In our recent statement, we underlined that after the failure of a series of measures against the OLA in Oromia, the Abiy regime has resorted to other desperate measures, chiefly using Oromo parties to ease its crisis of legitimacy. Two recurring arguments are being pushed, mainly by the regime, to legitimize the upcoming meetings (negotiations) between the OLF-OFC and the Abiy regime: (A) the assertion that there is no harm in attempting dialogue, as the OLA itself engaged in talks in Tanzania, and (B) the claim that “Northern forces are consolidating their efforts to pose a threat to the government, and therefore, the Oromo must unite to safeguard it.”
A) The Illusion of No Harm in Engaging in Dialogue
1. The False Equivalence Between OLA and Oromo Parties in Finfinnee
The assertion that there is no problem with meeting and talking with the regime, as the OLA did in Tanzania, is fundamentally wrong. The OLA entered negotiations from a position of strength. It commands its own armed forces, has effectively disrupted the regime’s ability to exploit Oromia’s resources, and controls significant tax and revenue bases that the regime depends on. These factors provided the OLA with substantial leverage, enabling it to negotiate on a secure footing and ensure that the interests of the Oromo people were safeguarded in the talks.
In stark contrast, Oromo political parties in Finfinnee lack any comparable leverage. They have been systematically marginalized, prevented from consolidating political power, and stripped of any meaningful tools to pressure the regime. Without leverage, any negotiation is inherently asymmetrical, rendering the process little more than a performative exercise designed only to legitimize Abiy Ahmed and rebuild his dying image in Oromia.
2. The Absence of Neutrality and Third-Party Oversight
The OLA’s negotiations in Tanzania adhered to international standards: they were conducted in a neutral third country, with the oversight of impartial mediators, and in an environment where delegates could freely advocate for the interests of our people. In contrast, the proposed OLF-OFC talks in Finfinnee are to be held under the direct control of the regime, with no third-party oversight.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that negotiations conducted without leverage and under the control of, and financed by, an oppressive regime invariably lead to co-optation or serve exclusively to benefit the regime in power. Abiy Ahmed´s current invitation to dialogue is not an olive branch but a calculated strategy to co-opt the opposition. The outcome of such negotiations is already predetermined to favor the regime—and the regime alone. Abiy Ahmed and his reign of terror are guaranteed to benefit from these talks, regardless of whether they succeed or fail. If the talks succeed, he co-opts opposition leaders, offering them minimal personal concessions while consolidating his power. If the talks fail, he will have still used the process to improve his image in Oromia and beyond, portraying himself as a leader willing to be at peace with the Oromo. Whereas, in both scenarios, the opposition gains nothing.
B) The Myth of Oromo Unity to Protect the Government
It is also claimed that the regime is engaging exclusively with Oromo parties because “Northern forces are consolidating their efforts to pose a threat to the government, and therefore, the Oromo must unit to safeguard it.” Again, the assumptions behind this assertion—and their broader implications—are deeply flawed and problematic.
First, when Abiy Ahmed claims that the Oromo must unite to protect the government, he is attempting to get opposition leaders to indirectly accept the assertion that the current regime is an Oromo government. Despite his repeated efforts to gain legitimacy as “an Oromo government” across Oromia, no amount of ethnic posturing has been able to conceal his true colours. Our people understand that the regime in power not only lacks any mandate from them but is also ledby individuals who have hijacked and betrayed the aspirations and ideals of our movement, with a sordid history of facilitating repression under previous regimes and those with a profound lack of vision or competence in leadership.
At this point, it is clear to all that there is no “Oromo power” to protect. What exists is a repressive system that perpetuates mayhem and oppression of the Oromo people—a system that must be dismantled, not defended. The irony is that while this reality has become undeniable to the public, Abiy is still trying to force this farce down the throat of opposition leaders.
Secondly, this claim is a thinly veiled insult to the Oromo movement. By asserting that the Oromo must unite to protect power from “northern forces,” Abiy implies that Oromo politics is motivated by hatred and animosity toward northerners rather than by legitimate demands and aspirations. This narrative not only insults the historic Oromo struggle, which has always been rooted in legitimate and popular demands, but it is also deeply harmful. It perpetuates long-standing stereotypes that distort the true nature of the Oromo movement.
The Oromo struggle is not driven by hatred; it is a fight for justice, equality, and self-determination. Its principles and objectives are clear and grounded in the pursuit of fundamental rights and dignity for our people, not in hostility toward any group. Abiy’s “Oromo unity” is precisely a portrayal of the Oromo movement as ethnically divisive, a deliberate misrepresentation designed to undermine its legitimacy. The Oromo people’s aspirations are rooted in universal values of fairness and freedom, not in the narrow politics of ethnic animosity.
Thirdly, the notion of forging “unity against the Northerners” with Abiy Ahmed— a man whose “leadership” is defined by shifting alliances, backstabbing, and betrayal—is incomprehensible. At the height of his power, he exploited Amhara support to wage war against the Oromo, targeting the OLA, the OFC, the OLF, and even prominent figures within his own party. That same support base, reinforced by foreign backing, was later weaponized against Tigrayan mothers.
Now, in yet another desperate attempt to cling to power, Abiy Ahmed turns to Oromo parties for a political lifeline. The same man who, just a year ago, posed as a staunch defender of Amhara interests, now claims to champion Oromo unity against “the Northerners.” Here is a rhetorical question to opposition leaders: Across these shifting alliances of the past six years, has Abiy Ahmed ever entered an alliance he did not eventually betray?
In Oromia, time and again, he has proven to be the single greatest obstacle to Oromo unity. There is no unity to be found with Abiy Ahmed. One cannot reclaim what was stolen by searching for it alongside the thief.
Fourthly, Abiy Ahmed is seeking “Oromo unity against the Northerners” as an unimaginable scale of death, destruction, and suffering of our people continues unabated. While elders and opposition leaders exchange pleasantries in the lavish lobbies of fancy hotels and decorated halls in Finfinnee, the regime continues to unleash unprecedented violence against our people.
Therefore, claiming to work for Oromo unity with Abiy Ahmed is simply tantamount to 1) affirming that Abiy indeed leads an Oromo government. 2) Accepting that Oromo politics is driven by hatred, not legitimate issues. 3) Treating Abiy Ahmed as a trusted partner. 4) Endorsing his current actions in Oromia as acceptable. The choice is crystal clear.
OLF-OLA High Command
February 20, 2025