A Quote by Umberto Eco

In short, Roberto privately concluded, if you would avoid wars, never make treaties of peace. — © Umberto Eco
In short, Roberto privately concluded, if you would avoid wars, never make treaties of peace.
It is the most painful thing to see how young children become collateral damage of wars, but when peace treaties are signed landmines do not respect any of these accords. And as long as these silent killers linger after wars, children will never know peace
We know from history that the way wars are concluded is absolutely the key to whether or not there is any peace to be kept.
Great progress was made when arbitration treaties were concluded in which the contracting powers pledge in advance to submit all conflicts to an arbitration court, treaties which not only specify the composition of the court, but also its procedure.
If it is true that wars are won by believers, it is also true that peace treaties are sometimes signed by businessmen.
Historically, and since, 1520, eighteen Treaties have been concluded between the Persian State and its western neighbours regarding its relations therewith including the question of borders. On all occasions, the Persian State chose the opportunity to violate the said Treaties whether by word or deed.
The wars don't end when you sign peace treaties or when the years go by. They will echo on until I'm gone and all the widows and orphans are gone.
You shall love peace as a means to new wars - and the short peace more than the long.
Don't forget that the peace treaties with Egypt and later with Jordan have already survived several tests: two wars with Lebanon, two Palestinian uprisings, the attack on Gaza, the murder of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
When a peace agreement is concluded between the Lebanese government and Israel, we would surely disagree with the Lebanese government about that, but we would not make any turmoil out of it.
That piecemeal peace is poor peace. What pure peace allows Alarms of wars, the daunting wars, the death of it?
If the government were obliged to come to the people for money instead of vice-versa, the people would keep government under control and operate their economy satisfactorily with prosperity and peace resulting. The peoples of the nations do not make war. For them peace is the natural and permanent order. Wars are planned and perpetrated by politicians and their diplomats; and the money power of government is the means by which the people are maneuvered into wars.
African-Americans were dispossessed of the land by being brought over here in slave ships, whereas Indians were on the land and fought literally wars against Europeans for control of that land. And that history of dispossession, you know, if you look at the treaties, it's very interesting. Everyone thinks that Indians were ripped off in their treaties. If you look at the first round of treaties from about 1800 to the Civil War, tribes secured over 150 million acres. I think it may have been 144 million acres in those treaties. That's a large amount of real estate.
We seem to know that international wars tend not to stop with their formal "peace treaties." We seem not to have thought enough about the difference between the large official events of political and military history and their overflow both into recognized effects and into the lives of unofficial people who suffer them.
We are living in a time of many wars. The call for peace must be shouted. Peace sometimes gives the impression of being quiet, but it is never quiet. Peace if always proactive and dynamic.
After the Manchu government had carried on wars with foreign nations and had been defeated, China was forced to sign many unequal treaties. Foreign nations are still using these treaties to bind China, and as a result, China fails at whatever she attempts.
India is known to be a peace-loving country, we try to keep our peace treaties intact with other countries.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!