Francois Mitterrand Quotes

The UN is ultimately going to be judged on its ability in conflict resolution and conflict prevention.

Unilateral preemption should not in any way be the model for how we conduct international relations... It brings us into very dangerous territory and it could be used and abused by any other country. We need to continue to base our security on multilateralism, and on the Security Council.

The aim of political institutions like the United Nations is to draw the line between struggle and conflict and to make it possible for nations to stay on the right side of that line.

There are certain kinds of second-tier confrontations which the U.S. does not need to get directly involved in. However, even in the second tier of problems, our intervention as a friend to both sides is important.

The only foreign policy advice I heard from China was when they said to Sudan, 'Don't go back to war.' That's all they said. They didn't push anything else.

If we examine the Hague Convention carefully, we see that it considers the offer of good offices a duty of every nation. In other words, such offers should be made whenever a dispute becomes critical and threatens to explode into war.

It is our duty to persuade the nations of the world, in whatever way that we can, to settle their differences in some other way. (Other than war)

Surely diplomacy is needed when there is conflict, not when there is harmony.

Peacemaking and peacekeeping should run in parallel.

We send our peacekeepers off to some disputed zone, full of local intrigue and power blocs and uncertainty and danger, and they are supposed to save lives not with their weapons, but through their competence and their character. And they do it.

We have to deal with it diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must.

Foreign policy is like plumbing. You never notice it till it breaks and then all hell breaks loose.

One should never permit a disorder to persist in order to avoid a war, for wars cannot be avoided and can only be deferred to the advantage of others.

I don't want to force the peacekeeping nations to feel like I'm pushing them out.

From 8,000 miles away... I would not judge a fellow soldier from a friendly nation and how they are employing their resources.

On the other hand, the waging of peace as a science, as an art, is in its infancy. But we can trace its growth, its steady progress, and the time will come when there will be particular individuals designated to assume responsibility for and leadership of this movement.

I don't know that there is much the United States can do except work with the international community.

So I've gone in and out of the U.N., working on counter-terrorism, on U.N. reform, on peacekeeping, peace and security issues, many things through the years but always with a strong interest in humanitarian issues, and human rights issues as well.

It might be useful to be able to predict war. But tension does not necessarily lead to war, but often to peace and to denouement.

You ought to dialogue first before you start throwing spears. And I think the U.N. provides an opportunity for dialogue.

And we ought to work our diplomacy first and I think it's a reason it's going to respond increasingly to our diplomacy particularly with the president's direct involvement in the peace process, and I think that's extraordinarily important.

Since there will be no one left to talk peace after the next war, it makes good sense to break with tradition and hold the peace conference first.

The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.

The most important thing that certainly the United States and other Asian and Pacific actors have done is to urge that whatever happens, however the dispute is resolved, that it be resolved peacefully.

I don’t talk to countries that exhibit bad behavior.