Quotes About Diplomacy

I know that speaking with parties, which I do, but not very often, is seen by many as a 'contamination.'

In foreign policy, there are times when speaking with one voice - and it doesn't have to be mine - allows us to engage better on issues, and enables us to do things more effectively.

When I am speaking about American presidents, I have to speak about my very special relations with President Clinton. He contributed more to peace than anybody else in the American sense.

My impression is that American policy speaks not of antagonism but rather partnership.

My father's a diplomat. He speaks Russian.

Americans want someone who is accountable to them above self, above party, and above any special interest. They want a President that has a depth of global experience to restore U.S. leadership to the world and to protect our American dream at home.

I got the chance to be the secretary of state; I'm an international relations specialist. It doesn't get better than that.

My academic specialization is Arab-Israel relations.

One of the characteristics of New Labour - and Miliband is irredeemably of that species - is that, in the guise of a new liberal language, it has adopted the age-old default mode of British foreign policy, namely military intervention.

The Beijing Olympics were an exercise in Chinese soft power. Americans have the 'Voice of America' and the Fulbright scholarships. But, the fact is, in fact, that probably Hollywood and MTV and McDonalds have done more for American soft power around the world than any specifically government activity.

An ambassador is not simply an agent; he is also a spectacle.

As to Magyar, I think that my speech was incorrect, inappropriate.

It's very interesting how Washington works. It's not about speeches. It's about relationships.

Our diplomacy and development budget is not just about reducing spending and finding efficiencies. We need a frank conversation about what we stand for as that 'shining city on a hill.' And that conversation begins by acknowledging that we can't do it on the cheap.

I've been arguing this for months. This is not our war. This is not a war we should be in. Australia's better spending its time negotiating with North Korea.

Chinese military spending is carefully monitored by the United States.

I've always thought I'd been pretty good with people, and I basically have spent a conflict-free life, you know?

A China-friendly North Korea serves as a buffer between southern China and the U.S.'s sphere of influence in the region - something of which China is perpetually skeptical.

This fact lays on us - so long as the maintenance of good relations with Russia seems to us worth an effort - the duty of satisfying Russia that she has no need to fear any invasion of her sphere of interests on Germany's part.

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone in America assumed that there would be wars to follow - wars over the reunification of Germany, over the nations within the sphere of Soviet influence, and more. There weren't, because George H. W. Bush's policies and diplomacy prevented that.

I don't need power at the cost of spilled blood.

Don't organize in the spirit of antagonism; that should be beneath your consideration.

In any area of the U.N. we... have to agree on certain language that can represent the same spirit, but that can be accepted by everyone.

From the time of independences until the end of the Cold War, in spite of the participation of a considerable number of African states in the non-aligned movement, everyone in fact chose to align with one or another of the two major blocks.