Volodymyr Zelensky: 'We gnawed at the invaders every day', Address to nation, Anniversary of invasion - 2023

24 February 2023, Ukraine

Great people of great Ukraine!

A year ago on this day, from the same place around seven in the morning, I appealed to you with a brief statement, lasting only 67 seconds. They covered two of the most important things, both then and now. The fact that Russia started a full-scale war against us—and the fact that we are strong. We are ready for anything. We will defeat everyone. Because we are Ukraine!

This is how it began on February 24, 2022. The longest day of our lives. The most difficult day in our recent history. We woke up early and haven’t fallen asleep since that day.

Some were afraid, some were shocked, some didn’t know what to say, but everyone felt what to do. There were traffic jams on the roads, but many people went to get weapons. There were queues. Someone was staying in the line at the borders, but many of them—at the military commissariats and territorial defense offices.

We did not raise the white flag, but began to defend the blue-yellow one. We didn’t get scared, didn’t break down, didn’t give up. The border guards from Snake island and the route along which they sent the “Russian warship” became the symbol of [our resistance].

Our faith was strengthened. Our spirit was strengthened. We survived the first day of a full-scale war. We didn’t know what would happen tomorrow, but we definitely understood: we have to fight for every tomorrow!

And we fought. And we gnawed [at the invaders] every day. And we survived the second day. And then—the third. Three days, which were given to us for life. They threatened that we would cease to exist in 72 hours. But we survived on the fourth day. And then then the fifth. And today we have been standing for exactly one year. And we still know: we have to fight for every tomorrow!

I’m grateful to everyone who keeps our resistance going. These are all our defenders. Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ground troops, our infantry and tankers. Air Force and Navy. Artillery, air defense, paratroopers, scouts, border guards. SSO, SBU, National Guard, police, territorial defense—all of our security and defense forces. Thank you, Ukraine still stands. We endured the fierce February and the fierce beginning of the war.

Spring is coming. New attacks, new wounds, new pain. Everyone saw the real nature of our enemy. Shelling of the maternity hospital, the drama theater in Mariupol, Mykolaiv Regional State Administration, Freedom Square in Kharkiv, and the station in Kramatorsk. We saw Bucha, Irpin, Borodyanka. The whole world clearly understood what “Russian peace” actually means. What is Russia capable of?

At the same time, the world saw what Ukraine is capable of. These are new heroes. Defenders of Kyiv, defenders of Azovstal. New feats performed by entire cities. Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Mariupol, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Hostomel, Volnovakha, Bucha, Irpin, Okhtyrka. Hero cities. The capital of indomitability. New symbols. And with that—new assessments and forecasts for Ukraine.

The first month of the war. And the first turning point in the war. The first changes in the world’s perception of Ukraine. It did not fall for three days. It stopped the second army of the world.

We suffered from new blows every day, we learned about new tragedies every day, but we persevered thanks to those who gave their all every day, for the sake of others.

This is all about our medics who rescue wounded soldiers on the front lines, who perform operations under fire, who give birth in bomb shelters, and stay on duty for days and weeks, like our rescuers and firefighters who pull people out of rubble and fires 24/7. And our railway workers, who without sleep or stop have evacuated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians since the beginning of the war.

And then there were the first offensives, the first acquisitions, the first liberated territories. The first and not the last Chornobayivka. The expulsion of the occupiers from Kyiv Oblast, Sumy Oblast and Chernihiv Oblast. Our “Stugna”. “Wilha”. Our “Neptune” and the cruiser “Moscow”, which went to the bottom [of the sea]. The first Ramstein, and the second Lend-Lease in all of entire history.

Ukraine surprised the world. Ukraine inspired the world. Ukraine united the world. A thousand words can be said for the proof, but a few are enough. HIMARS, Patriot, Abrams, IRIS-T, Challenger, NASAMS, Leopard.

I’m grateful to all our partners, allies and friends who stand side by side with us this year. I am glad that the international anti-Putin coalition has grown so much that it needs a separate address. I will make it soon. Necessarily.

I also thank our foreign policy army. Divisions of our diplomats, ambassadors, representatives in international organizations and institutions. All those who beat the occupiers with the fire and sword of international law seek new sanctions, the recognition of a terrorist state as a terrorist state.

The war changed the fate of many families. It rewrote the stories of our families. It changed our customs and traditions. Previously, grandfathers told their grandchildren how they beat the Nazis. Now the grandchildren tell their grandfathers how they beat the Russians. Earlier, mothers and grandmothers wove scarves, now they weave camouflage nets. Earlier, children asked Santa for smartphones and gadgets, but now they donate pocket money and collect funds for our soldiers.

In fact, every Ukrainian lost someone during the year. Father, son, brother, mother, daughter, sister. Beloved person. A close friend, colleague, neighbor, acquaintance. My condolences.

Almost everyone has at least one contact in their phone that will never pick up the phone again. Will not respond to SMS “How are you?”. These two simple words acquired a new meaning during the year of the war. Every day, millions of Ukrainians wrote or asked this question of their relatives and friends, millions of times. Every day someone never received a response.

Every day, the occupiers killed relatives and friends.

We will not erase their names either from the telephone or from our own memory. We will never forget them. We will never forgive this. We will never rest until the Russian murderers are punished: Punishment by the international tribunal, God’s judgment, our soldiers. Or all of them together.

The verdict is obvious. Nine years ago, the neighbor became an aggressor. A year ago, the aggressor became an executioner, looter and terrorist. We have no doubt that they will be held accountable. We have no doubt that victory awaits us.

We felt it in the summer. We have passed 100 days of war. We received the status of a candidate for the EU, returned Snake Island, heard the first “cotton” in Crimea, saw fireworks at the warehouses of the occupier and the Antonov bridge.

August was the first month when the invaders did not take any Ukrainian city. Threats and ultimatums about denazification have changed to gestures of goodwill. And we felt then: our victory is inevitable. It is close. It will be soon.

And then it was autumn, and our counterattack. The liberation of Izyum, Balaklia, Kupyansk, Lyman, Kherson Oblast and the city of Kherson. We saw how people met our military there. How they protected the Ukrainian flag. How they waited for Ukraine.

Now I want to address to those who are still waiting for [liberation]. To our citizens who are currently under temporary occupation: Ukraine did not leave you, did not forget about you, did not give up on you. One way or another we will liberate all of our lands. We will do everything to return Ukraine. And to everyone who is currently forced to stay abroad: we will do everything to return you to Ukraine, to make it possible [to return].

We will fight and return each of our captives. And only this all together will be a victory.

We can see it even in the dark, despite constant massive missile strikes and power outages. We see the light of this victory.

In the memories of the first feelings of February 24, 2022, people mention shock, pain, uncertainty. A year after a full-scale invasion, the confidence in victory is 95%. The main emotion we feel when we think about Ukraine is pride.

Pride in every Ukrainian man and woman. Pride in us. We became one big army. We became a team where someone finds, someone packs, someone brings, but everyone contributes.

I’m grateful to our people, to our multi-million army of volunteers and caring citizens who can collect and get everything we need.

We became a single entity. Our journalists and media are fighting against lies and panic as a united front.

We became one family. There are no more strangers among us. Ukrainians today are all their own. Ukrainians sheltered Ukrainians, opened their homes and hearts to those who were forced to escape from the war.

We withstood all threats, shelling, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, kamikaze drones, blackouts, cold. We are stronger than before.

It was a year of resilience. A year of fortitude. A year of courage. A year of pain. A year of hope. A year of aging. A year of unity.

A year of indomitability. The fierce year of indomitability.

It’s main conclusion: we persevered. We were not defeated. And we will do everything to win this year!

Glory to Ukraine!

Simon Crean: 'As I speak, we are a nation on the brink of war', National Press Club - 2003

20 March 2003, National Press Club, Canberra,. Australia

As I speak, we are a nation on the brink of war.

A war we should not be in.

A war to which 2000 of our fighting men and women were committed many months ago but were told about last Tuesday.

A war to which we are one of only four countries prepared to join the U.S. in putting troops on the ground, despite claims of a coalition of up to thirty.

A war which, for the first time in our history, Australia has joined as an aggressor.

Not because we are directly threatened.

Not because the UN has determined it.

But because the U.S. asked us to.

A war our troops will engage in when Commander Tommy Franks of the United States gives the order.

A war which exposes them to great risk.

A war which will cause great humanitarian damage to innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

A war unnecessary to achieve the disarmament of Iraq because there remained an alternate way.

Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, but this is not the way.

Letter from parents of serviceman in the Gulf

I speak to you today, not only as Labor leader and Leader of the Opposition, but on behalf of millions of Australians who share opposition to this war.

People such as these Australians who wrote me this very moving and powerful letter just a few weeks ago:

Just a short note from us to thank you for at least trying to stop Australian troops from going to war until the United Nations resolution is decided, if at all. Mr Howard is still committing our troops with or without UN approval. He seems to have his mind made up regardless of what the Australian people want or hope…

…sadly ….. he has now been sent away. We just never thought that this might happen so soon. So far as Mr Howard saying no Australians have been committed to the Middle East, we know that is not true. We feel very scared for our son and for all the sons and husbands who have also been deployed.

Thank you again for helping to support the views of most Australians.

The only thing different about this letter from the thousands of other letters, e-mails and phone calls that I have received since the threat of this war became real is that it is from the parents of one of our servicemen in the Gulf.

They, like me, support our troops but not the war.

They don’t just express opposition, they express fear for their son in action and they are dismayed that they have not been told the truth.

The troops should be returned to Australia

I believe the troops should not have been sent and should now be brought home.

I’m not the first Labor leader to say that.

John Curtin did it in 1942 when he fought with Churchill to have Australian troops returned from the Middle East to defend Australia from possible invasion by the Japanese.

And Gough Whitlam did it when he called, from Opposition, for Australian troops to be pulled out of Vietnam.

On both occasions, Labor leaders had the courage to stand up for Australia’s interests.

Australian troops can be brought home, even at this late stage.

It has been done before.

The decision to go to war is wrong. It is reckless and unnecessary.

I will always support our troops

There’s one important thing I want to stress: I oppose the deployment of the troops but my argument is with the Government, not the troops themselves.

I will always support our troops.

And I will speak out against anyone who seeks to blame them for this Government’s decisions.

That’s another of the lessons of the Vietnam War.

I learnt those lessons through personal experience. I have many friends who came back. They came back as pariahs because the demonstrators targeted them. They had no say in it. They did their duty. Then, as now, the demonstrators should have targeted just the Government of the day. Never the troops.

If we’re going to learn anything from these experiences, we can’t repeat the mistakes. That’s why I made the speech on the Kanimbla; that’s why I’ve repeated it on every occasion; and that’s why I’m prepared to put my signature to a letter that restates it so they know and their families know. It’s important.

A strong UN is crucial to Australian Security

If the 21st Century is to be a world where what is right and what is wrong and who is to have weapons of mass destruction and who is to keep them is determined by the great and powerful, a medium-sized power like Australia must ultimately be the loser.

Whether it be disarmament or trade or the environment or combating drug trafficking, Australia’s national interest can only ever be served by us acting through international bodies like the United Nations to ensure a just outcome for all.

If might becomes right, Australia loses.

That’s why we must make our stand for peace on the Charter of the United Nations and never simply follow the great and powerful.

Labor’s commitment to the US Alliance remains strong

I am a strong supporter of our alliance with America.

The alliance is deeply valued by all Australians but nothing in our alliance relationship with the US requires that we join them in this war.

Article 1 of the ANZUS Alliance commits both Australia and America to resolving international conflict through the UN.

I don’t care what commitments John Howard has made to President Bush - his overriding commitment must only ever be to the Australian people.

And if he won’t make that commitment, he should not be our Prime Minister.

The war is wrong because resolution 1441 does not allow a unilateral attack

One of John Howard’s excuses for this war is the claim that Resolution 1441 authorises a unilateral attack on Iraq.

It does no such thing.

Resolution 1441 was passed on the specific promise that the matter would be returned to the Security Council for decision about any military action to enforce it.

It unanimously set out a process for disarming Iraq through the UN. It said that:

Any breach reported by Hans Blix of Mohamed El Baradei would be reported back to the Security Council.

The Security Council would then decide what action would be taken.

The resolution would never have received unanimous approval if it gave authorised military action without a further resolution.

US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said the following:

This resolution (1441) contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force… If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the [Security] Council by UMNOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the [Security] Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

I asked our Prime Minister on November 12 last year whether Resolution 1441 rules out the US taking unilateral action against Iraq before this matter is referred back to the UN Security Council.

He replied that: It certainly requires a reporting back to the Security Council - there is no argument about that.

Our commitment is wrong because it compromises our national independence…

Our commitment to the war in Iraq is also wrong because it compromises our national independence.

The decision to go to war was taken in the Azores by three of the fifteen Security Council members - the UK, the US, and Spain.

Of those countries, Spain has committed no ground troops. Yet their decision committed ours.

The Prime Minister was not consulted. He was told by a phone call from George Bush flying home on Airforce One.

John Howard had signed up months ago, he was always just waiting for the phone call. That’s a disgraceful way to run our foreign policy.

Australia wants a Prime Minister who acts in Australia’s national interests, not just one who responds to whatever the United States wants.

Instead of asking `what about the US?’, he should be asking `what about us?’

Three assurances to the Australian people

I give these three assurances to the Australian people:

1. As Prime Minister I will never allow our foreign policy to be determined by another country.
2. I will never commit to an unnecessary war while peace is possible.
3. And I will never send Australia’s young men and women to war without telling them the truth.

The war is illegal, but our troops have nothing to fear….

Today I am releasing the Legal advice Labor has received on the Government’s decision to commit us to a war in Iraq.

This advice is consistent with the overwhelming weight of legal opinion from international law experts from around the world and here in Australia.

Based on that advice, John Howard’s decision to go to war is not in accordance with international law - but John Howard’s decision does not expose Australian troops to legal action, either at home or abroad.

Labor’s legal advice is important for two reasons.

First, it is clear from recent days that the Prime Minister is trying to use his Government’s legal advice to imply that the decision to go to war has been authorised by the United Nations.

This is simply not true.

And second, because the Government has raised this issue to set up a false argument that those who question the legality of its actions are also questioning the legality of the actions of our troops.

Labor’s legal advice makes it clear that this is an absurd proposition.

The Government is acting illegally, our troops are not.

The decision to go to war is reckless because it exposes us to a heightened threat of terrorism…

The decision to go to war is reckless because it exposes us to a heightened threat of terrorism.

On Tuesday, the Homeland Security Secretary in the United States, Tom Ridge, told his country that the US intelligence agencies had credible information that Al Qaeda will attempt multiple attacks against US and Coalition targets worldwide in the event of a US-led military campaign against Saddam Hussein.

In response, the US Homeland Affairs Department has raised the warning to the American people to the second highest level possible.

And it has initiated a comprehensive set of domestic protection measures - ranging from increased Coast Guard patrols, tighter border security, upgraded airport security and increased public health preparedness.

Today the UK reduced a global terror alert warning the ‘the risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks… will be especially high during military action in Iraq.’

Bob Carr has responded as a leader should - by telling his citizens about the threat they face and acting to protect them.

John Howard says he doesn’t need to do anything.

Two days ago Tony Abbott gave the game away when he admitted that: there is the increased risk of terrorist attack here in Australia…

Tony Abbott has now confirmed what John Howard has always been too frightened to say to the Australian people - that Australia will become a greater terrorist threat than we would otherwise be - as a result of Howard’s policy on Iraq.

The Prime Minister is still in denial. He’s turning his back on the Australian people.

We all have to be alarmed because the Prime Minister is not alert.

The perversity of the situation is obvious. In the name of fighting terrorism, he has made us more of a target.

He has done nothing to address the heightened risk of terrorism to Australia.

The Prime Minister must come out of denial and be honest with the Australian people. What is the risk?

He’s increased security for himself and other Government offices but what has he done for the Australian people?

No briefing for the Leader of the Opposition…

I still have not been able to get a security briefing. He’s hiding it from me, just as he’s hiding it from the Australian people.

Despite Howard’s declaration two days ago that Australia has been committed to war and repeated attempts by my office, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to provide me with immediate security and intelligence briefings.

When Bush declared his moment of truth, Howard went into his bunker of deceit.

ASIO Bill

On the very day Australia may go to war the Government is planning to throw its ASIO Bill back on the table.

We have seen this tactic before.

The Prime Minister would rather play on the fears of Australians than protect them.

If this Government wants tough new powers on terrorism, it should pass Labor’s ASIO Bill today.

Labor will protect Australians and the Australian way of life.

I believe that the best defence against the threats to the Australian way of life lie in the Australian way of life itself - questioning authority, refusing to live in fear, and refusing to sacrifice our rights or our democratic freedoms, which we’re currently being asked to do.

Labor’s plan for improved national security

Because of this heightened fear of terrorism Labor has put together a comprehensive plan to improve the security of our nation and its people.

We have announced new measures to find and track terrorists through better intelligence gathering and assessment.

Labor will establish a Department of Home Affairs, and an Office of National Security, with a new National Security Adviser to plan and direct the national intelligence effort against terrorism.

Labor will make a major new commitment to establishing a Coast Guard - with dedicated new ships - to protect our borders from terrorism, people smuggling and the full range of transnational crimes that threaten our borders.

We believe that more should be done on domestic preparedness, including better training and resources for frontline workers such as police, firefighters and health professionals.

A Regional Summit of Leaders on terrorism

But making Australia more secure at home is only the first step.

We must again make Australia secure in the region, and the world.

Australia faces two key challenges: the war on terrorism and eliminating the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Howard has tried to conflate the two threats, with his erroneous argument that Saddam Hussein could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

He fails to provide any evidence of such a link. He thinks his assertion is enough.

No one believes him. He has no credibility on this issue.

But the regional terrorism threat is real - as the horrific events in Bali last year showed.

Groups like Jemaah Islamiyah, Laskar Jihad and others are determined to use terrorism as a weapon against both Western interests and moderate, secular Islam.

But only 12 months after building a major coalition of countries against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan through the United Nations, the US-led coalition has been reduced to just four.

They failed to get a moral majority then settled for an immoral minority.

We must re-commit to fighting global terrorism.

Labor has been pushing the Government to organise a Regional Summit of Leaders, to come together to discuss and decide on a region-wide response to the terrorism threat.

Howard has done nothing to advance this idea.

Reactivating the Canberra Commission on Non-Proliferation

Eliminating weapons of mass destruction begins with strengthening the existing arms control regimes, under the authority of the United Nations.

We must work ever harder to ensure that countries like North Korea and Iran abide by their international obligations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Howard has never made non-proliferation a strategic objective of his government.

He has offered not a single new initiative or idea to progress disarmament.

He said nothing last year when the Bush Administration decided to walk away from negotiations on the Biological Weapons Convention.

He never talks about the Canberra Commission - Labor’s 1995 initiative to build international consensus to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Howard’s one answer to the threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction is go to war in Iraq.

He completely ignores the growing proliferation threats in our region, including the nuclear crisis in South Asia.

Instead of returning to a position of leadership on these issues, as was the case under Labor, Howard has turned Australia into a follower.

Labor has said we will re-convene the Canberra Commission, with a new mandate to look at the full range of proliferation threats from nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and their ballistic missile delivery systems.

Conclusion

The Australian people do not believe the PM’s claim that he did not commit our troops until Tuesday.

They do not believe he was sincere about getting UN approval for action to disarm Iraq.

And they don’t believe that this war can now be justified or that Australia should be part of it.

I agree with the Australian people.

For the first time our servicemen and women have been committed to a war without the support of the majority of the Australian people.

John Howard has turned his back on them in the same way that he turned it on me in the Parliament on Tuesday.

In doing so I believe he has made a grave mistake.

The Australian people are right, the war is wrong.

Robert Byrd: 'I weep for my country', Speech against Iraq invasion - 2003

19 March 2003, US Senate, Washington DC, USA

I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat U.N. Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, al-Qaida, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to “orange alert.” There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America’s true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Haile Selassie: 'There is no precedent for a Head of State himself speaking in this assembly', League of Nations - 1936

30 June, 1936, League of Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

I, Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia, am here today to claim that justice which is due to my people, and the assistance promised to it eight months ago, when fifty nations asserted that aggression had been committed in violation of international treaties.

There is no precedent for a Head of State himself speaking in this assembly. But there is also no precedent for a people being victim of such injustice and being at present threatened by abandonment to its aggressor. Also, there has never before been an example of any Government proceeding to the systematic extermination of a nation by barbarous means, in violation of the most solemn promises made by the nations of the earth that there should not be used against innocent human beings the terrible poison of harmful gases. It is to defend a people struggling for its age-old independence that the head of the Ethiopian Empire has come to Geneva to fulfil this supreme duty, after having himself fought at the head of his armies.

I pray to Almighty God that He may spare nations the terrible sufferings that have just been inflicted on my people, and of which the chiefs who accompany me here have been the horrified witnesses.

It is my duty to inform the Governments assembled in Geneva, responsible as they are for the lives of millions of men, women and children, of the deadly peril which threatens them, by describing to them the fate which has been suffered by Ethiopia. It is not only upon warriors that the Italian Government has made war. It has above all attacked populations far removed from hostilities, in order to terrorize and exterminate them.

At the beginning, towards the end of 1935, Italian aircraft hurled upon my armies bombs of tear-gas. Their effects were but slight. The soldiers learned to scatter, waiting until the wind had rapidly dispersed the poisonous gases. The Italian aircraft then resorted to mustard gas. Barrels of liquid were hurled upon armed groups. But this means also was not effective; the liquid affected only a few soldiers, and barrels upon the ground were themselves a warning to troops and to the population of the danger.

It was at the time when the operations for the encircling of Makalle were taking place that the Italian command, fearing a rout, followed the procedure which it is now my duty to denounce to the world. Special sprayers were installed on board aircraft so that they could vaporize, over vast areas of territory, a fine, death-dealing rain. Groups of nine, fifteen, eighteen aircraft followed one another so that the fog issuing from them formed a continuous sheet. It was thus that, as from the end of January, 1936, soldiers, women, children, cattle, rivers, lakes and pastures were drenched continually with this deadly rain. In order to kill off systematically all living creatures, in order to more surely to poison waters and pastures, the Italian command made its aircraft pass over and over again. That was its chief method of warfare.

Ravage and Terror

The very refinement of barbarism consisted in carrying ravage and terror into the most densely populated parts of the territory, the points farthest removed from the scene of hostilities. The object was to scatter fear and death over a great part of the Ethiopian territory. These fearful tactics succeeded. Men and animals succumbed. The deadly rain that fell from the aircraft made all those whom it touched fly shrieking with pain. All those who drank the poisoned water or ate the infected food also succumbed in dreadful suffering. In tens of thousands, the victims of the Italian mustard gas fell. It is in order to denounce to the civilized world the tortures inflicted upon the Ethiopian people that I resolved to come to Geneva. None other than myself and my brave companions in arms could bring the League of Nations the undeniable proof. The appeals of my delegates addressed to the League of Nations had remained without any answer; my delegates had not been witnesses. That is why I decided to come myself to bear witness against the crime perpetrated against my people and give Europe a warning of the doom that awaits it, if it should bow before the accomplished fact.

Is it necessary to remind the Assembly of the various stages of the Ethiopian drama? For 20 years past, either as Heir Apparent, Regent of the Empire, or as Emperor, I have never ceased to use all my efforts to bring my country the benefits of civilization, and in particular to establish relations of good neighbourliness with adjacent powers. In particular I succeeded in concluding with Italy the Treaty of Friendship of 1928, which absolutely prohibited the resort, under any pretext whatsoever, to force of arms, substituting for force and pressure the conciliation and arbitration on which civilized nations have based international order.

Country More United

In its report of October 5th 193S, the Committee of Thirteen recognized my effort and the results that I had achieved. The Governments thought that the entry of Ethiopia into the League, whilst giving that country a new guarantee for the maintenance of her territorial integrity and independence, would help her to reach a higher level of civilization. It does not seem that in Ethiopia today there is more disorder and insecurity than in 1923. On the contrary, the country is more united and the central power is better obeyed.

I should have procured still greater results for my people if obstacles of every kind had not been put in the way by the Italian Government, the Government which stirred up revolt and armed the rebels. Indeed the Rome Government, as it has today openly proclaimed, has never ceased to prepare for the conquest of Ethiopia. The Treaties of Friendship it signed with me were not sincere; their only object was to hide its real intention from me. The Italian Goverment asserts that for 14 years it has been preparing for its present conquest. It therefore recognizes today that when it supported the admission of Ethiopia to the League of Nations in 1923, when it concluded the Treaty of Friendship in 1928, when it signed the Pact of Paris outlawing war, it was deceiving the whole world. The Ethiopian Government was, in these solemn treaties, given additional guarantees of security which would enable it to achieve further progress along the specific path of reform on which it had set its feet, and to which it was devoting all its strength and all its heart.

Wal-Wal Pretext

The Wal-Wal incident, in December, 1934, came as a thunderbolt to me. The Italian provocation was obvious and I did not hesitate to appeal to the League of Nations. I invoked the provisions of the treaty of 1928, the principles of the Covenant; I urged the procedure of conciliation and arbitration. Unhappily for Ethiopia this was the time when a certain Government considered that the European situation made it imperative at all costs to obtain the friendship of Italy. The price paid was the abandonment of Ethiopian independence to the greed of the Italian Government. This secret agreement, contrary to the obligations of the Covenant, has exerted a great influence over the course of events. Ethiopia and the whole world have suffered and are still suffering today its disastrous consequences.

This first violation of the Covenant was followed by many others. Feeling itself encouraged in its policy against Ethiopia, the Rome Government feverishly made war preparations, thinking that the concerted pressure which was beginning to be exerted on the Ethiopian Government, might perhaps not overcome the resistance of my people to Italian domination. The time had to come, thus all sorts of difficulties were placed in the way with a view to breaking up the procedure; of conciliation and arbitration. All kinds of obstacles were placed in the way of that procedure. Governments tried to prevent the Ethiopian Government from finding arbitrators amongst their nationals: when once the arbitral tribunal a was set up pressure was exercised so that an award favourable to Italy should be given.

All this was in vain: the arbitrators, two of whom were Italian officials, were forced to recognize unanimously that in the Wal-Wal incident, as in the subsequent incidents, no international responsibility was to be attributed to Ethiopia.

Peace Efforts

Following on this award. the Ethiopian Government sincerely thought that an era of friendly relations might be opened with Italy. I loyally offered my hand to the Roman Government. The Assembly was informed by the report of the Committee of Thirteen, dated October 5th, 1935, of the details of the events which occurred after the month of December, 1934, and up to October 3rd, 1935.

It will be sufficient if I quote a few of the conclusions of that report Nos. 24, 25 and 26 "The Italian memorandum (containing the complaints made by Italy) was laid on the Council table on September 4th, 1935, whereas Ethiopia's first appeal to the Council had been made on December 14th, 1934. In the interval between these two dates, the Italian Government opposed the consideration of the question by the Council on the ground that the only appropriate procedure was that provided for in the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1928. Throughout the whole of that period, moreover, the despatch of Italian troops to East Africa was proceeding. These shipments of troops were represented to the Council by the Italian Government as necessary for the defense of its colonies menaced by Ethiopia's preparations. Ethiopia, on the contrary, drew attention to the official pronouncements made in Italy which, in its opinion, left no doubt "as to the hostile intentions of the Italian Government."

From the outset of the dispute, the Ethiopian Government has sought a settlement by peaceful means. It has appealed to the procedures of the Covenant. The Italian Government desiring to keep strictly to the procedures of the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1928, the Ethiopian Government assented. It invariably stated that it would faithfully carry out the arbitral award even if the decision went against it. It agreed that the question of the ownership of Wal-Wal should not be dealt with by the arbitrators, because the Italian Government would not agree to such a course. It asked the Council to despatch neutral observers and offered to lend itself to any enquiries upon which the Council might decide.

Once the Wal-Wal dispute had been settled by arbiration, however, the Italian Govemmcnt submitted its detailed memorandum to the Council in support of its claim to liberty of action. It asserted that a case like that of Ethiopia cannot be settled by the means provided by the Covenant. It stated that, "since this question affects vital interest and is of primary importance to Italian security and civilization" it "would be failing in its most elementary duty, did it not cease once and for all to place any confidence in Ethiopia, reserving full liberty to adopt any measures that may become necessary to ensure the safety of its colonies and to safeguard its own interests."

Covenant Violated

Those are the terms of the report of the Committee of Thirteen, The Council and the Assembly unanimously adopted the conclusion that the Italian Government had violated the Covenant and was in a state of aggression. I did not hesitate to declare that I did not wish for war, that it was imposed upon me, and I should struggle solely for the independence and integrity of my people, and that in that struggle I was the defender of the cause of all small States exposed to the greed of a powerful neighbour.

In October, 1935. the 52 nations who are listening to me today gave me an assurance that the aggressor would not triumph, that the resources of the Covenant would be employed in order to ensure the reign of right and the failure of violence.

I ask the fifty-two nations not to forget today the policy upon which they embarked eight months ago, and on faith of which I directed the resistance of my people against the aggressor whom they had denounced to the world. Despite the inferiority of my weapons, the complete lack of aircraft, artillery, munitions, hospital services, my confidence in the League was absolute. I thought it to be impossible that fifty-two nations, including the most powerful in the world, should be successfully opposed by a single aggressor. Counting on the faith due to treaties, I had made no preparation for war, and that is the case with certain small countries in Europe.

When the danger became more urgent, being aware of my responsibilities towards my people, during the first six months of 1935 I tried to acquire armaments. Many Governments proclaimed an embargo to prevent my doing so, whereas the Italian Government through the Suez Canal, was given all facilities for transporting without cessation and without protest, troops, arms, and munitions.

Forced to Mobilize

On October 3rd, 1935, the Italian troops invaded my territory. A few hours later only I decreed general mobilization. In my desire to maintain peace I had, following the example of a great country in Europe on the eve of the Great War, caused my troops to withdraw thirty kilometres so as to remove any pretext of provocation.

War then took place in the atrocious conditions which I have laid before the Assembly. In that unequal struggle between a Government commanding more than forty-two million inhabitants, having at its disposal financial, industrial and technical means which enabled it to create unlimited quantities of the most death-dealing weapons, and, on the other hand, a small people of twelve million inhabitants, without arms, without resources having on its side only the justice of its own cause and the promise of the League of Nations. What real assistance was given to Ethiopia by the fifty two nations who had declared the Rome Government guilty of a breach of the Covenant and had undertaken to prevent the triumph of the aggressor? Has each of the States Members, as it was its duty to do in virtue of its signature appended to Article 15 of the Covenant, considered the aggressor as having committed an act of war personally directed against itself? I had placed all my hopes in the execution of these undertakings. My confidence had been confirmed by the repeated declarations made in the Council to the effect that aggression must not be rewarded, and that force would end by being compelled to bow before right.

In December, 1935, the Council made it quite clear that its feelings were in harmony with those of hundreds of millions of people who, in all parts of the world, had protested against the proposal to dismember Ethiopia. It was constantly repeated that there was not merely a conflict between the Italian Government and the League of Nadons, and that is why I personally refused all proposals to my personal advantage made to me by the Italian Government, if only I would betray my people and the Covenant of the League of Nations. I was defending the cause of all small peoples who are threatened with aggression.

What of Promises?

What have become of the promises made to me as long ago as October, 1935? I noted with grief, but without surprise that three Powers considered their undertakings under the Covenant as absolutely of no value. Their connections with Italy impelled them to refuse to take any measures whatsoever in order to stop Italian aggression. On the contrary, it was a profound disappointment to me to learn the attitude of a certain Government which, whilst ever protesting its scrupulous attachment to the Covenant, has tirelessly used all its efforts to prevent its observance. As soon as any measure which was likely to be rapidly effective was proposed, various pretexts were devised in order to postpone even consideration of the measure. Did the secret agreements of January, 1935, provide for this tireless obstruction?

The Ethiopian Government never expected other Governments to shed their soldiers' blood to defend the Covenant when their own immediately personal interests were not at stake. Ethiopian warriors asked only for means to defend themselves. On many occasions I have asked for financial assistance for the purchase of arms That assistance has been constantly refused me. What, then, in practice, is the meaning of Article 16 of the Covenant and of collective security?

The Ethiopian Government's use of the railway from Djibouti to Addis Ababa was in practice a hazardous regards transport of arms intended for the Ethiopian forces. At the present moment this is the chief, if not the only means of supply of the Italian armies of occupation. The rules of neutrality should have prohibited transports intended for Italian forces, but there is not even neutrality since Article 16 lays upon every State Member of the League the duty not to remain a neutral but to come to the aid not of the aggressor but of the victim of aggression. Has the Covenant been respected? Is it today being respected?

Finally a statement has just been made in their Parliaments by the Governments of certain Powers, amongst them the most influential members of the League of Nations, that since the aggressor has succeeded in occupying a large part of Ethiopian territory they propose not to continue the application of any economic and financial measures that may have been decided upon against the Italian Government. These are the circumstances in which at the request of the Argentine Government, the Assembly of the League of Nations meets to consider the situation created by Italian aggression. I assert that the problem submitted to the Assembly today is a much wider one. It is not merely a question of the settlement of Italian aggression.

League Threatened

It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. It is the confidence that each State is to place in international treaties. It is the value of promises made to small States that their integrity and their independence shall be respected and ensured. It is the principle of the equality of States on the one hand, or otherwise the obligation laid upon smail Powers to accept the bonds of vassalship. In a word, it is international morality that is at stake. Have the signatures appended to a Treaty value only in so far as the signatory Powers have a personal, direct and immediate interest involved?

No subtlety can change the problem or shift the grounds of the discussion. It is in all sincerity that I submit these considerations to the Assembly. At a time when my people are threatened with extermination, when the support of the League may ward off the final blow, may I be allowed to speak with complete frankness, without reticence, in all directness such as is demanded by the rule of equality as between all States Members of the League?

Apart from the Kingdom of the Lord there is not on this earth any nation that is superior to any other. Should it happen that a strong Government finds it may with impunity destroy a weak people, then the hour strikes for that weak people to appeal to the League of Nations to give its judgment in all freedom. God and history will remember your judgment.

Assistance Refused

I have heard it asserted that the inadequate sanctions already applied have not achieved their object. At no time, and under no circumstances could sanctions that were intentionally inadequate, intentionally badly applied, stop an aggressor. This is not a case of the impossibility of stopping an aggressor but of the refusal to stop an aggressor. When Ethiopia requested and requests that she should be given financial assistance, was that a measure which it was impossible to apply whereas financial assistance of the League has been granted, even in times of peace, to two countries and exactly to two countries who have refused to apply sanctions against the aggressor?

Faced by numerous violations by the Italian Government of all international treaties that prohibit resort to arms, and the use of barbarous methods of warfare, it is my painful duty to note that the initiative has today been taken with a view to raising sanctions. Does this initiative not mean in practice the abandonment of Ethiopia to the aggressor? On the very eve of the day when I was about to attempt a supreme effort in the defense of my people before this Assembly does not this initiative deprive Ethiopia of one of her last chances to succeed in obtaining the support and guarantee of States Members? Is that the guidance the League of Nations and each of the States Members are entitled to expect from the great Powers when they assert their right and their duty to guide the action of the League? Placed by the aggressor face to face with the accomplished fact, are States going to set up the terrible precendent of bowing before force?

Your Assembly will doubtless have laid before it proposals for the reform of the Covenant and for rendering more effective the guarantee of collective security. Is it the Covenant that needs reform? What undertakings can have any value if the will to keep them is lacking? It is international morality which is at stake and not the Articles of the Covenant. On behalf of the Ethiopian people, a member of the League of Nations, I request the Assembly to take all measures proper to ensure respect for the Covenant. I renew my protest against the violations of treaties of which the Ethiopian people has been the victim. I declare in the face of the whole world that the Emperor, the Government and the people of Ethiopia will not bow before force; that they maintain their claims that they will use all means in their power to ensure the triumph of right and the respect of the Covenant.

I ask the fifty-two nations, who have given the Ethiopian people a promise to help them in their resistance to the aggressor, what are they willing to do for Ethiopia? And the great Powers who have promised the guarantee of collective security to small States on whom weighs the threat that they may one day suffer the fate of Ethiopia, I ask what measures do you intend to take?

Representatives of the World I have come to Geneva to discharge in your midst the most painful of the duties of the head of a State. What reply shall I have to take back to my people?