Rajnath Singh Quotes

No country can dictate its laws to the world.

We have a much bigger objective. We've got to look at the long run here. This is an example - the situation between the United Nations and Iraq - where the United Nations is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation.... Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all countries of the world.

The world of high-stakes international diplomacy can be rough and tumble, but it's more often than not a procession of suits and summits, protocol sessions and photo ops.

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

Like other countries in the world, China must uphold its own sovereignty, territorial integrity and development interests. At the same time, we are willing to properly handle differences and disagreements in state-to-state relations.

The statesmen still say that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations and yet it is not possible any longer not to interfere, even when we do not mean to do so.

Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that I am prime and sole minister in this country, am I, therefore, prime and sole minister of all Europe? Am I answerable for the conduct of other countries as well as for that of my own?

Foreign policy is really domestic policy with its hat on.

My point here is I think international pressures of our acting unilaterally again are going to be such that the administration will say, well, we just can't take this on now.

In these days of intimate relations, of economic stress and of intense desire to protect national interests and advance national opportunity, the treatment of questions which, from a legal standpoint, are domestic, often seriously affects international relations. The principle, each nation for itself to the full extent of its powers, is the principle of war, not of peace.

If governments do not want to work with the U.N. and the international organizations, there is a limit to what you can do. And there is also a limit to patience.

You can't build a foreign policy on the presence of an individual [a particular foreign leader].

Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

In most nations, public opinion is in revolt against foreign policy.

Sometimes everyone is foreign minister.

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?

You cannot have individual foreign policy. You cannot have celebrity foreign policy.

No state, without the Consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King prince or state;

People tend to leave foreign affairs to governments because they think the leaders of government have all the information and know better.

… make Englishmen cognizant of the processes through which the progressive destinies of Europe are being worked out, so that whenever European Affairs may call for interference, they may be in no doubt as to the course to be pursued.

We’re not the world’s policeman. Nor the world’s judge, jury and executioner.

By absenting the United States from the process by which international legal rules are made, the Senate has denied the country’s ability to shape them.

States should engage [negotiate] with other states, but only so long as their diplomats reflected the will of elected officials.

The situation that exists among nations in their relations to one another is such that it tempts even those who ordinarily come far short of cynicism to say that there is no connection between ethics and international relations.

Foreign policy can no longer be the province of just a few elites.