June 30, 1936, Haile Selassie I delivered a speech before the League of Nations, in order to denounce the violation of his imperial borders as well as the unilateral breach of Italy’s commitment not to attack the oldest royal house in the world. Fascist Italy, for its part, falsely claimed that it was obliged to wage war against Ethiopia because the latter had, supposedly, developed a belligerent and aggressive spirit. Here is the poignant speech delivered by the Negusä Nägäst (King of Kings) in Geneva.
Speech of the “King of Kings” Haile Selassie before the League of Nations
I, Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia, am here today to claim justice, this justice which is due to my people, as well as the assistance that was promised to them eight months ago when fifty nations affirmed that an act of aggression had been committed in violation of international treaties. That a head of state should address this Assembly personally is a precedent. But it is also the very first time that a people has been the victim of such injustice and has been delivered, as is the case today, to the mercy of its aggressor. Moreover, never before has a State applied itself with such relentlessness to exterminate a people by barbaric means, in contempt of the most solemn promises made by the nations of the world, namely that toxic gases would never be used against innocent people. It is to support the struggle of a people for its independence, a struggle that dates back to the dawn of time, that the Head of the Ethiopian Empire has come to Geneva in order to carry out this ultimate mission that falls upon him, after having led his armies into battle.
I pray Almighty God to spare other nations the dreadful sufferings that have been inflicted upon my people, and that the military leaders who accompany me have experienced in all their horror. I must inform the representatives of the governments gathered here in Geneva so that they may no longer remain ignorant of the tragic fate reserved for Ethiopia, and because the lives of millions of men, women, and children exposed to mortal danger are in their hands. Indeed, the Italian government has not only engaged in hostilities against combatants, it has above all attacked populations living far from the combat zone, with the aim of terrorizing and exterminating them.
At the beginning, toward the end of the year 1935, Italian aviation dropped tear gas bombs on my armies. They had little effect. The soldiers had learned to scatter and to wait for the wind to quickly disperse the toxic gases. Italian aviation then resorted to mustard gas. Barrels of liquid were dropped on the combat units. But this tactic also proved to be of little effectiveness: the liquid affected only a few soldiers, and the barrels on the ground served as a warning to troops and populations of the danger they represented.
It was at the moment when the maneuvers aimed at encircling Makalle were underway that the Italian high command, fearing a rout, adopted the strategy that it falls to me to reveal to the world. Special sprayers were installed aboard aircraft in order to spread a fine deadly rain over vast stretches of territory. Squadrons of nine, fifteen, even eighteen aircraft flying in single file covered the sky with a thick, persistent cloud. Thus, from the end of January 1936, soldiers, women, children, livestock, waterways, lakes and pastures were constantly under this deadly rain. In order to systematically eliminate all living creatures, to more surely poison water and pastures, the Italian high command organized an incessant ballet of aircraft. This was its principal tactic.
In its report of October 5, 1935, the Committee of Thirteen acknowledged my efforts and the work that I have accomplished. The States had considered that Ethiopia’s entry into the League of Nations should not only once again guarantee its territorial integrity and independence, but also help it to become more civilized. It does not seem to me that in Ethiopia disorder and insecurity are greater today than in 1923. On the contrary, the country is more united and the authority of the State has been strengthened. The actions that I have undertaken in favor of my people would have been more fruitful without the obstacles of every kind raised by the Italian government, which encouraged revolt and armed the rebels. Indeed, as we now know, Rome never ceased preparing the conquest of Ethiopia. The treaties of friendship that Italy signed with me were not sincere and were nothing more than decoys. It claims to have prepared the invasion of my country for 14 years. It now acknowledges that when it concluded in 1928 the treaty of friendship, and when it signed the Pact of Paris prohibiting recourse to war, it did so in order to deceive the international community. The Ethiopian government had, within the framework of these solemn commitments, received additional guarantees in matters of security that were to enable it to advance the process of reforms it had undertaken, to which it devoted all its efforts and which it held so dear.
The Wal-Wal incident that occurred in December 1934 was for me a real thunderbolt. It was evident that it was a provocation on the part of Italy, and I did not hesitate to appeal to the League of Nations. I then invoked the provisions of the 1928 treaty and the principles of the Covenant, while insisting on the implementation of the procedure of conciliation and arbitration. Unfortunately for Ethiopia, it was at a time when a certain government considered that the situation in Europe required that relations of friendship with Italy be preserved by all means. Ethiopia’s independence therefore had to be sacrificed to the greed of the Italian government. This secret agreement, contrary to the obligations arising from the Covenant, considerably influenced the course of events. Ethiopia and the whole world have suffered and are still suffering its disastrous consequences. The first violation of the Covenant was followed by many others. The government of Rome, convinced that it was supported in its policy against Ethiopia, actively prepared for war, telling itself that the concerted pressure that was beginning to be exerted on Ethiopia might not be sufficient to overcome the resistance of my people to Italian domination. Thus, countless difficulties were created in order to prevent the success of the procedure of conciliation and arbitration. Indeed, the procedure encountered all kinds of deliberately erected obstacles. States undertook to prevent Ethiopia from finding arbitrators among their citizens. After the establishment of the arbitration court, it was subjected to pressure to deliver its ruling in favor of Italy. All these attempts were in vain because the arbitrators, two of whom represented Italy, were obliged to unanimously recognize that with regard to the Wal-Wal incident as well as all subsequent incidents, the international community could not hold Ethiopia responsible.
Following this ruling, the Ethiopian government sincerely believed in the opening of an era of friendship with Italy. I extended my hand to the Italian government in all honesty and sincerity. The Assembly was informed by the report of the Committee of Thirteen dated October 5, 1935, of the details of the events that had taken place from December 1934 to October 3, 1935. I will limit myself to citing some of the conclusions of this report, namely numbers 24, 25 and 26.
“The memorandum of Italy (which includes the complaints filed by Italy) had been submitted to the Council on September 4, 1935, whereas the first appeal made to the Council by Ethiopia dated back to December 14, 1934. Between these two dates, the Italian government had opposed the examination of this matter by the Council, on the grounds that only the procedure provided for by the Italo-Ethiopian treaty of 1928 could be applied.
Moreover, throughout this period, the movement of Italian troops toward East Africa continued. The Italian government explained to the Council that this deployment of troops was essential for the defense of its colonies against the war preparations allegedly undertaken by Ethiopia. For its part, my country drew the Council’s attention to the official statements of Italy which, in its view, left no doubt as to ‘the belligerent intentions of the Italian government.’”
Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ethiopian government has sought to obtain a settlement by peaceful means. It invoked the procedures provided for by the Covenant. The Italian government, wishing to adhere solely to the provisions of the Italo-Ethiopian treaty of 1928, Ethiopia gave its consent. It has always affirmed its determination to scrupulously respect the arbitral award even if it were unfavorable to it. It had agreed that the arbitrators should not be seized of the question relating to sovereignty over Wal-Wal because the Italian government had opposed it. My country requested that the Council send observers and declared itself ready to provide all the information that the Council might deem useful to request.
However, once the Wal-Wal dispute had been settled by arbitration, the Italian government submitted a detailed note to the Council in order to support its demand for freedom of action. It argued that cases such as that of Ethiopia could not be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant. It asserted that “since this question touches upon the vital interests of Italy and is of paramount importance for Italian security and civilization,” the Italian government “would fail in its most elementary duty if it did not cease, once and for all, to place its trust in Ethiopia and if it did not reserve for itself full freedom to adopt any measures that might prove necessary in order to guarantee the security of its colonies and safeguard its own interests.”
Such 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 provisions of the Covenant and that it was in a state of aggression. I did not hesitate to declare that I did not desire war, that it was imposed upon me, and that I would fight only to defend the independence and territorial integrity of my country, and that in this struggle I was the defender of all small states exposed to the greed of a powerful neighbor. In October 1935, the 52 nations listening to me today assured me that the aggressor would not triumph, that the provisions of the Covenant would be applied in order to guarantee the primacy of law and the failure of violence.
Today I ask these fifty-two nations to remember the position they adopted eight months ago, on the basis of which I organized the resistance of my people against this aggressor whom they denounced before the entire world. Despite the inferiority of my armament, the total absence of aircraft, artillery, munitions, and medical infrastructure, my confidence in the League of Nations was absolute. I was convinced that a single aggressor could not successfully oppose fifty-two States, among which were the most powerful in the world. Strengthened by my faith in treaties, I had not prepared for war, as was also the case for certain small countries in Europe.
When the danger became imminent, aware of my responsibilities toward my people, I tried during the first ten months of 1935 to acquire weapons. Many governments imposed an embargo to prevent me from doing so, while Italy was granted every facility to transport troops, weapons, and munitions through the Suez Canal. No voice was raised in protest. No measure was taken to put an end to it.
On October 3, 1935, Italian troops invaded my country, and it was only a few hours later that I decreed general mobilization. Given my desire to maintain peace, I had, following the example of a great European nation on the eve of the Great War, ordered my troops to withdraw thirty kilometers from the front so as to avoid giving the adversary a pretext of provocation; the fighting then took place under the horrific conditions that I have described to the Assembly.
In this unequal conflict, on the one hand stood a State of more than forty-two million inhabitants, with financial, industrial, and technological capacity enabling it to produce unlimited quantities of the most deadly weapons, and on the other a small country of twelve million inhabitants, disarmed, without resources, and having as its only asset the righteousness of its cause and the promise of the League of Nations.
What real support have the fifty-two nations that declared Rome guilty of violating the Covenant and committed themselves to preventing the triumph of the aggressor provided to Ethiopia? Has each Member State, as it undertook to do by signing Article 15 of the Covenant, considered that the aggressor had committed an act of war directed personally against it? I had placed all my hopes in the observance of these commitments. My confidence in them had been reinforced by the Council, which had repeatedly declared that acts of aggression must not be encouraged, and that law would ultimately prevail over force.
In December 1935, the Council clearly demonstrated the alignment of its views with those of the hundreds of millions of people across the world who had risen against the proposal to dismantle Ethiopia. It had then been repeatedly reaffirmed that this was not merely a conflict between the Italian government and the League of Nations, and it is for this reason that I refused all the personal advantages offered to me by the Italians, because by accepting them, I would have betrayed my people and violated the Covenant of the League of Nations. I was defending the cause of all small states threatened by aggression.
What has become of the promises that were made to me since October 1935? I have observed with immense sorrow, but without surprise, that three powers attached no value whatsoever to the commitments they had made when signing the Covenant. Their relations with Italy obliged them to refuse to take measures capable of putting an end to the aggression from which my country was suffering.
On the other hand, I was deeply disappointed by the attitude of a certain government which, while professing its unwavering attachment to the principles set forth in the Covenant, nevertheless deployed tireless efforts to oppose their application. As soon as a measure likely to be effective in the short term was proposed, various pretexts were seized upon to delay even its mere consideration. Did the secret agreements of January 1935 foresee this systematic obstruction?
The Ethiopian government has never expected other governments to shed the blood of their soldiers in order to defend the Covenant when their own interests are not at stake. Ethiopian fighters have only asked for the means to defend themselves. On several occasions, I requested financial assistance to purchase arms. It was always refused.
What interpretation can truly be given to Article 16 of the Covenant? What do we mean by collective security?
The use by the Ethiopian government of the Djibouti–Addis Ababa railway for the transport of arms intended for national forces was a risky operation. At present, it is the principal, if not the only, means of transport enabling the Italian army of occupation to be supplied. The principles of neutrality should have prohibited the use of this means of transport by Italian forces, but such neutrality cannot exist when it is known that Article 16 requires each of the Member States of the League of Nations never to consider itself neutral, but to come to the aid, not of the aggressor, but of the victim of aggression. Has the Covenant been respected? Is it respected today?
Ultimately, a declaration has just been made by certain powers before their respective parliaments, among them the most influential members of the League of Nations, to the effect that, since the aggressor has succeeded in occupying a large part of Ethiopian territory, they propose the lifting of the economic and financial sanctions taken against Italy. It is in this context that, at the request of Argentina, the Assembly of the League of Nations has met in order to examine the situation created by Italian aggression. I affirm that the problem with which the Assembly is seized today is far broader. It is not simply a matter of finding a solution to the problem posed by Italian aggression.
It is our collective security that is at stake. It is the very essence of the League of Nations that is at stake. It is the trust that each State must place in international treaties that is at stake. It is the credibility of the promises made to small States that their territorial integrity and their independence would be respected and guaranteed that is at stake. It is the principle of equality between States that is at stake, unless small States are compelled to accept ties of vassalage. In a word, it is the morality of the international community that is at stake. Are the signatures affixed to a treaty of value only so long as the signatory countries have a personal, direct, and immediate interest in it? No subtlety can change the facts of the problem, nor modify the legal foundation of the discussion. It is in all sincerity that I share these reflections with the Assembly, at a time when my people are threatened with extermination, at a time when the support of the League of Nations is capable of preventing the final blow from being dealt to them; am I permitted to speak openly, without reservation, with complete frankness, as required by the principle of equality among all Member States of the League of Nations?
With the exception of the Kingdom of God, no nation on earth is superior to another. If it happens that a strong State believes it can destroy a weak country with impunity, then that weak country must seize the opportunity to appeal to the League of Nations so that it may render its decision in full freedom. God and posterity will remember your decision.
I have been given to hear that the sanctions applied have proved ineffective and have not made it possible to achieve the objectives set. It is entirely impossible, whatever the moment or the circumstances, for sanctions designed to be ineffective and deliberately applied in an inadequate manner to be capable of obstructing an aggressor. It is not a question here of the impossibility of stopping the aggressor, but of the refusal to put an end to the aggression. When, today as yesterday, Ethiopia requests financial assistance, is this an impossible measure to adopt, when it is known moreover that the League of Nations granted, in peacetime, financial assistance to two countries that are precisely those which refused to impose sanctions against the aggressor?
Faced with the numerous violations by the Italian government of all international treaties prohibiting recourse to war and with barbaric military maneuvers, it is with a heavy heart that I must note here that measures have already been taken to lift the sanctions. Does this initiative not mean, in concrete terms, that Ethiopia has been handed over to the aggressor? On the very eve of the day when I was about to make a final effort to defend my people before this Assembly, does this initiative not deprive Ethiopia of its last chances of obtaining the support and endorsement of the Member States?
Is this therefore the leading role that the great powers are supposed to play within the League of Nations, as well as toward each of the Member States, when they assert that it is their right and their duty to guide the action of the League? Placed before a fait accompli by the aggressor, will the States create the dangerous precedent of yielding to force?
Your Assembly will no doubt have presented its proposals for amending the Covenant so that collective security may be better guaranteed. Is it the Covenant that must be revised? What value can a text have if the will to apply it is lacking? Is it not the morality of the international community that is at stake rather than the articles of the Covenant? In the name of the Ethiopian people, in our capacity as a member of the League of Nations, I ask the Assembly to take all necessary measures to ensure the strict observance of the provisions of the Covenant.
I once again rise up against the violations of treaties of which the Ethiopian people have been victims. I solemnly declare before the world that the Emperor, the government, and the Ethiopian people will never yield to force, and that they reaffirm their firm determination to ensure the triumph of law and guarantee respect for the Covenant. As for you, the fifty-two nations that promised the Ethiopian people to help them resist the aggressor, what are you prepared to do for Ethiopia? And you, the great powers that undertook to guarantee collective security for the small States upon which hangs the threat of finding themselves one day in the situation in which Ethiopia is entangled today: what measures do you intend to take? Distinguished representatives of the world, I have come to Geneva to fulfill before you the most painful of my obligations as head of state. What answer shall I take back to my people?
