Richard N. Haass Quotes

If I were remaking the United Nations there would only be one permanent representative—the United States because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.

I don't think there is necessarily a contradiction between being a hegemonic power on the one hand and functioning multilaterally on the other.

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.

It’s not a dictatorship in the United States. But it is dictatorial to the rest of the world. Who’s going to say no?

In the United Nations, the United States can almost always get its way…. The United States has the ability to make the United Nations work or not work---if it cares enough.

The U. S. is not the Boss, not the Boss any longer.

Moscow would have to give up its its global aspirations and agree to obey rules that it had played no part in devising. European Commission President Romano Prodi expressed this formula best in 2002: Russia would share with the EU wvweything but institutions..... this meant Russia would adopt EU rules and regulations but would not be able to influence their development.

France had a policy, initiated by General de Gaulle, of trying to turn Europe into what was then called a 'third force,' independent of the two superpowers, so Europe should pursue an independent course.

Having excessive power in the hands of one country meant the fate of the world was too dependent on what happened in that one country.

As complicated and complex and as difficult as we are, the unity of Europe is a pre-condition for a better organized world, and if the European Union would fail or decompose, or other members left, the U.S. would have a more difficult role to play in the world.

Europe cannot be only the receiver of strategic decisions of others, that is China or the U.S.A. We have to be strong ourselves to shape the global rules.

Americans, for their part, must accept that a strong Europe will not be content to simply do America's bidding.

In the past, Germany could rely on the French, the British and, especially, the Americans, to assert our interests in the world. We have always criticized the U.S. for being the global police, and it was often appropriate to do so. But we are now seeing what happens when the U.S. pulls back. If the U.S. leaves the room, other powers immediately walk in. In Syria, it's Russia and Iran. In trade policy, it's China. These examples show that, ultimately, we are no longer achieving either - neither the dissemination of our European values nor the advancement of our interests.

The world has always been a dangerous place. Now it is dangerous in a different way, because the world order that we've known since the end of the Cold War has been radically transformed. All of the institutions that preserved peace and promoted global trade will be weaker - NATO, the EU, NAFTA - and US relationships with other countries will change, too.

It is possible there will be much less support for NATO because there is a lot of identification of the United States with NATO.

In the long march of history, at least two poles of attraction and antagonism have been the norm in world politics. Rarely has only one nation carried the burden of leadership. The unipolar world of the 21st century, dominated for the past two decades by the United States, is a historical anomaly.

All in all, the League of Nations is not inevitably bound, as some maintain from time to time, to degenerate into an impotent appendage of first one, then another of the competing great powers.

The Security Council represents the situation from 1945 - you had the Allies who won the war who occupied that. The defeated guys - the Germans and Japan - were out. The occupied countries had no voice. That was fine in '45, but today, Germany rules Europe, frankly. They are driving Europe but have no voice.

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

Addressing global resentment cannot be put off. If we do not learn to use our predominant power with great restraint, we will antagonize the world.

A lot of people think international relations is like a game of chess. But it's not a game of chess, where people sit quietly, thinking out their strategy, taking their time between moves. It's more like a game of billiards, with a bunch of balls clustered together.

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

Global conditions are far too complex to be able to imagine that they could ever be really controlled by one power.

If there is one great power, and the great power has taken upon itself the right to preempt and is choosing for itself when and in what circumstances it's going to do that, obviously it leads people in the rest of the world to wonder how far this doctrine extends.

It's not possible for two countries to be the leading dominant political power at the same time.