Misframing the Ethiopian Crisis: A Call for Honest Diplomacy in U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. Ambassador Ervin Massinga’s recent statements regarding the crisis in Ethiopia mischaracterize the existential threat faced by the Amhara people, framing violence as a mere internal conflict rather than a campaign of state-sponsored aggression. His remarks delegitimize the Fano resistance and display a misunderstanding of the humanitarian crises. For effective diplomacy, a more honest and clear-eyed approach is necessary to address these issues and hold the Ethiopian government accountable.

In a recent post on X/Twitter, United States Ambassador to Ethiopia, Ervin Massinga, shared a message that, while seemingly focused on promoting peace and humanitarian concerns, has raised significant alarm regarding its portrayal of the current situation in Ethiopia, particularly concerning the Amhara people. The ambassador’s characterization of ongoing violence appears to misrepresent the harsh realities these individuals are facing, inadvertently endorsing narratives that exacerbate state-sponsored aggression. This becomes particularly evident when examining his references to the Amhara and the Fano resistance.

Firstly, the ambassador’s terminology surrounding the situation is deeply concerning. By labeling the conflict as an “ongoing” or “internal” one, it appears to imply an equivalent struggle between factions competing for political power. This simplification is misleading. The context in Ethiopia is not that of a civil war; rather, it reflects a systematic campaign of violence predominantly targeting the Amhara population. The actions taken against them, including drone strikes, extrajudicial killings, and mass arrests, signify a calculated effort of ethnic repression, not merely the aftermath of disorder.

Moreover, while Ambassador Massinga sheds light on suffering endured by internally displaced individuals and disruptions to education and healthcare, he fails to acknowledge the root causes of this humanitarian crisis. Such suffering is not an incidental result of chaos; instead, it stems from state-sanctioned policies aimed at collectively punishing the Amhara people. Describing these issues as side effects of generalized instability misrepresents the intentional and directed nature of the government’s campaign against this specific ethnic group.

Perhaps even more troubling is Massinga’s ongoing effort to delegitimize the Fano resistance. His recent comments urging the group to articulate “realistic and peaceful objectives” unfairly frame them as a wayward militia without purpose. This pattern of language isn’t new; during a speech in May 2024, he previously referred to the Fano as “those that call themselves the Fano,” which many interpreted as an attempt to diminish their legitimacy. Such statements trivialize the historically significant identity of Fano within the Amhara struggle for survival.

Public response to the ambassador’s remarks has been swift and critical. Notable critiques, including open letters published by Borkena, have called his comments “condescending and outrageous.” They emphasize the need for Massinga to recognize the Fano’s legitimacy and historical context instead of succumbing to neutral rhetoric that blames the victims rather than their aggressors.

To forge a path toward genuine peace in Ethiopia, it is imperative for U.S. diplomacy to exhibit moral clarity. Achieving peace cannot depend on vague neutrality or oversimplifying complex situations. Acknowledging the power imbalances present in the country, the specific violence directed at the Amhara, and their valid grievances is crucial. The U.S. must not conflate victims of state violence with those perpetrating it, nor should it provide the Ethiopian government with a shield from accountability through vague diplomatic expressions.

Revising public diplomacy to emphasize the realities faced by the Amhara is vital. True peace cannot thrive in an environment built upon euphemisms and mischaracterizations. Open and honest dialogue regarding the Ethiopian government’s actions against the Amhara people must take precedence if diplomacy is ever to serve as a means of justice.

In summary, the statement made by U.S. Ambassador Ervin Massinga concerning the situation in Ethiopia raises serious concerns about misrepresentation. The ongoing violence against the Amhara people should not be framed as an internal struggle but recognized as state-sponsored aggression. Furthermore, the Fano resistance’s portrayal as a mere militia undermines the broader historical narrative. For peace efforts to be effective, U.S. diplomacy must embrace moral clarity and honesty, directly addressing the injustices faced by the Amhara and holding the Ethiopian government accountable.

Original Source: www.jpost.com