Theresa May Quotes

America's commitment to collective defense under Article 5 of NATO is a sacred obligation in our view - a sacred obligation not just for now, but for all time.

I have no doubt that the U.S., even under Trump, will stick to the mutual defense commitment in the NATO treaty in the event of an emergency. Trump described NATO as being obsolete during his election campaign, but he made clear afterward that he considers the alliance to be an indispensable necessity.

NATO is indispensable to America's national security.

In recent years, we've made historic investments in NATO, increased America's presence in Europe.

I'm all in favor of NATO.

Our alliance with our NATO partners has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for nearly 70 years, in good times and in bad and through presidents of both parties because the United States has a fundamental interest in Europe's stability and security.

Can the wider West establish a global 'cyber NATO?' It would be difficult, but so, too, was the founding of NATO itself, which was called into being only after successive communist coups in Eastern Europe.

If a future U.S. president were to refuse to defend an ally under attack, NATO would lose all credibility.

To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out that the United States has demonstrated not merely with words but with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment.

I am encouraged by the president-elect's [Donald Trump] insistence that NATO is a commitment that does not change. And his full commitment to NATO as the foundation for our international security I think is very important.

I just want everybody to understand and fully know that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent.

I'm a big fan of NATO. But they have to pay up.

NATO was a wonderful idea. It was formed in 1949. We are as far away from NATO as NATO was when it was done in time from the presidency of Grover Cleveland.

We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.

In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism.

And the narrative for the Taliban that they can wait us out is a flawed narrative. I think that the unambiguous international support for Afghanistan has been a very powerful message. You know, that was the message that came out of the NATO summit. We will not abandon Afghanistan.

For the United States to be a global leader, we have to have a very tight relationship with Europe. And we've held that relationship since 1949 when we established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. NATO is the bond. It's a security bond.

NATO remains the cornerstone of Atlantic security.

The United States plays, for the most part, a constructive global role, and to the extent that that role shrinks, other countries, even those most critical of what America does abroad, will suffer.

The majority of the Afghan people support a strategic partnership with the United States.

The United States, obviously, has a great interest in helping to maintain peace and security in Europe, and we have a formal alliance, NATO, to do so.

There is a lot of juggling between NATO commitment and domestic politics in most countries [belonging to NATO.]

The only thing wrong with NATO is that we don't belong to it.

When did the American people decide that U. S. foreign policy should be conducted through the United Nations.

(When British troops were still garrisoned in Egypt, Nasser requested arms from the United States.) You can't give them (the Egyptians) arms with which to kill British soldiers who fought shoulder to shoulder with you in the war (World War II.)