Jeane Kirkpatrick Quotes

Now, the United Nations is an organization that I believe was founded with good intentions. As a matter of fact, a prominent Tennessean named Cordell Hull was very involved with it.

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

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

World government is a premature concept at this stage. We are moving more and more into supernational arrangements, but it is too early still.

The sublimated idealism of the Enlightenment, the spirit of the League of Nations and of the United Nations Charter have not proved strong enough to control the aggressive dynamism of nationalism.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.

If governments do not want to work with the U.N. and the international organizations, there is a limit to what you can do. And there is also a limit to patience.

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

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.

The liberal vision of America is that it should be less arrogant, less unilateral, more internationalist. In Obama's view, America would subsume itself under a fuzzy internationalism in which the international community, which I think is a fiction, governs itself through the U.N.

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.

As the highest ranking American official in the United Nations organization, I came to understand thoroughly that the national constitutional processes of the member states define the status of territories under their sovereignty.

Just think of what Woodrow Wilson stood for: he stood for world government. He wanted an early United Nations, League of Nations. But it was the conservatives, Republicans, that stood up against him.

But I would say if the Security Council is only relevant if it agrees with the United States, then we have come a long way in a direction that I do not like very much.

However difficult it may be to bring it about, some form of world government, with agreed international law and means of enforcing the law, is inevitable.

In these days of intimate relations, of economic stress and of intense desire to protect national interests and advance national opportunity, the treatment of questions which, from a legal standpoint, are domestic, often seriously affects international relations. The principle, each nation for itself to the full extent of its powers, is the principle of war, not of peace.

No country can dictate its laws to the world.

If the savior of man would revisit and declare himself for a League of Nations, I would be opposed to it.

Multilateralism is the democracy of international society.

The United Nations is a failed institution in its current form.

Unilateralism and isolationism are ideological twins.

Internationalism protects the sovereignty of my country

The United Nations is a foolish attempt at world government inspired by Satan.

I have loved but one flag and cannot share that affection with the mongrel banner designed for the League [of Nations.]

The United States does not feel any need to consult with anybody … except when it suits them.