Anne-Marie Slaughter Quotes

The participation of the Soviet Union in the League of Nations no more transforms the character of the League … than the participation of a Communist in Parliament transforms the character of Parliament.

The Nation is ceasing to be the leading form off the world’s structure; organizations transcending national boundaries are becoming more and more numerous and effective.

We shouldn't discuss the world of tomorrow in terms of becoming a balance to the United States. The real issue is whether the United States will define herself as part of the U.N. system-or not.

The problem with the United Nations is that while democracy within nations is the best available form of government, democracy among nations can be a moral disaster - especially if some nations are not democracies.

I would never play any role in anything that involves the United Nations for obvious reasons.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.

America has a critical role to play as the most powerful member of the world community.

But I believe that the DPKO at this time was very much involved with American administration and was acting, taking on consideration the demand or the recommendation of the American administration. American administration was very powerful.

But I would say if the Security Council is only relevant if it agrees with the United States, then we have come a long way in a direction that I do not like very much.

The United Nations is in need of reform. The Security Council reflects the world exactly as it was 60 years ago—not today.

If governments do not want to work with the U.N. and the international organizations, there is a limit to what you can do. And there is also a limit to patience.

Just as the United States doesn't like others to take charge, other countries also don't like the United States to play a dominant role in the United Nations.

The United Nations is really the League of Nations 2.0

International institutions like the UN can only be as effective as its members allow it to be.

The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations - great or small - to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to be a part of the twentieth century.

The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

U.S. academics and Upper East Side New Yorkers like to think of the United Nations as a place where foreign ambassadors have intellectual discussions about power and world peace.

I thought that the United Nations is a creature of the five super-powers who were given veto powers. I don't like veto powers at all.

I've been involved in and out of the U.N. for many years - in fact my first internship was in 1971, so it goes back a couple of years!

Sadly, I do my homework. I've a soft spot for the boring minutiae. I read the Charter of the United Nations before meeting with Kofi Annan. I read the Meltzer report, and then I'll read C. Fred Bergsten's defense of institutions like the World Bank and the I.M.F. It's embarrassing to admit.

It's very liberating for me to realize that I don't have to step up to the plate with a plot that involves the U.N. Security Council.

There is an ongoing debate about the reform of the U.N. system.

In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism.

The U.N. is one of many competitors in a marketplace of global problem solving.

The sublimated idealism of the Enlightenment, the spirit of the League of Nations and of the United Nations Charter have not proved strong enough to control the aggressive dynamism of nationalism.