Richard N. Haass Quotes

President Obama's consistent agenda has been to weaken the United States and our allies in pursuit of a more 'balanced' global power structure.

No nation, no matter how destitute, likes to be told how much military "security" to buy.

Many Western officials are comfortable with confrontation, and discount or ignore the rising risks and costs of continued arms modernization. They would be intellectually and programmatically bereft without the focal point of a major "enemy".... Can the West get over its need to have an enemy?

If the United States credibly threatens to treat Pakistan like it does Iran, Pakistan’s leaders would find it best to cooperate.

More and more countries, mostly all countries, do not want large American forces on their soil. That’s a reality. We can live in the denial of that, but we are also living in the reality of that.

An economic version of mutual deterrence is preserving the uneasy status quo between China and Japan.

All small countries have the same problems and concerns about being protected from larger countries and their influences.

It's never easy to be a small country next to a big neighbor.

Geopolitical interests are behind the so-called war on drugs and terrorism.

For the Russians, frankly, it's time that we punched the Russians in the nose. They've gotten away with too much in this world and we need to stand up against them, not just there, but also in Eastern Europe where they threaten some of our most precious allies.

The amount of military force necessary to provide reassurance depends on how dangerous people think the world is. And that I think ultimately depends upon the kinds of government that hold sway in major countries.

We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.

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.

The predominant yardstick of your government is not human rights but national interests.

In international relations, in foreign policy, a great deal has to do with historical circumstances, a great deal has to do with the sense and perception of people.

I have spent time discussing the American political system and current events in Taiwan with the junior diplomats, and they have repeatedly expressed their country's desire to avoid confrontation with China.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.

What Iran wants and what North Korea wants is respect.

But which is the State's essential function, aggression or defence, few seem to know or care.

No nation has friends only interests.

If a country is suspected of going nuclear, you need to understand why. Why does it feel insecure?

NATO expansion and Russian expansion - one leads to the other, and one reflects the other.

The United States and Russia probably do not have common aims and dreams, but they have common worries: Both Washington and Moscow are concerned about the rise of China and are threatened by the rise of radical Islam.

Foreign policy - dealing as it does with the most charged political subjects of all, the safety and dignity of the nation - will always be political terrain particularly vulnerable to distortion and demagoguery.

Great powers engage.