Example collocations logo

Nations in sentence

1514 examples of Nations in a sentence

Estimates of its newfound oil reserves place it in eighth place among oil-producing nations, ahead of Nigeria as well as Brazil’s rival for influence in Latin America,Venezuela.
In 1989, when the Iraq-Iran war sent shivers among oil-consuming nations, Brazil began to explore for energy both within and beyond its 200-nautical-mile protected zone.
The French are thus more ready to believe in the cultural diversity of nations than in the universality of democracy.
The US currently collects the lowest ratio of taxes to national income among rich nations.
Each should understand the basic directions of change that will be required at the national level and globally, and all nations must share in the deployment of new sustainable technologies and in the co-financing of global responsibilities, such as increased investments in African infrastructure.
“[H]istory teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever,” he said.
“However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.”
Nations can no longer protect their interests, or advance the well-being of their people, without the partnership of the rest.
Yet I see a danger of nations looking inward rather than toward a shared future.
Yet those living in nations where human rights are abused have never been so vulnerable.
Yet violence is deepening in many nations: Afghanistan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Sudan.
We did so this year in Haiti and other Caribbean nations hit by hurricanes.
In Burundi and Sierra Leone, Liberia and Timor Leste, our resources are under strain because UN peacekeepers are helping nations turn the corner to peace.
And now all of our work – financing for development, social spending in rich nations and poor, the Millennium Development Goals, peacekeeping – is endangered by the global financial crisis.
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson advance this line of thought in their recent book Why Nations Fail.
Repeated military interventions in large Muslim nations – Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkey – have impeded orderly political development.
To change that will inevitably dilute the privileges of those nations, including the United States.
Given that Obama has a Kenyan father and has spent time in the African villages where his kin still live, it is no surprise that he understands the need for rich nations to assist developing nations.
(That still leaves the US lagging behind many European nations in the percentage of its national income that it gives in aid.)
The same story is true in poor countries around the world: telephone penetration remained stubbornly stagnant in developing nations until they allowed competitive entry-primarily in the form of mobile telephony-in the 1990's.
Trump reinforced this view with his stark inaugural address, in which he asserted a “right of all nations to put their own interests first.”
In 1848, in The Communist Manifesto , he wrote: “In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.”
This policy rationale was underscored by his warning that America “cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries.”
Though the comparison is unfair, it is hard not to recall the old quip about the IMF’s relative, the United Nations: “When there is a dispute between two small nations, the UN steps in and the dispute disappears.
When there is a dispute between two large nations, the UN disappears.”
It would be relatively cheap and simple, involving expanded distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets, more preventive treatment for pregnant women, increased use of the maligned pesticide DDT, and support for poor nations that cannot afford the best new therapies.
Obama’s election has raised hopes for a massive commitment to carbon cuts and vast spending on renewable energy to save the world – especially developing nations.
Today’s version of that question is: why will richer nations spend obscene amounts of money on climate change, achieving next to nothing in 100 years, when we could do so much good for mankind today for much less money?
Turnout for the parliamentary election was 40%, which puts Poland near the bottom in voter participation among the democratic nations of the world, and about 25-30% below the European average.
The parties in Montreal should rule out more Kyoto-style immediate cuts, which would be prohibitively expensive, do little good, and cause many nations to abandon the entire process.
BackNext