Najib Razak Quotes

I never use the concept, multipolar. I use multilateral. Because we have only one global power: whether you like it or not, this is the United States.

We have to really get used to the fact that there is more than one center in the world politics, that the unipolar world never succeeded, that there are more growing, emerging, economic, financial powers…

Defying History and Theory: The United States as the 'Last Remaining Superpower,'

The era when the United States was the dominant global power is steadily coming to an end, and it must find a way of acknowledging this and framing its ambitions and interests accordingly. Instead of claiming the right to continuing primacy in east Asia, for example, it should seek to share that primacy with China.

It looks like the so-called "winners" of the Cold War are determined to have it all, and reshape the world into a place that could better serve their interests alone.

In the long march of history, at least two poles of attraction and antagonism have been the norm in world politics. Rarely has only one nation carried the burden of leadership. The unipolar world of the 21st century, dominated for the past two decades by the United States, is a historical anomaly.

With the rise of America, the global balance of power shifted away from the old European powers.

Just as the United States doesn't like others to take charge, other countries also don't like the United States to play a dominant role in the United Nations.

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

There will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, balances of power ...

Although no one likes a hegemon, America will be a better hegemon than others would be.

It’s not a dictatorship in the United States. But it is dictatorial to the rest of the world. Who’s going to say no?

Unilateralism will lead to the decline of American Power.

The big question is how do you allow new powers like India and China to emerge without destabilizing the world order?

A new multipolar world has brought more uncertainty into international affairs.

Great powers can't get tired, because the international order is not self-governing.

The Soviet Union's termination, which brought to an end the bipolar world, ushered in an era of U.S. hegemony. Hegemony, however, should not be confused with omnipotence. Hegemony is not omnipotence but is certainly preponderance.

I'm in favour of a multi-polar world. I believe that every country has the right to defend its own interests.

My main concern is with the world order

From the weak nations' point of view, it is better if there are many powerful countries then if there are just a few. The more concentrated is power, the fewer opportunities there are to move. Space for change, space for freedom to implement change is then very narrow; very small.

The world would be better off with multiple superpowers. When Communist USSR was a superpower, the world was better off.

For the Kremlin, it is more feasible to preserve its great-power status in cooperation with the United States than in confrontation.

There is not much danger of the smaller nations if the big nations will behave.

The world is now unipolar and contains o-nly o-ne superpower. Canada shares a continent with that superpower.

The U.S. might enjoy overwhelming military advantage, but its relative economic power, which in the long run is almost invariably decisive, is in decline. The interregnum after the Cold War, far from being the prelude to a new American age, was bearing the signs of what is now very visible: the emergence of a multipolar world.