Multilateral Engagement Quotes

There are partnerships based on principle. There are partnerships based on pragmatism. And fortunately, when it comes to Indo-American relations, both concentrations find a new robust phase of relationship, a multi-fasted relationship which I believe exists in the interests of both our countries.

George W. Bush tried working with the Russians after 9/11; Obama had the reset. Both presidents achieved less than they wanted, but they both achieved something. Those policies made sense, and it's to the credit of both Presidents Bush and Obama that even as they reached out to Russia, they did not sacrifice core American interests, or core American values. We didn't give the Russians on the altar of better relations other countries. We were able to do two things at once.

We are ready and open to a dialogue with all sides, all parties and all countries that respect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Belarus.

America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only - or even primary - component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.

Using the Japan-U.S. alliance as a basis, it is important that we maintain and develop cooperative relations with our neighboring countries such as China, South Korea, and Russia.

We need Trump to lead the liberal democratic order around the world. No other nation can do that the way we can, and it's going to be very hard for Congress to do it over his opposition.

I believe international work is a heavy task, but that it is nevertheless indispensable to go through an apprenticeship in it, at the cost of many efforts and also of a real spirit of sacrifice: however imperfect it may be, the work of Geneva has a grandeur that deserves our support.

When Hillary served as Secretary of State, I watched her partner with President Obama to restore our country's reputation around the world.

Conversations with my counterparts in Europe have made clear that many of them recognize NATO's limitations and understand the need for reform.

The reality is that [Barack] Obama has some 15 countries in the current Libya coalition. President Bush put together close to 50 countries for the Afghan coalition, some 40 countries for the Iraqi coalition, more than 90 countries for the Proliferation Security Initiative and over 90 countries in the Global War on Terror.

We find ourselves in places in the world where our interests require, maybe, limited application of force, involved in strange missions, missions difficult to define and state criteria and exit strategies. So it's much more difficult now. It's not that clear.

We need to get involved in things that are important to other countries, just as we expect them to participate in things that are important to us.

I'm doing more of my U.N. work and doing the African Union Summit and things like that.

There are plenty of meetings, receptions, dinners, and so if you are [at the U.N.] any length of time, and I was there for four and a half years, you formed pretty significant relationships with people from all over the world. And that's important to the work you do. If you're trying to rally the General Assembly to vote for something that matters to the United States, those personal relationships count.

I have long witnessed the enormous contribution Britain makes around the world, with our impact through multilateral as well as through our bilateral engagement.

We are not a country that subscribes to policing any part of the world. The areas we are comfortable with are capacity building, intelligence sharing, exchange of ships, call on each other's ports, joint training and exercises.

Our nation must engage with the rest of the world. But to be successful, we must listen. Our interaction with the world must be a conversation, not a monologue... these exchanges are a strategic pillar of our nation's public diplomacy.

We try to coordinate regularly with Russia, as well as with others - except for the United States - on what is happening in the region. And we're open to discussing with everybody the situation in Syria, because we believe it's a common threat.

Romania will continue to fulfil its obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The U.S. engages with North Korea, so I don't see why they can't engage with Iran.

Foreign policy of a pluralistic democracy like the United States should be based on bipartisanship because bipartisanship is the means and the framework for formulating policies based on moderation and on the recognition of the complexity of the human condition. That has been the tradition since the days of Truman and Vandenberg all the way until recent times.

Whether you're dealing with your allies in Europe or you're dealing with a resurgent Russia, whether you're dealing with Iran or North Korea, you have to use the whole panoply of national tools of power to deal with the challenges the world faces.

The more the UK feels distanced from European construction the less others are able to benefit from the full influence of the many good things that the UK can help us all to achieve, and therefore there are many areas where I think it would be beneficial to have the UK fully at the table.

We believe that the United States and the rest of the international community can play a useful role by exerting influence on Pakistan to put a permanent and visible end to cross-border terrorism against India.

Terrorist groups and their extremist state sponsors cannot be fought with kid gloves and flowery words of persuasion. As the U.S. has displayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq, only a vigilant and determined campaign of confrontation can deter and obstruct them.