Henry A. Kissinger Quotes

Stability is a reasonable foreign policy goal, but not at the expense of human rights.

Defending human rights should be an important objective of foreign policy, and that, too, will sometimes be hard to reconcile with an economic agenda, especially when it comes to dealing with rich but repressive players like China and Russia.

Countries often prioritise economic interests over human rights - hence all the kowtowing to China.

I would say issues around human rights - either you're going to take a hard stance, or you're not. You can't borrow money from China the way the U.S. has done and then turn around and say, 'But you've got a human-rights problem.' You can't be half pregnant.

The U.S. government engages with many countries around the world in official dialogues on human rights.

Every foreign policy has to have a moral purpose.

Big global players like China need to do a better job of respecting human rights.

I do think that every super power on the globe has a very poor record on human rights.

I think this country and the world would be far better off if the US is not an outlaw state.

As president, I will stand up to the great human rights tests of our time - in China, Russia, and the Middle East. We must send a signal to our allies and adversaries that America is back in the leadership business.

We have hopes that we can see rational American presidents; fair, obey the international law, deal with other countries according to mutual respect, parity, etc., but we all know that this is only wishful thinking and fantasy.

I care about people's human rights and, as a country, we have a very proud record indeed. But I'm also realistic about what we can do... we can raise those issues with leaders and we can talk about those issues, and we do that.

I think clearly the United States, as well as other western nations, should stand by their commitments to human rights and democracy and should try to influence other countries to move in that direction.

But, if you believe we should go around the world overturning regimes to make little United States, I don't agree with that, because I don't think we're capable of doing that.

And, perhaps most importantly, regional conflicts will again and again confront us with a cruel choice between costly engagement and costly indifference.

I think no one knows what humanitarian intervention means. If I were a person who was non-American, I would think humanitarian intervention is just another name for United States imperialism.

It is one thing to be against unilateralism and against nonhumanitarian interventionism - but it is quite another thing to be against humanitarian interventionism.

I refer to calls for humanitarian intervention in the affairs of another state - a new idea, this - even when they are made under the pretext of defending human rights and freedoms.

In the '90s, there was scant presidential leadership and insufficient domestic political mobilization for foreign policy grounded in human rights.

No country can dictate its laws to the world.

There was not an ambassador in the world who was not my personal human rights representative.

The promotion and preservation of human rights can and should be the driving force for world affairs.

The United States is lucky: It has only two neighboring countries and oceans on both sides. We have over a dozen neighboring countries and we have a long and complicated history with them.

A multipolar world means more compromise [on Human Rights violations]… more back-scratching and less principled denunciation.

I have spoken to Chinese leaders occasionally on human rights, but I've always done it in private.