Hailemariam Desalegn Quotes

We cannot cede our moral authority to multinational debating societies.

If political leaders want respect, they will begin by enforcing the global rule of law.

Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that I am prime and sole minister in this country, am I, therefore, prime and sole minister of all Europe? Am I answerable for the conduct of other countries as well as for that of my own?

No matter how powerful, countries cannot rule the whole world. The world is ruled by brains, by justice, by morals and by fairness.

No nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations.

We could try and establish a world in which the great and the powerful adhere to that international law which they require ordinary mortals to adhere to. In other words, there is one international law, and even America and even Russia and China and Japan must adhere to it, and Australia must adhere to it.

I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law.

Britain must be the champion of international law.

There was an implicit conviction that the UN would be stronger than the sum of its constituent member-states.

It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals.

The U.N. can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission.

The statesmen still say that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations and yet it is not possible any longer not to interfere, even when we do not mean to do so.

Liberals have been committed to the principles of human rights, international stability, and international justice. They have also sought international solutions to those problems which have demanded collective attention.

Let there be an end to the arrogance of the big powers who miss no opportunity to put the rights of the people in question. Africa's absence from the club of those who have the right to veto is unjust and should be ended.

There are many who criticise the United Nations. And those of us who know this institution well know that it is not immune from criticism. But those who argue against the United Nations advance no credible argument as to what should replace it. Whatever its imperfections, the United Nations represents a necessary democracy of states.

War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals.

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.

Ultimate authority in a global system remains with sovereigns. Governments will not have it any other way: politicians face instant rejection from their electorate if they allow transnational authorities to dictate terms.

The world is full of nations that are part of the community of nations that don't respect rights.

There is a movement to get an international criminal court in the world, voted for by hundreds of states-but with the noticeable absence of the United States of America.

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.

International institutions are composed of governments. Governments control their own military forces and police.

So, the international community are all the countries that are important: the United States definitely everywhere; the European Union because it is very important, and also, they do show a great deal of international responsibility; and then the local players.

What we need now is a Treaty of the World not a Treaty of Rome.