Pat Buchanan Quotes

The so-called world order is a criminal world order led by America, whom we call upon Allah to humiliate.

My instinct as a philosopher is that we are effectively approaching a multicentric world, which means we need to ask new, and for the traditional left, unpleasant questions.

Since the end of the Cold War, hegemonism has become increasingly unpopular.

A multi-polar world can not exist without recognising the status and participation of developing countries.

So is it always nationalist to resist US globalization? The US thinks it is, and wants you to agree; and, moreover, to consider US interests as being universal ones.

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.

As we realize that more and more things have global impact, I think we're going to get people increasingly wanting to get away from a purely national interest.

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?

When it comes to its role in the world, Russia is in the throes of an identity crisis. It has neither fully integrated into the liberal order nor built its own viabile alternative,

The world order and American actions in the world have deep wiring.

We have to acknowledge and discuss with citizens that Germany needs to take on more responsibility. One of the questions is, 'Can we keep a functioning international order?'

The world political system is till based on the concept of the national sovereign state. For the first time therefore, in three hundred years economy and sovereignty are becoming divorced from each other.

In the modern world, those who are weak will get unambiguous advice from foreign visitors which way to go and what policy course to pursue.

We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington.

Our relations with the other powers of Europe have experienced no essential change since the last session.

In international relations, in foreign policy, a great deal has to do with historical circumstances, a great deal has to do with the sense and perception of people.

American foreign policy, for all its shortcomings, has underpinned political stability around the world.

Multi- polarisation has become an inevitable trend in the process of shaping a global political pattern and has been widely welcomed by the international community as it reflects the common interests and aspiration of the overwhelming majority of countries.

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.

All in all, the League of Nations is not inevitably bound, as some maintain from time to time, to degenerate into an impotent appendage of first one, then another of the competing great powers.

But I believe that the DPKO at this time was very much involved with American administration and was acting, taking on consideration the demand or the recommendation of the American administration. American administration was very powerful.

American influence in the world is certainly considerable, but the United States does not control, directly or indirectly, the politics and economics of other societies, as empires have always done, save for a few special cases that turn out to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

The president's dream of a worldwide liberal utopia is going to undermine the security of the United States.

I'm concerned with China growing at double or triple the rate of the West, that there will be tensions. One needs to do something to start addressing misunderstandings and frustration.

The day of small nations has long passed away. The day of Empires has come.