High Commissioner's Harrell-Bond Lecture at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford

Professor Briddick,
Distinguished academics, students, ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to be here at Oxford University and an honour to deliver this year's Barbara Harrell-Bond Lecture.

And thank you, Professor, for those important introductory words, and to the Refugee Studies Centre for the invitation and for its longstanding contribution to refugee scholarship, policy and protection.

This is indeed a historic University.

A University that understood the value of refugee protection long before the international refugee protection system as we know it today existed.

In the 1930s, as Nazi persecution swept across Europe, Oxford University opened its doors to scholars forced to flee their homes.

Among them were some of the finest scientific and intellectual minds of their generation.

Erwin Schrödinger, who received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1933, found an academic home here.

Nicholas Kurti helped establish Oxford as a world-leading centre for physics.

And Lotte Labowsky went on to build a distinguished academic career.

Oxford gave these scholars a place to continue their work. In return, they enriched this university, advanced human knowledge and helped shape generations of students.

Earlier today, I also met the UK Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband, whose family, like those of scholars, found refuge in Britain as they fled Nazi Germany.

Our conversation reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to international refugee protection and to the Refugee Convention, and was a powerful reminder that those who find safety can go on to shape the future of the very country that welcomed them.

The atrocities of the Second World War, and the mass displacement that followed, brought home to the international community the devastating consequences of persecution and the failure to protect those forced to flee.

In 1951, States came together in Geneva to adopt the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The United Kingdom played an important role in its drafting and was among its original signatories.

Representatives of the UK played an especially important role in drafting Article 33, which enshrined the principle of non-refoulement — one of the Convention’s most important, defining and life-saving provisions.

Seventy-five years after its adoption, I want to begin with a clear proposition.

The Refugee Convention remains as necessary, and as relevant, today.

Its moral imperative remains compelling. Its human purpose remains urgent. And its legal protections remain indispensable.

At its heart is a simple idea: when people are forced to flee persecution and can no longer rely on the protection of their own country, they should not be left without protection.

They must be able to seek and receive international protection. They must not be returned to persecution. And they must be treated with dignity, as people with rights.

I believe this not only as High Commissioner.

I can say I know something of it personally.

I came to the United Kingdom as a refugee.

Here, I found protection and opportunity.

I was able to continue my education, rebuild my life and, in time, contribute.

That experience has stayed with me.

Protection is absolutely crucial at the moment when someone is forced to flee.

But what follows matters too.

Education. The opportunity to work. The chance to participate in society. And eventually, the ability to stand on your own feet.

That is what refugee protection should make possible.

And it reminds us of something else.

The people and communities that offer protection matter too.

Britain has changed since I arrived here. The world has changed. Migration has become a much more contested political issue.

But I believe something fundamental has not changed.

Most people still want to do the right thing in protecting refugees. Despite the increasingly polarized debate, public support for refugee protection remains remarkably resilient.

The latest UNHCR–Ipsos survey, conducted in mid 2026, found that two-thirds - or 66% - of people across 29 countries still believe that those fleeing war or persecution should be able to seek refuge in another country, including their own. In the United Kingdom, that figure is a remarkable 73%.

When somebody is genuinely fleeing persecution, when somebody genuinely needs protection, most people do want them to find safety and to be treated humanely.

But people also expect the system to be fair and credible.

They do not want to see it abused.

We should take both instincts seriously.

They are not contradictory.

A sustainable refugee protection system depends upon holding them together.

We must protect people who need protection. And we must protect the integrity of the system that makes that protection possible.

So this anniversary should not simply be an occasion to celebrate the Convention.

It should be an occasion for honest reflection.

What has it achieved?

Where is the system falling short?

And what must we now do to ensure that refugee protection remains principled, effective and sustainable?

That seems to me especially appropriate for a lecture bearing Barbara-Harrell-Bond’s name.

Barbara challenged conventional thinking about humanitarian assistance, insisting that refugees must be recognised not simply as recipients of aid, but as individuals with rights, dignity and agency.

She was also unafraid to challenge institutions, including UNHCR, when their practices fell short of the principles they were established to uphold.

Institutions such as UNHCR should not fear that scrutiny. Nor should the 1951 Convention.

We should – and will – welcome it.

Because the question before us is not simply whether we believe in refugee protection.

It is whether we are prepared to make it work.

We need to confront the world as it is.

Wars and persecution continue to force millions of people from their homes.

Old conflicts remain unresolved. New emergencies emerge. And many of the countries carrying the greatest responsibility for refugees do so while facing considerable economic and social pressures of their own.

At the same time, asylum systems in many parts of the world are under strain.

And displacement increasingly takes place within broader movements of people.

Refugees and migrants may travel along the same routes. They may use the same smugglers. They may arrive at the same borders.

And they have the same broad sets of human rights which are attached to them.

But they do not have the same legal position. Refugees, because of their particular legal status and need for international protection, benefit from a specific additional protection regime under international refugee law.

That distinction matters.

People move for many reasons.

States have a legitimate right and responsibility to manage migration and control their borders.

We should be clear about that.

But immigration laws, and the way they are applied, must be humane and consistent with international refugee law and human rights.

Decisions must be reached through fair procedures and due process which take into account of the claim of a fear of persecution.

If someone says that returning them would expose them to persecution or serious harm, that claim must be properly examined before removal can take place.

That is not a weakness in immigration control.

It is the rule of law. And it can and should be carried out in a timely, fair and efficient manner, to determine who might be in need of international protection, and thus have a right to remain.

At the same time, we should be equally clear about another point, ladies and gentlemen.

Asylum cannot become a substitute for migration systems.

Where people who do not need international protection resort to asylum procedures, and where those procedures cannot distinguish fairly and quickly between different claims, there are consequences.

Backlogs grow.

Decisions take too long.

People spend months or years in uncertainty.

Governments struggle to manage their systems.

And public confidence weakens.

Those who need international protection can also pay the price.

So we should not be defensive about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the asylum system.

Those who need international protection must receive it.

Those who do not should receive a fair and timely decision.

Once that decision is final and due process has been exhausted, States must be able to apply their immigration laws, including through safe and dignified return, in accordance with international law and human rights law.

There is no contradiction here.

Effective migration management and strong refugee protection should reinforce one another.

Migration control must never be used to circumvent refugee protection.

But asylum should not be expected to carry questions that properly belong to migration policy.

We need functioning immigration systems. And we need functioning asylum systems. We should not confuse the two.

Some of these pressures have led people to question whether the Refugee Convention itself remains fit for purpose.

I believe the diagnosis is wrong.

The Convention was never intended to stop wars.

It was never designed to regulate every form of human mobility.

Its purpose was more precise.

When people lose the protection of their own country owing to a risk of persecution, it ensures that protection is provided by the international community, in the spirit of global responsibility sharing.

That purpose has not become less relevant.

If anything, today's world has made it more important.

The challenge, therefore, is not to replace the principles agreed in 1951.

It is to make them work in the circumstances of 2026; and to help States meet their real challenges in a pragmatic yet legally sound manner.

This includes in particular challenges with mixed and onward movements.

An effective system depends on functioning asylum institutions.

Their task is difficult, but straightforward to describe.

They must determine, fairly, accurately and efficiently, who needs international protection and who does not.

Too many systems struggle to do that.

Some face enormous backlogs.

Some lack sufficient institutional capacity.

Some have procedures so cumbersome that people remain in uncertainty for years.

Reform is absolutely necessary.

But reforming asylum is not the same thing as dismantling it.

Where systems are slow, make them faster.

Where procedures are unnecessarily complicated, simplify them.

Where institutions lack capacity, strengthen them.

Use technology where it improves administration and decision-making, while preserving safeguards.

Speed without fairness is not reform.

But neither should long processes be mistaken for fairness.

A credible asylum system must be able to reach conclusions, fairly and quickly.

Yes, this person requires international protection.

No, this person does not, and as such does not have a right to stay.

That clarity protects refugees.

It supports governments.

And it helps maintain public confidence in asylum itself.

UNHCR has an important role to play.

We remain the guardian of the Refugee Convention.

That means defending access to protection, non-refoulement and the rights of refugees.

It means helping States develop fair and effective systems.

And it means maintaining strong legal guidance.

But guardianship does not mean defending every practice that has accumulated over decades.

There is an important difference between defending principles and defending the status quo.

This, I believe, is one of the greatest challenges facing the refugee system.

One that we have to recognise: humanitarian action is designed to respond to crisis.

People cross a border. They need protection. Shelter. Food. Water. Medical care.

We must respond.

But then the emergency lasts.

A settlement established as a temporary response remains years, sometimes decades, later.

Children are born there. They grow up there. They have children of their own.

Programmes designed to keep people alive become the structure of everyday life.

A ration card substitutes for a livelihood.

A humanitarian clinic substitutes for a health system.

A parallel school substitutes for inclusion in national education.

And temporary arrangements become permanent.

While humanitarian assistance diminishes, and protection is further eroded.

This is the deeper tragedy of prolonged displacement.

It is not only that people lose their homes.

They can lose years of their lives waiting.

Waiting for documentation.

Waiting for permission to work.

Waiting for a decision.

Waiting for resettlement.

Waiting for a life with dignity.

Waiting for peace.

Waiting to go home.

Humanitarian assistance saves lives. It remains essential.

But humanitarian assistance was never intended and designed to become a way of life.

And protecting somebody from persecution cannot mean leaving them indefinitely dependent upon the international community’s humanitarian system.

We have, ladies and gentlemen, become very good at managing displacement.

We need to become much better at resolving it.

This is the thinking behind our 50 by 35 vision.

Today, approximately 14.5 million refugees in long-term displacement in low- and middle-income countries. And dependent on humanitarian aid for their basic needs.

This is truly an unacceptable reality when you find people stuck in camps. Generations growing up without humanitarian assistance.

Our ambition is that, by 2035, we help move half beyond aid dependency through greater self-reliance and pathways to solutions. I acknowledge that it is ambitious.

It needs to be.

This challenge extends far beyond UNHCR’s capacity. Addressing it requires a collective effort across the humanitarian, development and peace nexus.

But let me be very clear about what we are aiming for.

It is not a target to force refugees home prematurely, in an unsustained manner.

It is not a target to reduce humanitarian assistance.

It is a commitment to reduce the need for it.

We cannot claim success because somebody has stopped receiving aid.

We can claim success when that person no longer needs it.

Because she can work and sustain her family.

Because her children are in school.

Because she has documentation.

Because she can participate in the economy.

Because she is included in national systems.

Or because she has found a lasting solution to her displacement.

That is the shift I want us to make.

From managing displacement to resolving it.

There will be no single pathway.

For some refugees, the solution will ultimately be voluntary return, when conditions allow.

For others, it will be local integration.

For some, resettlement or another pathway to a third country will provide the way forward.

And where a durable solution is not immediately available, self-reliance can allow refugees to live with dignity and greater independence while they continue to need international protection.

Self-reliance is not itself a durable solution.

But it restores something extraordinarily important.

Agency.

We can already see what this transition can mean in practice.

In Ethiopia, the direction of travel is towards greater inclusion of refugees in national systems, including documentation, education, health, employment and local services.

That changes the question.

Instead of asking: how do we maintain a separate humanitarian system for refugees?

We begin to ask: how do refugees become part of systems serving the country and its communities as well?

The same principle is important in Kenya too.

The Shirika Plan represents a move away from the traditional model of long-term camps towards greater socio-economic inclusion and a more sustainable approach for refugees and the communities hosting them.

What matters in places such as Kakuma is straightforward.

People want to work.

They want to study.

They want to run businesses.

They want to support their families.

They want to contribute.

But inclusion requires investment.

If a government decides to move from camps towards greater inclusion, the international community must be there with development financing and investment in schools, health systems, infrastructure and local economies.

Otherwise, we applaud inclusion in principle and leave host countries to finance it in practice. Which is not possible.

Uganda, too, has long demonstrated the importance of allowing refugees greater freedom to participate in economic and social life.

But openness is not cost-free.

Countries hosting large refugee populations are providing an international public good.

They cannot be expected to finance it alone.

And these examples point towards the transition we need.

Away, where possible, from parallel humanitarian systems.

Away from permanent dependence.

Towards national institutions.

Towards local economies.

Towards self-reliance.

Towards solutions.

But inclusion in countries of asylum is only one part of the answer.

For many refugees, the deepest hope remains to go home.

When conditions make voluntary return possible, the international community should support it with the same seriousness with which we responded to the original emergency.

Unfortunately, too often, we do not.

We finance displacement and underinvest in solutions.

We help people survive as refugees, less than before, but when opportunities for return emerge, reconstruction, development financing and political attention can arrive too slowly.

And this matters because:

Crossing a border is not a solution.

Return is an event.

A solution is what comes after.

Can a family find somewhere to live?

Can children go to school?

Can somebody find work?

Can identity documents be restored?

Can people access health care?

Can a family remain at home rather than being displaced again?

Those are the tests.

Afghanistan illustrates how difficult this can be.

Large numbers of Afghans have returned in recent years, including people being forced to return under adverse conditions.

This is the largest return movement in recent human history: nearly 7 million people, many under adverse conditions.

This is anywhere from 15-20 per cent added to the original population of Afghanistan.

The challenge is not simply their arrival. It is whether communities can absorb returnees and whether people can rebuild lives amid intense pressure on livelihoods, housing and basic services.

In the case of Afghanistan, you also have the issue of women and girls and their access to education, among other considerations.

And this is precisely where funding matters. UNHCR's 2026 underfunding analysis records sharp reductions in reintegration assistance in Afghanistan, warning that insufficient support can leave returnees unable to establish sustainable livelihoods and increase the risk of further movement. Return without reintegration is not enough.

The world cannot encourage people to go home and then turn away.

The same can absolutely be said about Syria.

Venezuela presents different circumstances, but the same principle applies.

Where people are considering return, we should neither promote it prematurely nor assume that refugees and displaced people never want to go home.

Our responsibility is to help create options.

Protect those who continue to need protection.

Support inclusion for people building lives in countries of asylum.

And when people freely choose to return in appropriate conditions, support their reintegration.

Peace creates an opportunity for solutions.

But an opportunity becomes a solution only when somebody can build a life from it.

Hopefully such an opportunity will soon exist for Ukrainians after more than four years of conflict.

This brings us back to an insight already present in the Convention.

And that is responsibility sharing really must become genuine.

Its Preamble recognises that granting asylum can place heavy burdens on some countries and that refugee problems cannot be addressed without international cooperation.

That principle is perhaps more important now than ever.

Countries hosting refugees are not simply implementing national refugee policy.

They are sustaining an international system.

When they keep borders open, include children in schools, give refugees access to employment, issue documentation, or open national health systems, they are helping maintain international refugee protection on behalf of all of us.

Responsibility-sharing therefore cannot consist only of praising host countries at international conferences.

It must be tangible.

Financing.

Development investment.

Jobs.

Support for education and health systems.

Private-sector participation.

And greater access to third-country solutions.

We cannot ask countries to transform their refugee policies while leaving them alone with the economic consequences of doing so.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There is another reality we cannot avoid.

We are asking more of the international protection system at precisely the moment when fewer resources are available to sustain it.

Humanitarian funding has fallen sharply.

UNHCR has had to make difficult choices. We have reduced costs, reduced our footprint, prioritised activities and undertaken major organisational change.

The financial pressures are real.

But there are also things about our system that need to change regardless of the funding crisis.

There is some duplication.

Too many parallel systems.

Too many processes that consume time and resources without improving outcomes for people.

For sure, we must become simpler and more efficient as an Organisation and beyond.

Through UN80, the United Nations is looking across the system at mandates, structures, management, technology, data, common services, supply chain, and country presence, with the aim of reducing fragmentation and duplication and focusing limited resources where they have the greatest impact.

UNHCR is contributing particularly on common services, supply chains, data and closer complementarity across the system.

The Humanitarian Reset has a related but different purpose: making humanitarian action faster, more focused, accountable and locally led, with simple planning, lighter coordination and stronger country leadership.

I support that direction.

UNHCR itself must change and reform too.

We should be simpler.

More agile.

More field-focused.

We should make better use of national systems and local capacity.

We should share services with other organisations when doing so gives us better results at lower cost.

And we should be clear about where our mandate and expertise add unique value, and where others are better placed to lead.

And we will do that.

But there is also an important distinction, if I may say.

Reform cannot simply become another word for cuts.

And efficiency cannot indefinitely compensate for the lack of resources.

We have an obligation to make every dollar entrusted to us count.

But there comes a point when there is no administrative saving left between a refugee and the protection that person needs.

No restructuring can substitute for shelter when a family has just crossed a border.

No shared service can replace the protection response for a child separated from her family.

And efficiency alone cannot fund the school, livelihood or reintegration support that can make a solution sustainable.

As of early October, UNHCR had approximately US$3 billion available against requirements of US$8.505 billion for 2026, around 35 per cent of requirements. Those figures have human consequences.

Funding shortages affect our ability to respond to emergencies.

Funding cuts are also eroding the protection systems themselves, leaving refugees undocumented and more exposed to exploitation, trafficking, detention and refoulement, while weakening services to address gender based violence, child protection services and pathways to self-reliance.

As refugees become more vulnerable as a result, the inevitable consequences include onward movement in search of better protection.

Onward movements through dangerous journeys that feed the traffickers' business model, that weaken global security, and which create the challenges at the borders of many receiving States.

If the international community, ladies and gentlemen, is serious about reducing dangerous onward movements, it must address what drives them.

That means adequately supporting countries of first asylum and preserving the protection systems, services and opportunities that allow refugees to live safely, with dignity and greater self-reliance, closer to home.

Funding cuts equally affect precisely the activities that can reduce humanitarian dependency over time: documentation, livelihoods, economic inclusion, voluntary return and reintegration. UNHCR's 2026 underfunding analysis warns that shortages are already constraining protection and solutions activities. That creates a dangerous paradox.

If we do not invest in solutions because resources are scarce today, we risk creating greater humanitarian costs tomorrow.

If a refugee cannot work, dependency continues.

If refugee children cannot enter national schools, parallel humanitarian provision continues.

If a family returns without the means to rebuild and becomes displaced again, we have not solved the problem. We have postponed it and created a new one.

Funding emergency response and investing in solutions are therefore not competing choices.

We need both.

When a new emergency erupts, the humanitarian system must have the capacity to act quickly and decisively.

People whose lives are in danger cannot wait for institutional reform.

But from the start of an emergency, we should also be asking how the response connects to national systems, development investment and eventual solutions. This is consistent with UNHCR's existing emergency framework, which calls for a solutions perspective from the outset.

The quality of funding also matters.

We need predictable funding so operations can plan.

We need flexible funding so resources can move when a new emergency erupts or an overlooked crisis deteriorates.

And we need sustained investment capable of taking refugees from emergency response towards inclusion, self-reliance and solutions.

We should – and will – work much more closely with development banks and the private sector.

We should strengthen national systems.

We should put greater resources and responsibility in the hands of local organisations.

But we should not pretend these are substitutes for adequate humanitarian funding.

A host government facing serious fiscal pressures cannot simply absorb responsibilities the international community no longer finances.

A local organisation without resources cannot replace an international organisation without resources.

And development finance cannot replace humanitarian assistance when lives are in immediate danger.

So the choice is not between humanitarian assistance and solutions.

We need humanitarian assistance when people need it, and investment in solutions so that, over time, fewer people do.

That is the financial logic of 50 by 35.

And it should be part of the direction of reform throughout the international system.

And this brings me back to something very fundamental: education.

Education changed the course of my own life.

In 1974, at the age 14, I attended a school at a refugee camp in Iranian Kurdistan

It gave me something displacement can take away: the ability to imagine a future.

For a refugee child, school creates continuity when almost everything else has been disrupted.

For a young refugee, university or vocational training can transform possibility into independence.

Education prepares people for every possible future.

To contribute in the country of asylum.

To take an opportunity elsewhere.

Or one day, when circumstances allow, to return and help rebuild their country.

I am particularly pleased that there are students and scholars with refugee backgrounds here with us today.

Your presence at Oxford demonstrates what becomes possible when protection is accompanied by opportunity.

But for far too many refugee students, higher education remains out of reach.

Not because they lack talent.

Not because they lack ambition.

But because they lack opportunity.

That is why expanding access to tertiary education is one of the priorities I have set as High Commissioner.

UNHCR is developing Aiming Higher, an ambitious initiative bringing together universities, governments, foundations, businesses and refugee networks to significantly expand access to higher education for refugees. We will launch this initiative in early December at the High Commissioner’s Dialogue in Geneva.

And I am particularly pleased that the University of Oxford, with the leadership of Alexander Betts, will be joining us in supporting Aiming Higher. I am deeply grateful for this commitment, and for the enthusiasm with which the University has engaged with us.

I have only been here for a few hours, but already I have been struck by the strength of the commitment and enthusiasm to supporting refugees and expanding their access to tertiary education.

I will leave Oxford tomorrow – and I mean this – genuinely excited about what we can achieve together, building on our discussions, bringing more partners on board, and creating new opportunities for refugees.

As Oxford has been doing:

Universities can provide scholarships.

Recognise disrupted qualifications.

Support displaced academics.

Create pathways for talented young people.

But universities can do something else too.

They can challenge us.

They can test our assumptions.

Do inclusion policies actually produce better outcomes?

Does self-reliance reduce dependency?

Do returns endure?

Do policies designed to protect people actually do so in practice?

And refugees themselves must be partners in that inquiry, not its objects.

I suspect Barbara Harrell-Bond would insist on that.

This brings me to the central argument, ladies and gentlemen, I want to leave with you.

The Refugee Convention remains indispensable.

But defending the Convention cannot mean accepting indefinite displacement as inevitable.

Protection must begin when people are forced to flee.

But from the beginning, we should also ask:

What will enable this person to rebuild?

Can they work?

Can they learn?

Can they enter national systems?

If conditions change, can they return home voluntarily and sustainably?

Can they integrate?

Can they access opportunity elsewhere?

These questions should not begin ten or twenty years into a refugee crisis.

They should begin at the outset.

That is the change I want to see with 50x35 and Aiming Higher.

Not less protection.

Not less humanity.

And not the withdrawal of humanitarian assistance from people who need it.

But a more demanding definition of success.

A refugee protected from persecution but left in dependency for decades is safe from one danger.

But that person has not yet recovered a future.

Our ambition must be greater.

We need a humanitarian system capable of responding immediately when people are in danger.

We need a United Nations that is simpler, more efficient and more accountable.

And we need the political commitment and resources to do what efficiency alone cannot do: protect people in emergencies and create the conditions in which they can rebuild their lives.

Reform and resources are not alternatives. We need both.

And our measure of success should not be how efficiently we manage displacement and humanitarian delivery.

It should be how many people ultimately move beyond dependency.

I began with my own experience.

I came to Britain as a refugee.

When I needed protection, it was there for me.

But Britain gave me more than safety.

It gave me the opportunity to study.

To rebuild.

To participate.

Eventually, to contribute.

And that is exactly the point.

I was protected at a moment of my life.

I was not required to remain defined by that moment.

That is what every refugee deserves.

The Refugee Convention makes protection possible.

Our responsibility is to make the life beyond protection possible too.

So yes, at 75, we should defend the Convention.

We should defend access to asylum.

We should defend non-refoulement.

We should defend the rights of refugees.

But we should do more than defend.

We should make asylum work.

We should support the countries and communities providing protection.

We should stop accepting camps and humanitarian dependency as an inevitable permanent condition.

We should put work, education, self-reliance and inclusion at the centre of protection.

And when opportunities for solutions emerge, we should mobilise political attention, development investment and international cooperation with equal urgency.

Because the tragedy of displacement is that somebody is forced from home.

The greater tragedy is when the world allows that moment to consume the rest of their life.

Barbara Harrell-Bond challenged a refugee system that could diminish the agency of the very people it was created to serve.

That challenge remains with us.

Humanitarian action must save lives.

There is a reason we are gathered here tonight, in this beautiful, historic setting at Magdalen College — the very college that offered refuge to Erwin Schrödinger nearly a century ago.

Let me be clear: each of us has an important role to play. In the research we undertake, the policies we shape, the decisions we make, and the voices we choose to raise when the rights of refugees are challenged.

The generations before us, whose stories we have spoken of tonight, understood what was at stake. They built a system of protection out of the devastation of war and displacement.

Earlier this morning, I met with the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Anna Turley. Both reaffirmed the UK's commitment to the international refugee protection system and the Refugee Convention, and to strengthening it for the future. And protecting it.

That commitment matters. And it is a commitment that all of us must turn into action.

So let us go out and defend that system, make sure it is practical, and serve with the same courage and conviction that Barbara Harrell-Bond showed throughout her remarkable life.

History will remember.

Thank you.