The Performance of Accountability — An Analysis of the Getachew Reda Interview

At Red Sea Round Table, we monitor how history, politics, and moral narratives are engineered in real time. In the most recent interview featuring Getachew Reda — aired on Head-to-Head with Mehdi Hasan — we saw not the steadfast voice of a man seeking justice, but the measured speech of a politician recalibrating his position within Ethiopia’s political hierarchy.

What should have been an affirmation of truth became an exercise in controlled ambiguity. Instead of clarity, we were left with contradictions that raise serious questions about the consistency and integrity of Reda’s original claims.

From Unapologetic Accuser to Cautious Operator

During the height of the Tigray conflict, Reda was unflinching in his accusations, publicly naming Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and alleging genocide, war crimes, and targeted atrocities against Tigrayan civilians. Yet in this recent interview, when asked directly whether Abiy committed genocide, he opted for legalistic evasions. He acknowledged that crimes occurred and may amount to genocide, but avoided identifying who was responsible — a stark contrast to his earlier certainty.

This shift suggests one of two possibilities: either those earlier accusations were exaggerated political weapons, or today's softened tone is a calculated move now that Reda is integrated within Ethiopia’s governing architecture. Both interpretations expose a troubling ethical inconsistency.

The “Friendship” Revelation — A Contradiction in Character

Perhaps the most jarring moment was Reda’s admission that he had been “close friends” with Abiy before the war. Such a claim, left unexplained, undermines the moral gravity of his previous accusations. If he believed his people were facing genocide, how does one reconcile that with personal closeness to the alleged perpetrator?

This revelation forces uncomfortable questions: Was the original allegation about genocide a principled stand, or a strategic escalation? And is his current retreat a form of reconciliation, or simply a tactic for political survival?

The Interview Tone — A Case Study in Political Gymnastics

Reda’s tone throughout the interview was markedly cautious. Rather than offering direct accountability, he relied on generalized statements such as “many actors were involved,” a rhetorical move that spreads blame so widely that no single actor stands responsible. This technique dilutes moral clarity, weakens the momentum toward justice, and transforms accountability into an abstract concept where guilt becomes collective — and therefore, inconsequential.

Implications for Justice and Historical Memory

Reda’s retreat from explicit accusations to ambiguous commentary carries consequences far beyond political optics. When a wartime figure backtracks publicly, it places survivor testimonies under suspicion, slows international investigative efforts, and communicates that truth is pliable — a tool to be reshaped as one re-enters political favor.

In African geopolitics, where historical narratives are often weaponized, this sets a dangerous precedent: testimony becomes negotiable, and accountability becomes a casualty of diplomatic convenience.

Red Sea Researchers' Assessment

From our vantage point, Getachew Reda’s interview was not an act of clarification — it was a strategic repositioning. His contradictions reveal a prioritization of personal and political interests over moral consistency. If his previous accusations were sincere, this new hesitation amounts to betrayal. If they were not, then the global community was manipulated at the height of a humanitarian crisis. Either scenario is indefensible.

The Broader Lesson

This moment is emblematic of a wider trend: power does not merely influence narratives — it rewrites them. Victims are reduced to background noise, while political actors reshape facts to align with their current alliances. When major media platforms amplify softened or contradictory narratives without challenging them, history becomes vulnerable to revision, not by scholars or evidence, but by those seeking reintegration into power structures.

We believe that truth and dignity belong to the victims of war, not to those reinventing their stories to protect political futures. The interview with Getachew Reda revealed a rupture in narrative integrity that cannot be ignored by anyone committed to justice, accountability, or historical accuracy.

We will continue to scrutinize such performances.

History must be shielded from the distortions of power.