“A vast population, politically independent, and capable of absorbing our products;” that was how Robert P. Skinner, the first official U.S. representative to Ethiopia, described the country 120 years ago.
More than a century later, Ervin Massinga, U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia, testifying before a Senate Committee in Washington in May 2023 described this same country [Ethiopia] as ”significant not only for its strategic location and growing population, but for its economic potential as well as its prominent role in history and the global community.”
He told U.S. lawmakers that Washington seeks a “trusted partner in Ethiopia.”
The U.S. was among the earliest to establish foreign relations with Ethiopia – only Italy, France, and the UK had opened embassies in Addis Ababa before it. Historically, economic ties between the U.S. and Ethiopia have not been very strong. This is evident from the beginning, as noted in a memoir by the first U.S. representative, Robert Skinner, titled “Abyssinia of To-Day: An Account of the First Mission Sent by the American Government to the Court of the King of Kings (1893-1894).” Skinner stated that “the present total amount of foreign trade of Ethiopia is not great,” with total exports and imports reaching only USD 2.3 million, of which the U.S share was a mere USD 1.4 million. He described this amount as “more flattering to the national vanity by its relative proportions than by its intrinsic importance.”
This trend of lower trade volume continues today. However, the U.S. recognizes Ethiopia’s strategic importance in the Horn of Africa. It is also true that the sizeable Ethiopian Diaspora in the U.S. has the potential to significantly impact American elections.
Washington has m aintained a relatively steady approach in its relations with Ethiopia for the past 120 years.
Last week the U.S. Embassy here in Addis recalled, in its official post, Emperor Haile Selassie I’s historic visit to the United States 61 year ago, where he met with President John F. Kennedy. This visit highlighted Ethiopia’s prominent role as an African leader on the world stage at that time.
A key difference, however, is Ethiopia’s fluctuating level of influence in these interactions.
In a remark he made in 2021, Ambassador Jeffery Feltman, a former U.S. Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa, sheds light on how his understanding of Ethiopia evolved.
“As I immersed myself professionally in foreign policy, I learned more of Ethiopian politics and history — I love the story of Negus Dawit I’s 15th century delegation to Venice as an early Global North/Global South exchange among equals,” he said.
At former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s funeral, Ambassador Feltman picked up on a sense of unease among the mourners. This disquiet, which he described as a ‘whispering phenomenon,’ reflected their anxieties about the future of Ethiopia’s political landscape.
Feltman painted a grim picture of Ethiopia’s state. He described the situation as “even more alarming” than just a few months prior (the remark was made in November, 2021), admitting it went beyond his worst predictions.
This dramatic shift is particularly concerning for U.S. diplomats. Ethiopia, once viewed as a “peace exporter” and a key strategic partner in the Horn of Africa, is now embroiled in a situation that U.S. intelligence reports released in February 2024warn could escalate into a major regional conflict.
In hindsight, Ambassador Feltman admitted his priorities as Special Envoy in 2021 would have surprised his 2015 self. “I would have guessed that Somalia, still troubled today, would top the list. I would never have imagined Ethiopia – an exporter of stability via peacekeeping and a longstanding, important partner of the United States – to be consuming the bulk of my time and my conversations with Secretary Blinken and the White House,” he noted.
Ambassador Massinga’s testimony before the foreign affairs committee mirrored the growing concern about Ethiopia’s security situation. He acknowledged the deterioration in security situation of the country and called for the need to contribute towards improvement so as to secure U.S. interests in the Horn.
“I believe we must be ready to support Ethiopia in all ways that further our own policy objectives. Chief among these objectives is security and stability in the Horn of Africa,” he noted back then.
This month marks 120 years of U.S. -Ethiopia diplomatic relations. The current ambassador, who arrived a year ago, commemorated the occasion with a photo exhibition showcasing the historic ties.
However, a more recent event has garnered far greater attention. On May 15, 2024, the ambassador delivered a “Policy Speech on Human Rights and Dialogue” to the media. This speech sparked significant debate among the government, various interest groups, and the political elite. Interpretations varied widely, and the media continues to dissect its message.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs swiftly expressed dissatisfaction, claiming the speech contradicted the “historic and friendly relations.” But what exactly ignited such a heated discussion?
Drawing Parallels
The U.S. Embassy selected a symbolic location for the speech: the former American legation building at Mercato. This historic site, also known as “American Gibbi,” served as a refuge for Ethiopians during the fascist occupation of Ethiopia (1935-1941). Notably, the embassy provided shelter to hundreds of Ethiopians during the horrific ‘Yekatit 12’ massacre in 1937, where an estimated 30,000 of Addis Ababa’s residents were killed over a three-day rampage.
Ambassador Massinga’s policy speech went beyond choosing a symbolic physical location. He further used the setting to draw connections between past struggles and present-day challenges in Ethiopia. He outlined key U.S. human rights policies, emphasizing the importance of protecting human dignity and pursuing peace as essential goals.
The ambassador made a strong comparison, drawing parallels between the current situation in Ethiopia and the fear experienced during the brutal fascist rule of the 1930s.
“Regrettably, many Ethiopians continue to face a similar sense of fear today,” said Massinga. He emphasized the need for urgent action, calling for “genuine and transparent transitional justice” to address these concerns and hold those accountable.
“A security-focused approach will not resolve complex political issues. Detaining and harassing those who criticize the government will not resolve those issues that must be addressed,” he said ostensibly addressing directly those in position.
The Reaction that Dropped the Ball
The Ethiopian government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wasted no time in firing back at the ambassador’s speech. They labeled it “ill-advised” and riddled with “uninformed assertions.”
It blamed the speech for making “allegations” and offering “unsolicited advice” on how to run the country. However, the Ministry’s scathing response was not embraced by many Ethiopian diplomats and international relations experts. They viewed it as rash and unproductive.
Veteran diplomat Teferra Shawl, 82, took a measured approach to the situation. He described the Ministry’s reaction as “simply not thoughtful and not so helpful.” In his view, the ambassador’s speech should be viewed as “concern from a concerned ambassador representing a concerned friendly nation.”
Another seasoned diplomat, Grum Abay, echoed Teferra’s thoughts. He considered the Ministry’s statement “really weak” and lacking substance.
“I am surprised by the surprise. What’s new about such a comment from a U.S. representative?” Grum queried.
Ambassador Grum downplayed the severity of the statement, saying, “It could have been much stronger if we were truly angry.” He compared it to a situation he experienced in 2005.
“Back then, during the election,” Grum recounted, “I was the U.S. desk director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We received intelligence reports that the USAID director had been communicating with opposition leaders. I was ordered to summon him immediately. He was then given 48 hours to leave the country.”
Crossing Lines and Diving into Internal Politics
Concerns have been raised that the U.S. ambassador’s actions in Ethiopia may stray from typical diplomatic protocol and involve the superpower more in Ethiopian politics than is customary.
Upon arrival, Ambassador Massinga embarked on a series of visits to regional states, meeting with presidents and other key stakeholders. This initiative, as stated by the Addis Ababa embassy, aimed to “assess U.S. engagement in the regions” and understand local perspectives. His travels included meetings with officials in Afar, Tigray, and Amhara. These interactions, according to the embassy, “allowed him to better understand the current situation in key regions outside of the capital and assess the impact of U.S. government programs in each region.”
Massinga further extended his outreach by visiting Addis Ababa’s Mayor and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch, Abune Matthias.
“One thing that continues to strike in my time here and traveling around and meeting various stakeholders is just the size and complexity of your country. You have many linguistic groups, religious groups, but different histories and histories among themselves. But when I talk to average people, they are going to move forward together. Don’t necessarily know how, but it’s going to happen,” Massinga told The Reporter.
Yet, concerns about the ambassador’s engagement with local offices bypassing the Foreign Affairs Ministry during his travels have long been there. Standard diplomatic practice, Ambassador Grum stresses, involves coordinating with the host country’s foreign ministry to arrange meetings with local officials. Mentioning his experience in his past ambassadorial roles [in countries like Russia, Italy and Belgium], ambassador Grum highlighted that official communication through the foreign ministry was always required.
“It is all the government’s fault,” says Grum.
For the seasoned diplomat, this lack of communication raises serious concern as the Ministry would not be aware of the details discussed during the ambassador’s visits.
“There is some recklessness and inconsistency in this regard,” said Grum.
Despite the fact that many downplayed the Ministry’s reaction, some still found ambassador Massinga’s speech problematic. Teferra felt the speech could have been more polished in its delivery.
Ambassador Grum, however, focused on the content.
“The key question,” he argued, “is whether the speech contained misinformation, false accusations, or anything similar. Was it truthful? Notably, the Ministry hasn’t denied its accuracy. That’s the crux of the matter. The rest is less relevant.”
A Ministry’s press release that accuses the ambassador’s speech of “factual errors and inconsistencies,” fails to mention a single ‘factual error’ or ‘inconsistency’.
Criticism from the other Corner
Ambassador Massinga’s speech also drew criticism from other groups, particularly for its emphasis on the futility of armed conflict.
“Let me reiterate, there will be no quick wins on the battlefield on any side in Ethiopia. Dragging out the conflict in hopes of achieving one only brings more hurt and suffering on the Ethiopian people with no real result. This is why the time for dialogue is now,” said the Ambassador.
This statement caused unease not only in the government but also for those involved in, or sympathetic to, armed struggles for legitimate causes.
Berhanemeskel Nega, a former diplomat and retired UN official with experience in political affairs, security, conflict prevention, human rights, and humanitarian work across Africa, disagrees with Ambassador Massinga’s assessment. He finds it overly simplistic and impractical.
“As there will be no quick wins, there will also be no quick fixes through distorted ‘National Dialogue’ and ‘Transitional Justice’ processes,” he said in a social media post.
The key difference between the ambassador’s endorsement of national dialogue and the skepticism of local stakeholders might lie in their perception of its flaws. The gap, unfortunately, is vast. Many Ethiopian political stakeholders view these initiatives as mere buzzwords – performative exercises to appease the international community and secure funding, with little genuine commitment and limited expectations of broader success.
“No one denies that, as a matter of principle, political issues should be resolved through dialogue. However, the crucial question is whether the process established by the regime and blindly supported by the West is genuine and trustworthy enough to bring about the desired systemic change in Ethiopia. The answer is NO, it is not!,” Berhanemeskel said.
Despite skepticism among various stakeholders about the effectiveness of national dialogue and transitional justice efforts, the US continues to support these initiatives. Last week, the embassy announced USD 16.5 million in support of the DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration) program, ‘a modest down payment’ according to ambassador Massinga. However, it remains unclear whether this continued support reflects confidence in the process and institutions, or is simply a sign of desperate hope for progress.
“Of course there are problems. You know them far better than I do in terms of how better to move ahead with transitional justice and inclusive dialogue. But I will say, what are the alternatives?” asked Massinga. “I do not have the answer to exactly how national dialogue works given the current circumstances. But I will say, what are the alternatives?”
His policy speech continues to be a hot topic of discussion.
Commenting on this, Massinga says, “I was clear in expressing our point of view. So, I leave it for others to continue commenting if they would like to. That is their prerogative.”
Meanwhile, veteran diplomats are urging their younger colleagues to exercise greater discretion.
“Diplomacy thrives on backchannel communication,” advised Teferra. The veteran diplomat underscored the need to invest in bolstering the ranks of diplomatic corps.
Ambassador Grum, on the other hand, urges the nation to prioritize solving its problems.
“Let’s be realistic,” he said.”We should focus on addressing our dire situation rather than getting overly concerned about external commentary and reacting impulsively.”
