“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks, ”Winston Churchill
The other week, while enjoying a cup of coffee at a café near Piassa, I found myself listening to a group of friends engaged in a lively and spirited debate, their voices animated and full of passion. As they argued, their words echoed and bounced from one point to another: some focused on Donald Trump’s provocative remarks, claiming that Ethiopia’s USD five billion hydropower dam was essentially America’s donation; others brought in Eritrea’s President Isaias Afewerki’s accusations against Ethiopia; and yet another referenced Egypt’s persistent criticisms. The atmosphere was charged, emotions running high, and the conversation veered more into passionate assertion than careful analysis.They were all blaming the Ethiopian Foreign Minister for its lack of response.
I sat quietly, sipping my coffee at the same time listening to their lively exchanges. Their perspectives, though heartfelt, lacked an understanding of the subtlety and complexity of international relations and diplomacy. I felt a strong urge to jump into the conversation, to forward a different view highlighting the importance of strategic silence and measured diplomacy. But I didn’t want to interfere in their spirited debate. Instead, a thought took shape in my mind: to reflect and write about what I was witnessing and hearing.This reflection is rooted in observations that relate to core principles of diplomacy, including understanding power dynamics, exercising restraint, and recognizing one’s strengths.
In the realm of international relations, nations tend to pursue their objectives through diverse and distinct diplomatic styles, shaped by their history, values, and strategic priorities. Some nations adopt megaphone diplomacy, that is, a highly visible and vocal approach that broadcasts positions through public statements, media campaigns, and international platforms. This style aims to sway global opinion, apply pressure, or demonstrate resolve.
While some others choose the path of strategic silence, favouring discretion over declaration. Through quiet negotiation, calculated restraint, and subtle signalling, these states seek to preserve flexibility, avoid provocation, and maintain diplomatic space. The contrast between these approaches reflects deeper philosophies of statecraft, between those who believe in dominating the narrative and those who understand the power of silence.
Take, for instance, the case of Egypt. Setting aside the covert diplomatic engagements, Egypt has consistently adopted a highly public posture in expressing its concerns over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). From the President to senior officials, Egyptian authorities have actively utilized state media and international forums to articulate their position, framing the issue as one of regional water security. This assertive communication strategy appears aimed at shaping international opinion and encouraging diplomatic pressure on Ethiopia.
Eritrea presents a different, yet equally expressive, example. President Isaias Afwerki is known for his in-depth and assertive interviews, often offering detailed commentary on the political dynamics of other nations, while maintaining a reserved stance regarding Eritrea’s internal affairs. In a recent televised appearance on the country’s sole state-run media outlet, he strongly criticized Ethiopia’s internal political trajectory, suggesting it is influenced by external interests. This communication approach reflects a broader diplomatic orientation that emphasizes outward analysis while maintaining discretion on domestic matters.
Quite to the contrary, Ethiopia has generally refrained from making explicit public statements in response to these recurring claims. While the Ethiopian government, particularly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, may have issued some comments privately or through less prominent channels, it has largely avoided direct confrontational rhetoric. This restrained approach has sparked questions and concerns among the Ethiopian public, as expressed by the group of friends in the café mentioned earlier.
Many Ethiopians, driven by a deep sense of patriotism and concern for their country’s interests, interpret the government’s silence as a sign of passivity or indecisiveness. This cautious stance has led to a perception among some segments that Ethiopia is not sufficiently assertive in defending its position on the international stage. The question is: is Ethiopia’s silence, or rather, restraint, intentional? If so, why does it prefer silence over confrontation?
This brings to mind the words of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” This timeless wisdom, though expressed simply, carries deep significance for the art of diplomacy. In the sphere of global diplomacy, not every bark warrants a response, nor does every boast, threat, or provocation necessitate a counter. Diplomacy is not a stage for reactive noise but a deliberate and measured journey toward peace, cooperation, and shared progress. It requires patience, discernment, and strategic restraint to achieve lasting understanding and constructive outcomes.
Given this context, Ethiopia’s decision to adopt a reserved stance appears to be a deliberate strategic choice, emphasizing the protection of its long-term national interests over reactive or inflammatory exchanges. Ethiopia may not need to adopt Egypt’s confrontational rhetoric or mirror its aggressive diplomatic tone. Nor should it resort to the accusatory blame-shifting tactics occasionally employed by Eritrea’s President Isaias. Instead, Ethiopia can maintain a measured and principled stance, one that prioritizes constructive dialogue over escalation, and strategic patience over reactive diplomacy.
This approach seems deliberate, emphasizing a commitment to safeguarding national interests while fostering stability in a region where tensions can quickly escalate. While strategic silence can serve as a potent diplomatic instrument, it carries inherent risks and faces significant criticism.
According to international relations theorists such as Robert Jervis and Joseph Nye, in highly competitive global arenas, a failure to respond swiftly or assertively might result in missed opportunities to shape narratives or safeguard national interests. The Council on Foreign Relations(CFR), one of the most influential nonpartisan think tanks and membership organizations dedicated to analysing U.S. foreign policy and global affairs, emphasizes that excessive restraint can lead to diplomatic isolation or perceptions of disengagement, thereby diminishing a country’s influence. Therefore, the challenge lies in striking the right balance, knowing when to hold back and when to speak out decisively.
Another major point of contention among the group of friends was the inflammatory statement by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam (GERD). His assertion that the $5 billion hydropower project was funded by the United States stunned Ethiopians at home and abroad, as the nation has long prided itself on financing the GERD entirely through domestic resources, without reliance on U.S. aid or international donors. The dam, therefore, represents far more than an infrastructure project; it is a testament to Ethiopia’s determination, self-reliance, and sovereign resolve in pursuing its development goals.
What makes Trump’s assertion particularly concerning is that it was not an isolated remark but the third time he has publicly repeated the same statement, indicating a deliberate pattern rather than an offhand comment. This repetition highlights potential geopolitical undertones and risks complicating Ethiopia’s diplomatic engagements. Given the implications, the assertion demanded a clear response whether through rebuttal, clarification, or another form of diplomatic engagement.
Ethiopia adopted a systematic and calculated approach to the issue, employing indirect diplomatic engagement rather than direct confrontation. Instead of summoning the U.S. ambassador or issuing a strong protest from its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ethiopia has cautiously addressed Trump’s repeated claims, this time through the head of the Renaissance Dam Coordination Office. The official dismissed Trump’s assertion that ‘we funded the dam’ as ‘baseless,’ stressing instead that ‘the dam was financed entirely by Ethiopian resources.’
This was not an act of submission but of strategic discipline. As scholars like Robert Keohane note, developing states often employ institutional bypasses, engaging through specialized or less confrontational avenues to assert their interests without triggering disproportionate backlash. Ethiopia’s choice of messenger, the Renaissance Dam Coordination Office rather than the Foreign Ministry, allowed it to reject the claim unequivocally while minimizing escalatory potential. The African proverb “Do not try to fight a lion if you are not one yourself” distils this wisdom: it is not fear that dictates caution, but the imperative to choose battles wisely and preserve long-term leverage.
Temesgen is a senior Communications Officer by profession, holding a Master’s degree in Diplomacy and International Relations as well as a Master of Business Administration (MBA).
Contributed by Temesgen Damtew
