Subrahmanyam Jaishankar Quotes

No one can think intelligently on the many complicated problems of American foreign policy unless he decides first what he considers the real purpose and object of that policy…. Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States.

Making the case for sustained U. S. [world] leadership is not always easy. Unilateralism or isolationism often make for better sound bites.

We are aware that in 2005 our efforts to preserve the stability and prestige of the Republic of Bulgaria in the area of foreign policy, and our efforts to attain fully our strategic goals will be mostly contingent upon the way we address our domestic priorities.

Foreign policy is really domestic policy with its hat on.

There's no way in the world that the United States does not want to spread democratic ideals, but the first thing we have to do is that which is the interest of our security.

A President who wants to focus on domestic affairs must put foreign policy in a framework that Americans understand and that makes them feel secure.

I would never seek foreign conflicts just to distract attention from domestic difficulties; that would be frivolous.

There's no sense in using surrogates to pursue United States national interests.

Internal [domestic] changes always precede the change in the foreign policy of a nation.

It’s not America’s job to fix the Middle East. Our job is to look after our own interests..

Both Russia and the United States are struggling to define their proper roles in the world.

The historical ambivalence of the United States toward global engagement is a thread that runs through American history.

Since the end of World War II, U.S. presidents of both parties have recognized that foreign and domestic policy do not have to be pursued at the expense of each other.

Unlike President Obama, I would say that I support the long-standing bipartisan post-war belief that American global strength and leadership secures our national-security interests, and it also promotes order and stability in the world. And it gives us immense influence in the world and deters our adversaries and reassures our allies.

I'm a proud conservative and firmly believe in a principled approach to foreign policy - one that builds on our values and interests as a country. This approach has made me a resolute and strong friend to Israel.

Foreign policy must be about priorities. The United States cannot do everything everywhere.

Interventionism is inextricable from the American idea. If the United States retreats into isolationism, it ceases to be itself ? a nation dedicated, however much it falls short, to a universalist ideal of freedom.

American policy seems to be wed to a perpetual state of war. Why? History shows that the world will always be in flux or turmoil, with different peoples competing for visibility and power. The U.S. cannot fix the fate of every nation.

Nixon was an awful president in many ways, including in some of his foreign-policy choices. But he left no doubt that foreign policy and America's leadership in the world outside its borders was of paramount importance to him.

Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.

The predominant yardstick of your government is not human rights but national interests.

To call the American role in the world imperial was, for many who did so, a way of asserting that the United States was misusing its power beyond its borders and, in so doing, subverting its founding political principles within them.

Roosevelt was the one who had the vision to change our policy from isolationism to world leadership. That was a terrific revolution. Our country's never been the same since.

I believe the U.S. already understands and will understand more and more that only a strong Russia will respond to the genuine interests of the United States.

Venezuelan interests are to be defended by Venezuela. The U.S. should defend the interests of the U.S. Where are the U.S. people, where are the intellectuals, who could put limits on their government?