James P. Warburg Quotes

World government is a premature concept at this stage. We are moving more and more into supernational arrangements, but it is too early still.

What we need now is a Treaty of the World not a Treaty of Rome.

No country can dictate its laws to the world.

World government will come, but we do not know the date.

As we have seen, the wireless and the airplane have made the world so small and nations so dependent on each other that the only alternative to war is the United States of the World.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.

The nations must be organized internationally and induced to enter into partnership, subordinating in some measure national sovereignty to worldwide institutions and obligations.

However difficult it may be to bring it about, some form of world government, with agreed international law and means of enforcing the law, is inevitable.

The international body must have the institutions and powers it needs to do what it is created to do; in other words it must be boldly and openly set up as a super-state on a level above the national sovereignties, and that, in turn, means that the Member States must have accepted in advance as much limitation and subordination of their particular sovereignties as this superior sovereign power requires.

There is simply no limitation on the realistic power of the U.N. over us.

Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a New World Order - can emerge. . . Now, we can see a New World Order coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect for a New World Order. . .A world where the United Nations, freed from a Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.

I have long believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world government.

There was an implicit conviction that the UN would be stronger than the sum of its constituent member-states.

We shouldn't discuss the world of tomorrow in terms of becoming a balance to the United States. The real issue is whether the United States will define herself as part of the U.N. system-or not.

If the U.N. didn't exist, we'd be inventing it right now.

Here we encounter two conflicting concepts with which we must come to grips in our time: the idea of national solidarity and the idea of international cooperation.

But I would say if the Security Council is only relevant if it agrees with the United States, then we have come a long way in a direction that I do not like very much.

For virtually every area of public policy there is a globalist proposal, consistent with the overall objective of reducing individual nation-state autonomy, particularly that of the United States?

In a shrinking world, the absence of order among nations is becoming less and less tolerable.

If the savior of man would revisit and declare himself for a League of Nations, I would be opposed to it.

The nebulocity known as the international community is ultimately accountable to nobody.

Attempts to run the world generate resistance.

It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

U.S. academics and Upper East Side New Yorkers like to think of the United Nations as a place where foreign ambassadors have intellectual discussions about power and world peace.

I thought that the United Nations is a creature of the five super-powers who were given veto powers. I don't like veto powers at all.