Bernie Ecclestone 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.

We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent.

Now, the United Nations is an organization that I believe was founded with good intentions. As a matter of fact, a prominent Tennessean named Cordell Hull was very involved with it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

No country can dictate its laws to the world.

No one should abandon his county's interest upon entering the portals of the United Nations.

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.

The European vision is the United Nations' vision.

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.

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

The U.N. can be very frustrating and at times impotent, but it can also be a valuable forum for discussion and resolution of world problems. We should not walk away from it just because it's failed to live up to its promise.

It is a commonplace that the League of Nations is not yet-what its most enthusiastic protagonists intended it to be.

I will do everything in my power to ensure that our United Nations can live up to its name, and be truly united; so that we can live up to the hopes that so many people around the world place in this institution, which is unique in the annals of human history.

I think the American people, understandably, have sort of lost faith in the United Nations.

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 most tragic paradox of our time is to be found in the failure of nation-states to recognize the imperatives of internationalism.

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.

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

Multilateralism is the democracy of international society.

The United Nations is a failed institution in its current form.