Lester B. Pearson Quotes

In almost every country there are elements of opinion which would welcome such a conclusion because they wish to return to the politics of the balance of power, unrestricted and unregulated armaments, international anarchy, and preparation for war.

As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable.

As long as we can outproduce the world, can control the sea and can strike inland with the atomic bomb, we can assume certain risks otherwise unacceptable in an effort to restore world trade, to restore the balance of power —military power—and to eliminate some of the conditions which breed war.

So, anything that avoids a conflict that could draw in, unhappily again, outside powers such as the United States or revisit, for example, Japan's interests in the Taiwan area would be the last thing that anyone would want.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.

I think that most people believe that Russia, because of its - it has regained some of its military strength. And they do rattle the saber a bit. It wants to be a player.

At the national level, I don't know how to describe a threat to destroy Country A in order to punish Country B other than to call it state terrorism.

Talking to the superpowers about disarmament is like talking to drug dealers about stopping drug deliveries.

It is a mistake to isolate arms control from other areas of policy.... There is a danger that arms control will be a safety valve for an otherwise overly aggressive foreign policy.

We shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard of power, but every other nation will think we shall abuse it.

Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.

Most people are disturbed by the shift from deterrence to preemption but the fact is that in international relations, deterrence has a poor track record

If this phrase of “the balance of power” is to be always an argument for war, the pretext for war will never be wanting …

The potential for regional conflict in the absence of an internationally active America is real.

Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted.

Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.

In a world of complex threats, our security and leadership depends on all elements of our power - including strong and principled diplomacy.

In 1913 many believed that there would never again be a war in Europe. The great powers of the continent were so closely intertwined economically that the view was widespread that they could no longer afford to have military confrontations.

I believe that detente was having almost the opposite effect of what was intended. What was intended was to sort of end the contest for power and to stop Soviet expansion, especially by military means and the military build-up, the military contest.

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

If America would withdraw from South Korea, there could be a power struggle between such as China and Japan.

People do not make wars; governments do.

I thought this must be obvious to everyone else, as it seemed obvious to me; and that, if once it became apparent that we were on the edge, all the Great Powers would call a halt and recoil from the abyss.

When anyone has the power to destroy the whole human race in a matter of hours, it becomes a moral issue. The church must speak out.

The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation.