Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Quotes

The U.N. is much more than the case of Iraq.

It is crystal clear to me that if Arabs put down a draft resolution blaming Israel for the recent earthquake in Iran it would probably have a majority, the U.S. would veto it and Britain and France would abstain.

When the big powers are in agreement, the U. N. performs. When they aren't, the U. N. is paralyzed.

When did the American people decide that U. S. foreign policy should be conducted through the United Nations.

The Secretary General of the United Nations is more of a secretary than a general.

It is the case that the Russians are misusing the veto in the United Nations, but you must recall that it was we who insisted upon the veto. Without the veto we could not gotten it through Congress.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

The United Nations is a means. It is not an end for American foreign policy.

One of the problems with the Security Council is that there are vetoes, and they do not allow us to do what might be justified from the point of view of sanctions.

When people say the U.N. is useless, I ask the question, which U.N. are we talking about? We have the U.N. that is a secretariat led by the secretary general, and we have a U.N. made up of member states who give us our mandate.

We in Britain do not have the same capabilities as the United States, but we are members of the United Nations Security Council. And we take our obligations and duties deriving from that very seriously.

If we want to expect something from this [Barack Obama] administration, it is not to be weak, to be strong to say that "we don't have evidence," that "we have to obey the international law", that "we have to go back to the Security Council and the United Nations".

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

The U.S. has the power to block all anti-Israel moves in the Security Council, not just some of them, and to do so without agreeing to unfair, damaging compromises.

In the euphoria after the Cold War, there was a misplaced notion that the UN could solve every problem anywhere.

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.

In a case like Iraq the UN has again shown what important role it plays as the guarantor for protecting international peace and stability in the global political structure.

There are big issues, like the reform of the Security Council. These kinds of questions are something the President of the General Assembly must keep his eye on.

The failure of the United Nations - My failure is maybe, in retrospective, that I was not enough aggressive with the members of the Security Council.

We would like UN resolutions to be enforced, including on Iraq.

The United Nations has become a place where many countries seek to achieve a lynching of the United States by resolution.

I look forward to strengthening the U.S.-U.N. partnership and working closely with Secretary of State Kerry towards our shared goals of peace, development, and human rights.

Does anyone believe that Kofi Annan scares Bashar Assad?

Every government is in some respects a problem for every other government.

The U.S and England are not worthy of security council membership. Those who want good relations with the Iranian people should bow and surrender to its right and might.