Victor Ponta Quotes

Multilateralism is the democracy of international society.

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.

Consider in 1945, when the United Nations was first formed, there were something like fifty-one original member countries. Now the United Nations is made up of 193 nations, but it follows the same structure in which five nations control it. It's an anti-democratic structure.

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

Of all the principles which constitute Liberal Democracy, internationalism is the clearest, the most distinctive, and the one with the longest history.

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

No country can act wisely simultaneously in every part of the globe at every moment of time.

We learned in World War II that no single nation holds a monopoly on wisdom, morality or right to power, but that we must fight for the weak and promote democracy.

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.

I think American interests are served when there are sections of the world that have representative governments, politically open economic systems, and are willing to take a stand against some of the more extreme ideologies that there are around the world.

Multilateralism may be little more than a polite way of camouflaging what is in practice unilateralism with allies.

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

No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other nation.

A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

The United Nations is really the League of Nations 2.0

The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations - great or small - to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to be a part of the twentieth century.

The League of Nations seemed to us the embryo of a future international organization; and for the struggle against the internationales, whether Socialistic or Communist, it offered the best possible instrument. It was a great blow to us when the United States refused to become a party to these hopes.

I'm not a multilateralist against anybody. I'm a multilateralist because I believe in a multilateral order.

A Trump presidency - neutral between dictatorships and democracies, opposed to free trade, skeptical of traditional U.S. defense alliances, hostile to immigration - would mark the collapse of the entire architecture of the U.S.-led post-World War II global order.

I agree with those who say that democracies need to work together more effectively to stand up for the liberal democratic model that China is increasingly challenging. It's important for there to be an alliance of democracies.

My main concern is with the world order

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

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.

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.

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