Gavin Esler Quotes

Unilateralism and isolationism are ideological twins.

I think Bush was seen as someone who was disentangling America from the connections that it had with the outside world, that it found encumbering for domestic purposes.

Isolationism is over.

For eight years, you had the Bush administration with a very interventionist policy, driving into world affairs, driving primarily into the Islamic world, army first or fist first.

It is one thing to be against unilateralism and against nonhumanitarian interventionism - but it is quite another thing to be against humanitarian interventionism.

We never used to blink at taking a leadership role in the world. And we understood leadership often required something other than drones and bombs. We accepted global leadership not just for humanitarian reasons, but also because it was in our own best interest. We knew we couldn't isolate ourselves from trouble. There was no place to hide.

As the U.S., the world is questioning why not end it, and so if, in fact, we were to pull out, the world would definitely question why we did this to begin with. But I still believe the world would call upon us for help if they needed it.

There is no reason why we should not have peaceful relations with the world if we cease playing the role of international Meddlesome Mattie.

I don’t consider myself an isolationist. I consider myself a non-interventionist.

An attitude of letting the rest of the world stew in their own juice, is rather a dangerous one, that perhaps in our own interest we may have to take the initiative and have sufficient interest in other people's affairs to really want to help them remain at peace.

There is every prospect that events arising out of our growing foreign investment will present us in the future with decisions involving war and peace, will bring us, whether we like it or not, to concern ourselves with distant causes.

The United States … has never been isolated, never can be isolated, and has no desire to be isolated. The people of the United States are not only ready but willing and desirous to help their fellow-men, especially those of western civilization, in any way that is possible.

I do not want Britain to turn its back on Europe or the rest of the world.

It seems the most common thing for serial interventionists to do these days is to lob the term 'isolationist' at anyone who does not agree with their latest folly, and then set up a straw man about those people not wanting to be involved in the world.

Isolationism is not leadership.

America has been a force for much good in the world. But we should learn from the mistakes of an over-expansionist foreign policy and return to the restraint that George Washington and John Quincy Adams advocated.

The United States will always be a global leader, and we need to actively engage the international community to make sure all citizens of the world live freely and equally under their country's rule of law. We cannot, however, afford to fight other nations' wars interminably or stabilize their regions.

Foreign policy must be about priorities. The United States cannot do everything everywhere.

We must reject the idea of isolationism, . But that doesn't mean we should get involved in every civil war around the world.

We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.

We don't want an America that is closed to the world. What we want is a world that is open to America.

The statesmen still say that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations and yet it is not possible any longer not to interfere, even when we do not mean to do so.

Well, I think the United States first of all has to recognize the world for what it is.

Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and value with all nations.

Any nation that refuses to hold intercourse with other nations must expect to be excluded from this family.