By Staff Reporter

A prominent Oromo advocacy organization has formally rejected the newly formed “Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival,” accusing the coalition of failing to acknowledge the historical suffering of the Oromo people and of engaging in political opportunism rather than genuine problem-solving.

In a detailed statement released on 21 September 2026, Advocacy for Oromia outlined its objections to the alliance, which was established on 10/2019 E.C. (Ethiopian Calendar) and claims to represent a broad coalition of Ethiopian peoples against the current government.

The Alliance’s Platform

The Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival presents itself as a unified front against what it describes as a regime that has institutionalized national and religious divisions. Its stated objectives include removing the current government through “any means necessary,” establishing a transitional government, ensuring security for all citizens, and rebuilding the economy. The alliance explicitly calls for the right to self-determination for seven major national groups: Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, and Gambella.

The alliance’s rhetoric is sweeping: “We have reached a point where we must unite to save ourselves and our country,” reads its preamble, which accuses the current regime of fueling conflicts, engaging in widespread human rights violations, and pushing the country to the brink of disaster.

The Oromo Rejection

Advocacy for Oromia, however, sees the alliance as fundamentally flawed. In its statement, the organization argues that the coalition’s generic language about “immense suffering” and “widespread displacement” deliberately avoids naming the Oromo people as specific victims of systemic oppression.

“The harm includes, but is not limited to, land dispossession, political marginalization, cultural suppression, and economic exploitation under successive Ethiopian regimes—the imperial era, the Derg regime, the EPRDF administration, and continuing under the current government,” the statement reads. “This omission is not accidental; it reflects a deliberate refusal to centre Oromo historical trauma within the alliance’s political framework.”

The advocacy group further accuses the alliance of refusing to accept the reality of systemic oppression inflicted upon the Oromo people by past regimes. Rather than demanding accountability for historical wrongs, the alliance frames the current crisis as a departure from an otherwise acceptable trajectory—a framing that Advocacy for Oromia rejects outright.

A Question of Strategy

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental strategic disagreement within Ethiopian opposition politics: whether to prioritize unity against a common enemy or to insist upon historical justice as a precondition for any alliance.

The alliance positions itself as a broad-based coalition, calling for unity among Ethiopia’s diverse national groups to confront a shared adversary. Its document lists self-determination for multiple peoples and declares that “the unity of the Ethiopian peoples is paramount.”

Advocacy for Oromia, however, argues that without acknowledging past wrongs, any coalition risks reproducing the same structural injustices that have historically subjugated the Oromo people. “Formal recognition of Oromo rights within a reformed Ethiopian state is insufficient,” the statement asserts. “What is required is transformative justice that addresses the structural legacy of Oromo dispossession and abuses.”

The “Survival” Critique

The advocacy group also takes issue with the alliance’s very name. In the original Oromo statement, Advocacy for Oromia notes that the alliance is called “Survival”—a designation the group argues reveals its limited and inadequate scope.

“The alliance is named ‘Survival,’ which reveals its limited and inadequate scope,” the statement reads. “It is not founded to genuinely resolve the country’s problems, but rather to engage in political maneuvering and gamesmanship.”

This critique suggests that the alliance’s focus on mere survival—bare existence—falls far short of the Oromo struggle for liberation, justice, and systemic transformation.

Political Opportunism Alleged

The most serious charge leveled by Advocacy for Oromia is that the alliance is a vehicle for political opportunism. The group points to the alliance’s inclusion of multiple ethnic groups and its call for armed struggle as evidence of a framework that “superficially accommodates Oromo demands while failing to address the fundamental historical injustice against the Oromo people.”

“This framework offers only formal recognition, not substantive transformation,” the statement argues.

Advocacy for Oromia explicitly rejects any pan-Ethiopian initiative that does not subordinate itself to Oromo nationalist priorities, describing the alliance’s refusal to do so as exposing it “as a vehicle for political opportunism rather than a genuine instrument for liberating the Oromo people.”

An Unresolved Contradiction

The advocacy group also highlights what it sees as a contradiction within the alliance’s logic. The alliance’s stated objective is to remove the current regime—which Advocacy for Oromia notes is itself a product of past systems of Oromo oppression.

“If the alliance succeeds in dismantling the current order, does that not constitute a form of accountability?” the statement asks rhetorically. “Removal without acknowledgment and redress is insufficient. True liberation requires not merely a change of personnel but a reckoning with the structural foundations of Oromo subjugation.”

The Broader Context

The rejection of the alliance reflects long-standing tensions within Ethiopian opposition politics. The Oromo people, Ethiopia’s largest national group, have historically experienced marginalization and dispossession under successive regimes. The emergence of Oromo nationalist movements—both peaceful and armed—has challenged the centralized Ethiopian state, demanding greater autonomy, self-determination, and historical justice.

The Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival appears to be an attempt to bridge these divides, bringing together diverse national groups under a common banner. But Advocacy for Oromia’s rejection suggests that such efforts will face significant obstacles, particularly when they require subordinating specific historical grievances to a broader, more generic narrative of national suffering.

The Unanswered Question

The statement from Advocacy for Oromia leaves an important question unresolved: can Oromo liberation be achieved through alliance with other Ethiopian peoples, or does it require a separate, Oromo-centred path?

The group clearly leans toward the latter, but does not fully grapple with the strategic costs of that position—including potential isolation, the difficulty of achieving liberation without allies, and the risk of perpetuating the very divisions that have historically weakened Ethiopian opposition movements.

For now, Advocacy for Oromia’s rejection of the alliance stands as a clear statement of its position: any coalition that does not explicitly centre Oromo historical suffering and commit to its redress cannot be trusted.

Advocacy for Oromia formally rejects the “Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival” as an unsuitable vehicle for the liberation and advancement of the Oromo people.