Moshe Sharett Quotes

When states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act; with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.

Let us face it, the U.N. has failed. It has failed in its mission to promote world peace.

We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN Security Council, has no grounds, including legal grounds.

It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force.

During the three decades of its existence, the effectiveness of the United Nations has, on the whole, tended to decrease, particularly in the field of peace and security and, more generally, all issues in which the developed countries feel they have important stakes.

The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

In the euphoria after the Cold War, there was a misplaced notion that the UN could solve every problem anywhere.

War is not, in itself, a condition so much as the symptom of a condition - that of international anarchy.

So I've gone in and out of the U.N., working on counter-terrorism, on U.N. reform, on peacekeeping, peace and security issues, many things through the years but always with a strong interest in humanitarian issues, and human rights issues as well.

Resolution 1441 does not give anyone the right to an automatic use of force. Russia believes that the Iraqi problem should be regulated by the Security Council, which carries the main responsibility for ensuring international security.

What makes the United Nations an appropriate source of legitimacy for intervention is that it is the only place where the claims of the strong are put through the test of justification in front of the weak.

Every government is in some respects a problem for every other government.

If it must come to war, I argue that the world should respond through the United Nations. This is the best way to give legitimacy to the use of force in these circumstances.

If the American people are to say yes to U. N. peace keeping, the United Nations must know when to say no.

When did the American people decide that U. S. foreign policy should be conducted through the United Nations.

Americans must not be given the impression that they have a duty to go to war against every evil leader in the world and against every transgression of the international order.

If a small, wealthy country, was threatened by a larger neighbor, it could not provide for its own security…. They depended on the peace-loving, large nations. That burden fell to the big 5 powers…. They in turn were given extraordinary powers, especially the power to negate all decisions over the use of military force.

The mobilization of world opinion and methods of negotiation should be developed and used by every nation in order to strengthen the United Nations. Then if we are forced into war, it will be because there has been no way to prevent it through negotiation and the mobilization of world opinion. In which case we should have the voluntary support of many nations, which is far better than the decision of one nation alone, or even of a few nations.

My speculation is that the U.S. does not want to establish the principle that it has to defer to some higher authority before carrying out the use of violence.

If the Australian Government were to associate itself with the United States attack on Iraq, which was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, then we'd put this country at risk.

The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause.

As long as the problem of world reconstruction remains the center of interest for all nations, blocs having similar attitudes will form and operate even within the League itself.

War as Napoleon knew it just not possible any more. However, we're very unlikely to accept or recognize 'world peace' even when we get it.

Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.