Li Peng Quotes

A new multipolar world has brought more uncertainty into international affairs.

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

I don't think Russia is setting this as a goal; I don't think this should be Russia's goal. I think even the United States doesn't need to be a superpower. China doesn't need to be a superpower. It's a different world.

Just as the United States doesn't like others to take charge, other countries also don't like the United States to play a dominant role in the United Nations.

Multilateralism may be little more than a polite way of camouflaging what is in practice unilateralism with allies.

I'm in favour of a multi-polar world. I believe that every country has the right to defend its own interests.

Europeans must shed their illusions about what they can accomplish in the world on their own. Loose talk about resurrecting a multi-polar world is just that - loose talk.

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.

There are nearly 200 countries and a population of over 6 billion in today's world. International affairs should be addressed by all countries through consultations rather than monopolised by a few powers.

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.

So, the international community are all the countries that are important: the United States definitely everywhere; the European Union because it is very important, and also, they do show a great deal of international responsibility; and then the local players.

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

There will always be nations. The United States will last a long, long time, I believe. France and Germany and Japan, China, other nations, they're going to exist. But they're losing their significance and ability to deal with certain matters.

Global conditions are far too complex to be able to imagine that they could ever be really controlled by one power.

Of course as a small country you're not necessarily in the strongest negotiating position unless you're negotiating with other small countries.

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.

Every government is in some respects a problem for every other government.

Multilateralism is the democracy of international society.

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

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?

Attempts to run the world generate resistance.

Is the balance of power a fixed and unalterable standard? Or is it not a standard perpetually varying, as civilization advances, and as new nations spring up, and take their place among established political communities?

Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems.

The big question is how do you allow new powers like India and China to emerge without destabilizing the world order?

This is not our choice but this is the law of the politics. You always reciprocate. Positively, negatively, but this is something which you cannot change. It was not invented by us. It is the law of international relations.