Mohamed ElBaradei Quotes

Economic sanctions rarely achieve the desired results.

Sanctions historically are quite counterproductive in the sense that if you impose sanctions on your enemy, it tends to strengthen your enemy.

Sanctions are not really an economic weapon.

Sanctions are not diplomacy; they are a precursor to war.

Politicians often call for sanctions as a way of sounding tough when they don't want to take riskier measures.

Look what we did with Cuba. You isolate a country, and all you do is impoverish that country.

Fourth, we might have declared an embargo against the shipping from American ports of any merchandise to either one of these governments that persisted in maintaining its military zone.

Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.

Embargo is not war.

Unilateral sanctions only make foreign rivals stronger and taint us as unreliable suppliers.

[Sanctions] make us feel like a player in foreign policy where our powers tend to be more limited …. We’re less patient with diplomacy.

Being tough on China is one thing. Being completely erratic with no strategy and dragging businesses and farmers through the mud, using them as pawns in the game, is not the way to beat China.

The sanctions which the West introduced against Russia seriously affect us.

Sanctions against such country as Russia are unlikely to be effective.

I just can't understand why we don't go forward and put more sanctions.

Just a threat of a boycott has got the Russians spinning.

If there's any country that has the capacity not to control North Korea, but to influence North Korea, it's still China. The Chinese always say they have very little influence. They have more than they say they do. We should put pressure on them to do it and there's finally, we're seeing the first signs of a little bit of Chinese disaffection. At some point they're getting tired of the antics of this country. This is a dangerous ally for China to have. And the more Chinese can pressure them and put the economic screws on them, the better it will be for everybody.

The economic sanctions are absolutely going to hurt Russia's economy. They're hurting some of his key inner sanctum. But they are not affecting his political standing. And it's hard to see how they would do so at least, in the short term.

There's been a deliberate and systematic effort to convey to countries around the world, friends and foes, that if they cross the United States there's a price to pay.

If you make a treaty first with the United States and settle the matter of the opium trade, England cannot change this, though she should desire to do so.

In international affairs, you never threaten things you're not prepared to do.

I think most Americans believe that although it's better not to use military force if you can avoid it, that the world simply doesn't provide us the luxury of giving away military force as an important tool of foreign policy.

Sanctions and boycotts would be tied to serious political dialogue.

You should never take military intervention off the table. When you do so, you give an out to a rogue nation or rogue actors.

You can't give Russia the right to interfere with the internal affairs of counties in its area.... You have to drive up the cost to Russia for aggression.