopia’s federal system. However, it could also isolate Amhara, as other ethnic groups—particularly those in Oromia, Somali, and Afar—align more closely with the federal government in opposition to what they might perceive as Amhara hegemony.

A Duel of Shadows: Asymmetric Warfare and Long-Term Consequences

The Fano forces, unable to meet the Federal Army head-on, rely on guerrilla tactics—hit-and-run attacks, sabotage, and ambushes. This form of warfare, while far less deadly in the short term, grinds down an opponent over time, making prolonged conflict a costly affair for the central government. Ethiopia’s Federal Army has dealt with insurgent tactics before, notably in the Tigray conflict and skirmishes with the Oromo Liberation Army. Yet, the cost of counterinsurgency is often the erosion of legitimacy, particularly when civilian populations bear the brunt of the suffering.

Fano’s goal is not necessarily outright victory in the conventional sense. Rather, it is to survive, to remain a thorn in the side of federal forces, and to make governance in Amhara costly and unsustainable. As long as Fano exists, the Ethiopian state’s control over the Amhara region is incomplete, and therein lies the psychological battle.

However, this strategy is double-edged. Prolonged guerrilla warfare often leads to the decimation of local economies, civilian casualties, and further displacement, turning the very population that supports the rebellion into victims. If Fano cannot deliver material security or real political gains to the people of Amhara, the romanticism of rebellion may fade into the despair of war fatigue. And here, the Ethiopian state can play the long game, waiting for time to do what bullets cannot—wear down the will of resistance.

Whispers of the Nile: Egypt’s Shadow in the Horn of Africa

In a land where the Nile threads its way through the fabric of history and politics, Egypt’s role looms large. Egypt, forever watchful over the waters of the Nile, sees an opportunity in Ethiopia’s internal discord. For years, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has been the flashpoint of a geopolitical struggle between Ethiopia and Egypt. To Egypt, the dam represents an existential threat to its lifeline—the Nile’s waters.

Somalia’s and Sudan’s dynamics with Ethiopia have long drawn Egypt into their calculations, but now the embers of Ethiopia’s internal strife give Egypt a potential foothold in its northern rival’s most vulnerable regions. Egypt’s support for Somali or Sudanese factions opposed to Ethiopian hegemony is well-documented, but could Egypt’s gaze now turn toward Fano?

Egypt’s ability to influence internal Ethiopian actors is not without precedent. By bolstering Fano’s resistance—whether through financial or diplomatic channels—Egypt could weaken Ethiopia’s focus on the GERD negotiations, distracting Addis Ababa with internal conflict. However, such a move would be risky and might be seen as overt interference in Ethiopia’s domestic affairs, inviting condemnation from the African Union or broader international community.

Still, Egypt’s interests align with any force that can divide Ethiopia’s attention. If Fano receives external support, the conflict could escalate into a proxy war, drawing more actors into an already unstable region.

Learning from the Past: ONLF’s Road to Political Legitimacy

Drawing from Ethiopia’s past, one significant example that offers a poignant lesson for Fano is the experience of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). For nearly 30 years, the ONLF waged an armed insurgency against the Ethiopian government, seeking autonomy or outright independence for the Somali region. The ONLF believed that only through force could they achieve their dream of self-determination. However, after decades of bloodshed, hardship, and the displacement of thousands, they came to realise that the battlefield could never deliver the political legitimacy or stability they sought. In 2018, the ONLF made the critical decision to lay down its arms and engage in peaceful negotiations, transforming from a rebel movement into a legitimate, registered political party. This shift allowed them to gain a seat at the political table and advocate for their region’s rights within the framework of Ethiopia’s federal system.

Fano, much like the ONLF before them, may find that the cost of prolonged insurgency is ultimately too high and unsustainable. The ONLF’s journey illustrates the futility of seeking long-term solutions through the barrel of a gun, and their eventual pivot to political participation demonstrates the power of compromise and dialogue. For Fano, the sooner they recognize the limitations of armed struggle, the greater their chance of sparing Amhara from enduring further bloodshed and loss. Rather than prolonging the conflict and risking greater losses, Fano could consider an early shift toward political engagement, carving out a legitimate space for Amhara’s grievances to be addressed through institutional means. This would allow them to preserve their community’s future while shaping Ethiopia’s political landscape from within rather than from the ruins of protracted warfare.

The TPLF: A Warning From a Former Powerhouse

Another stark example that Fano can reflect on is the trajectory of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), a formidable force in Ethiopia’s political and military history. The TPLF, once one of the most powerful and well-organised insurgencies in the country, played a pivotal role in overthrowing the Derg regime in 1991 and went on to dominate Ethiopia’s federal government for nearly three decades. With vast military resources, strategic alliances, and significant political influence, the TPLF seemed unstoppable. However, when conflict broke out in 2020 between the Ethiopian Federal Government and the TPLF, it marked the beginning of a devastating war that led to catastrophic humanitarian consequences, including mass displacement, destruction, and tens of thousands of deaths. Despite their considerable military power, the TPLF ultimately found that a sustained armed conflict brought more ruin than resolution. After two years of fierce fighting, their fate, like the ONLF before them, led them to the negotiating table. In November 2022, the Pretoria peace agreement signalled the end of the war, marking a tenuous ceasefire, though peace remains fragile and uncertain.

The TPLF’s experience shows that even with superior arms, resources, and entrenched political power, war can deliver little more than devastation. If a force as powerful as the TPLF found itself compelled to seek peace, Fano—despite its deep cultural and regional significance—must take heed of this lesson. Prolonged conflict, regardless of the cause, is rarely sustainable, and the path of peace, though fraught with complexity, offers a more stable and meaningful future. By choosing dialogue over warfare early on, Fano can avoid a similarly costly fate, sparing the Amhara people from the irreversible consequences of violence while positioning themselves as legitimate actors in Ethiopia’s evolving political landscape.

A Dance of Swords or a Song of Peace? The Likelihood of Resolution

In the standoff between Fano and the Ethiopian Federal Army, outright military defeat for either side seems unlikely. The Federal Army has the strength, but Fano has the will of a people with long memories of sovereignty and sacrifice. What remains is a middle path—one of negotiation, compromise, and perhaps, grudging mutual recognition.

The most probable scenario is not the total defeat of Fano but a protracted stalemate that forces the central government to the negotiation table. In exchange for peace, the federal government could offer Amhara political concessions, greater autonomy, or land security guarantees. Yet, any settlement will have to navigate the treacherous waters of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism, ensuring that such concessions do not inflame tensions in other regions.

Conclusion

Ethiopia stands at a crossroads, and Fano’s rebellion, like the chorus of so many regional insurgencies in Africa, speaks to deeper fractures in the nation-state. Whether this will lead to a new political arrangement, a fracturing of the Ethiopian state, or a painful yet enduring peace, only time will tell. The poetry of resistance is seductive, but the prose of governance is relentless. In the end, it is not who sings louder but who builds stronger that will shape Ethiopia’s future.

---

Mohamud A. Ahmed a.k.a Cagaweyne is political analyst, and researcher based in the Somali Region of Ethiopia.