US Ambassador’s Shifting Stance on Ethiopia Sparks Diplomatic Controversy

Diplomatic About-Face Raises Questions Over American Policy Consistency

ADDIS ABABA – The United States Embassy in Ethiopia finds itself at the center of a growing controversy following what critics describe as a dramatic shift in Ambassador Ervin Massinga’s public statements regarding the Ethiopian government’s military operations, raising serious questions about the consistency and motivations behind American diplomatic messaging in the Horn of Africa.

The controversy centers on Ambassador Massinga’s apparent retreat from earlier, more pointed criticism of what sources indicate were initially characterized as “drone attacks by the government of Ethiopia” to a significantly more diluted statement issued on May 23, 2025, that broadly calls on “all parties” to prioritize peace while employing notably sanitized language about “disproportionate use of force.”

The Diplomatic Dance

The May 23 statement, obtained by Ethiopian Tribune, presents a carefully choreographed diplomatic message that conspicuously avoids direct criticism of Ethiopian government forces. Instead, Ambassador Massinga’s revised remarks cast a wide net, urging “all parties involved in Ethiopia’s ongoing conflicts—including the federal government, regional armed groups, and opposition factions—to prioritize peace, reconciliation, and the protection of civilians.”

This approach represents a stark departure from what diplomatic sources suggest was an initial, more direct condemnation of specific government military actions, particularly regarding drone operations that have reportedly targeted civilian areas in conflict zones.

False Equivalency or Strategic Diplomacy?

Critics argue that the Ambassador’s reformulated statement employs a troubling false equivalency that places the Ethiopian federal government—with its sophisticated military apparatus, including drone capabilities—on the same moral and tactical footing as regional armed groups and opposition factions with vastly different capabilities and resources.

“The original statement apparently identified specific concerns about government drone attacks, which represent a qualitatively different level of military capability and potential for civilian harm,” noted a diplomatic analyst who requested anonymity. “The revised version conveniently obscures this distinction by lumping all parties together as if they possess equivalent military power and responsibility.”

The watered-down language raises uncomfortable questions about whether the United States is applying consistent standards to all actors in the Ethiopian conflict or whether geopolitical considerations have influenced a more accommodating stance toward the Ethiopian government.

Strategic Ambiguity or Diplomatic Cowardice?

The Ambassador’s pivot to generic calls for “comprehensive transitional justice” and “accountability for all parties” appears to deliberately sidestep the immediate question of whether the Ethiopian government’s reported use of drone technology against civilian targets constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law.

By broadening the focus to include “attacks on schools, health facilities, and water infrastructure” without specifically attributing responsibility, the statement effectively provides cover for government forces while maintaining plausible deniability about American knowledge of specific incidents.

The Missing Context

Notably absent from Ambassador Massinga’s public statement is any acknowledgment of the power imbalance between the Ethiopian federal government and its opponents, or recognition that drone warfare represents a significant escalation in the government’s military capabilities that demands specific scrutiny and potential consequences.

The statement’s emphasis on “unrestricted humanitarian access” and protection of civilian infrastructure, while important, rings hollow when divorced from specific accountability for those responsible for restricting such access or targeting civilian facilities.

Questions of American Credibility

The apparent modification of the Ambassador’s stance raises broader questions about American diplomatic credibility in Ethiopia and the region. If the United States is seen as backing down from specific criticism of government military actions in favor of generic peacekeeping rhetoric, it may signal to other regional actors that American diplomatic pressure is negotiable and subject to political calculations rather than principled human rights concerns.

The timing of the statement’s release—and its notably softer tone compared to initial reports—suggests either a significant misreading of the situation by American diplomatic personnel or external pressure that forced a recalibration of the official American position.

Regional Implications

The controversy comes at a critical moment for Ethiopian stability and American influence in the Horn of Africa, where consistent and principled American leadership is essential for addressing ongoing conflicts and human rights concerns.

The Ambassador’s apparent retreat from specific criticism may embolden other regional governments to test American resolve on human rights issues, while potentially undermining the credibility of future American diplomatic statements in the region.

As Ethiopian Tribune continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding this diplomatic shift, the incident serves as a troubling reminder of the gap between American rhetoric about human rights and accountability and the reality of diplomatic pragmatism when geopolitical interests are at stake.

The Ethiopian people, caught in the crossfire of ongoing conflicts, deserve better than diplomatic double-speak that obscures rather than clarifies American positions on the protection of civilian lives and the prevention of war crimes.