Ethiopia: Unholy Alliance – How Former Freedom Fighters Risk Somali Region’s Fragile Peace

Addis Abeba — When the boundaries of peace are sketched with unsteady hands and the shadows of past violence loom over a fragile federation, even a single reckless act can redraw the map in blood. The Oromo Liberation Army’s (OLA) recent “extending of hands in revolutionary solidarity” to the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) sends a chilling message across the Somali region’s political landscape: the tremors of conflict are being deliberately set in motion.

There was a moment–brief, fleeting–when I wondered if I should take a breath from writing about the region, from dissecting the fate of the nation. I pondered if the pen, too, deserved its silence. But history does not sleep. Breaking news barges through reflection, geopolitics rattles the door of retreat, and injustice whispers too loudly to ignore. In that resistance, the pen moves again–not as a choice, but as a duty.

This alliance does not merely challenge political decorum; it fractures the foundational logic upon which the Somali region has built its recent stability. ONLF, once a bearer of hope through negotiated peace, now appears to be recalculating its variables–shifting from the calculus of compromise to the geometry of confrontation.

If ONLF is aligning with OLF–a group that continues to engage in violent confrontation–then the equation is no longer political. It is militaristic. It suggests a shift from ballots to bullets, from parliaments to guerrilla encampments. And for a people who have tasted the bitter broth of war, this is not a strategic move–it is a suicidal regression.

Math of Mayhem

Let us imagine Ethiopia’s federal compact as a living equation where stability is the result of peace and dialogue placed above ethnic trust and institutional integrity. The stronger the foundation of trust and the sturdier the integrity of institutions, the more sustainable the balance becomes. But if trust crumbles and institutions weaken, even the greatest sum of dialogue cannot prevent collapse.

Now, enter ONLF’s new alliance into this fragile equation: trust evaporates, integrity buckles, and peace becomes the variable no longer solvable. What was once a manageable formula becomes an undefined and volatile function–a nation at risk of unraveling beneath the weight of its own contradictions.

What is at stake is not just power–but peace. Not just ideology, but lives.

Undoubtedly, the Somali region has grappled with its own internal contradictions–governance that, at times, failed to rise to the people’s aspirations; institutions that trembled under the weight of expectation; and leadership that occasionally veered off course from the compass of moral and democratic integrity.

Choosing destabilization out of dissatisfaction is not resistance–it is the language of vengeance.”

To some observers, it may even seem as though we’ve wandered near the edges of political insolvency, where lofty ambitions outpaced institutional maturity and reforms lagged behind the promises they were meant to fulfill. Though progress has been made–visible and commendable under the stewardship of the current regional administration–much still remains undone, and the journey ahead demands even deeper resolve and structural clarity.

Yet, none of these imperfections–however undeniable, however deeply felt–justify the reckless impulse to set fire to the entire house under the illusion of remodeling it. One does not cure an ailment by crushing the body that bears it. If ONLF harbors genuine grievances, they must be addressed through principled political engagement, not through volatile alliances with armed actors whose history is steeped in destruction.

A movement that claims to stand for the people must first and foremost protect those very individuals it represents. One cannot wear the badge of liberation while clasping hands with those prepared to raze the land. Choosing destabilization out of dissatisfaction is not resistance–it is the language of vengeance. It transforms frustration into a firestorm and historical wounds into weapons of new suffering.

If one were to measure Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s tenure solely through the lens of the Somali region, the truth–unless you reside in another galaxy–speaks with undeniable clarity: the region has witnessed an unprecedented level of peace, inclusion, and political breathing room.

For nearly eighty years, the vocabulary of governance in the Somali periphery was stained with words like Shufta and “Waryaa”–terms that echoed a logic of dehumanization, state-sanctioned violence, and unchecked cruelty. The rulebook of those decades was inscribed with killing, subjugation, endless rapes, arbitrary detention, exploitative campaigns, forced displacement, and the indiscriminate burning of entire villages.

Under the current federal administration, that tragic chapter has been interrupted–replaced by relatively open political space, improved relations with the center, and a federal government more inclined to listen than to invade. This, by no means, suggests perfection. But any honest reading of the Somali region’s trajectory over the last few years would show a departure from violent marginalization toward cautious hope. In this context, the desire by any political group to drag the region backward–to reintroduce the infernal soundtrack of bullets and blood–must be called out for what it is: a betrayal of the people’s progress and a seduction by the ghosts of yesterday.

The people of the Somali region have borne the bruises of conflict for generations. From the scorched plains of the Ogaden to the quiet resilience of displaced communities, they have seen the price of political miscalculations. Today, they stand at a forked path–one that leads either toward deeper democratic maturity or back into the inferno of factional warfare.

Let it be said in no uncertain terms: The Somali people will not be cannon fodder in someone else’s equation for dominance.

The region’s elders, intellectuals, and political leaders–across clan lines and ideological divides–must rise as one voice. Peace is not passive. It must be defended not just with arms but with courage, clarity, and the moral fiber to resist reckless agendas.