Edward Grey Quotes

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.

Mr. Chamberlain desires to avert the threat to England's peace by making England, in alliance with Germany, stronger than her rivals and so to force them to renounce their hostile intentions against her.

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

The United States may have to abandon its policy of avoiding entangling alliances.

We in the region will all have security or none of us will have security.

This concord should be as profound as our empires are great, for we know that no other state will ever appear to rival our empires.

It is difficult for the united states to be all of equal power and extent.

No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We all share responsibility for each other's security, and only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves.

What frustrates U.S. officials is that China sometimes seems more comfortable accommodating a strong United States, as it did in past decades, than partnering with an America that's less dominant.

The U.N. charter bars the threat of force.

If the United States and China can accommodate each other on a broad range of issues, the prospects for stability in Asia will be greatly increased.

The United States is afraid of China; it is not a military threat to anyone and is the least aggressive of all the major military powers.

We are moving towards a world that is reordering itself and that may appear more ordered at some periods of time, but I see no sign that we are moving towards a world order in my definition of it - namely, a system which is accepted, which is internalized by the majority of the key participants.

The president doesn't hold all the cards. The cards are evenly split up!

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

I understand that the tendency of foreign countries in recent years has been to establish particularly close relations with one or two others among all the countries which have general relations. In time of peace, they make secret treaties in advance, and in wartime, they aid one another with military provisions and armaments.

Politics abhors a vacuum, and Asian countries will gravitate towards China if U.S. influence is perceived as declining.

Even at its most powerful, Britain always needed alliances with other European states. There would almost certainly have been no British victory at Waterloo, for instance, without the assistance of Prussia.

The Sino-American competition involves two significant realities that distinguish it from the Cold War: neither party is excessively ideological in its orientation; and both parties recognize that they really need mutual accommodation.

Trade accords had been a staple of the post-World War II world, providing a mechanism for economic growth, development, and association with friends and allies, and a means of reining in would-be adversaries who otherwise would have little incentive to act with restraint.

NATO's deterrence has always been adequate, and I'm not worried about the physical security of my country. Not at all.

America is not really a strong enough state for us to regard it as an enemy of Russia.

It was in the 20th century that national sovereignty really ruled the roost, and the E.U. was formed to cure that.

We created NATO. It was a United States invention for the collective security of Europe. It has been a Russian desire since 1947 to break up NATO.

The attitude of 'every nation unto itself' is a destructive one for the future of Israel.