J. B. Priestley Quotes

You cannot treat with all the world at once.

On issues like Ukraine, on issues like Syria, we've had very significant differences [with Russia].

There are nearly 200 countries and a population of over 6 billion in today's world. International affairs should be addressed by all countries through consultations rather than monopolised by a few powers.

American foreign policy, for all its shortcomings, has underpinned political stability around the world.

The U.N. is much more than the case of Iraq.

Foreign policy is all about a universe of bad decisions, imperfect decisions; every situation is different. The dynamics, the atmospherics, the people, the pressures, the geopolitical realities shift.

Unilateral preemption should not in any way be the model for how we conduct international relations.

In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is - or should be - counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others.

An increasingly multipolar world requires an entirely different kind of U.S. foreign policy: far from being unilateralist, it necessitates a complex form of power-sharing on both a global and regional basis.

Of course what is talked about in the U.N. General Assembly is very important. Officials, the leaders of nations, appear there to speak of the most important topics - what they perceive to be the most important topics.

I've been quite involved in a lot of U.N. operations over the years. I was a U.N. observer at the East Timor referendum in 2000. I've been very involved in that for a long time.

It is a commonplace that the League of Nations is not yet-what its most enthusiastic protagonists intended it to be.

The clever, albeit fragile, coalition against terrorism brought together by the U.S. government might be able to advance the transition from classical international law to a cosmopolitan order.

Free nations with different histories, economies and a vast amount of stubborn pride will never achieve complete agreement, even when they desire the same objectives.

There are big issues, like the reform of the Security Council. These kinds of questions are something the President of the General Assembly must keep his eye on.

Our talks in Paris tackled economic, democratic, security and political issues; we talked on means for combating terrorism, in addition to latest regional and international developments of mutual interest, especially those in region.

Of course the United States and Russia have different interests. Nevertheless, both are strategic partners.

I have a lot of interests in global issues, as you know, humanity, inequity, arms control, and I continue to be active on all these issues.

I very much hope that the United States will finally... realise that they can no longer act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner in every part of the world and that they need to cooperate to resolve issues.

The logic of collective security is flawless, provided it can be made to work under the conditions prevailing on the international scene... The odds, however, are strongly against such a possibility.

The time draws near, when a radical change must take place for the whole world in the management of diplomacy.

Intervention continues to be a prominent dimension of the post-cold war world.

Between major countries, there certainly always are some common ground and points of tension.

If I was in office, I'd get together all the chiefs and all the heads and chiefs of staffs of all the countries and explain to them like, 'This is how it's going to be. We need y'all oil and water. Y'all need our money and technology. Now, what y'all gon' do?'

Of course the UN brings in a lot of moral authority.