Jared Diamond Quotes

The world before 1914 was already a world in which the welfare of each individual nation was inextricably bound up with the prosperity of the whole community of nations.

We were instrumental in creating the United Nations and the World Bank, and now we threaten their health.

We live in an inter-dependent world. An isolated India is not in our interest. Just because we are a large country, we cannot be arrogant and think that we can ignore others. We live in a different era. Terrorism is global and can come from even remote countries. International summits and organizations like WTO take decisions which will bind us and if we are not present in such summits, we may be hurt by the decisions taken.

Globalism began as a vision of a world with free trade, shared prosperity, and open borders. These are good, even noble things to aim for.

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.

In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism.

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.

I'm a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The United Nations has come under the control of outlaw nations and self-serving special interest groups.

The interests of the United States are better served by demanding reform and seeing that reform takes place than by removing our influence from the UN.

How do we get democracy at the international level? That's our problem. and it's essentially the same problem people faced in the 18th Century when they tried to get democracy nationally. Now we need it internationally.

Legislation that would withhold funding for the United Nations is fundamentally flawed in concept and practice, sets us back, is self-defeating, and doesn't work.

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.

In the United Nations, when China entered, we voted on the same position, and since then we have maintained the same position, that position has not changed.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.

Attempts to settle crises by unilateral sanctions outside the framework of U.N. Security Council decisions threaten international peace and stability. Such attempts are counterproductive and contradict the norms and principles of international law.

The United Nations remains our most important global actor. These days we are continuously reminded of the enormous responsibility of the Security Council to uphold international peace and stability.

My job is to prioritize multi-lateralism, and that of course interests Brazil, which is a global player. I'm representing 159 members, and one of them happens to be Brazil.

Here we encounter two conflicting concepts with which we must come to grips in our time: the idea of national solidarity and the idea of international cooperation.

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.

Instead of saying that globalization is a fact, that it's inevitable, we've also got to demonstrate that while the growing interdependence of the world economy is indeed a fact, it's not uncontrollable.

I think the American people, understandably, have sort of lost faith in the United Nations.

The most tragic paradox of our time is to be found in the failure of nation-states to recognize the imperatives of internationalism.

In a globalized world policies based on zero-sum games do not work.

According to the U. N. Charter, the Secretary General is the chief administrative officer, not its chief moralizer.