Dulles’ speech indicated that although the Korean War had finally reached a peaceful conclusion, the United States would continue its policy of containing communist expansion, by force if necessary. Secretary Dulles began his speech to the American Federation of Labor by observing that he believed world peace was within reach, but was threatened by “communist leaders who openly repudiate the restraints of moral law.” The United States, he declared, “does not believe that salvation can be won merely by making concessions which enhance the power and increase the arrogance of those who have already extended their rule over one-third of the human race.” Acknowledging that the Soviets now possessed a nuclear arsenal, Dulles countered that the United States would not “cringe or became panicky.” Turning to the issue of labor, Dulles then spoke at length about what he called the communist “swindle.” The secretary spoke derisively of the “hoax” played on Russian workers by their own government. “The Russian worker,” Dulles stated, “is the most underpaid, overworked person in any modern industrial state. He is the most managed, checked, spied on, and unrepresented worker in the world today.” Dulles’ speech indicated that although the new administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower had recently finished negotiating a cease-fire in Korea, the United States was not backing off from its stated Cold War commitment to containing communism. The speech also hinted at two points that would become mainstays of the Secretary’s Cold War diplomacy. First was the idea that the United States would not back down from the Soviets simply because of the threat of nuclear war. This idea eventually became known as “brinkmanship”the notion that the Soviets, if pushed to the “brink” of nuclear war, would eventually back down. Second was Dulles’ frequently repeated assertion that the people living in communist nations were essentially “captives” of repressive communist regimes. In the years to come, Dulles would expand on both ideas in more detail. Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!
Taking the Lead: Obligations of the United States as Global Hegemon
In unusually strong language, Rousseff launched a blistering attack on U.S. surveillance, calling it an affront to Brazilian sovereignty and totally unacceptable. Tampering in such a manner in the lives and affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and, as such, it is an affront to the principles that should otherwise govern relations among countries, especially among friendly nations, Rousseff told the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations. Brazils President Dilma Rousseff addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, September 24, 2013. (Credit: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton) She also proposed an international framework for governing the internet and said Brazil would adopt legislation and technology to protect it from illegal interception of communications. Information and telecommunication technologies cannot be the new battlefield between states. Time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage, and attacks against systems and infrastructure of other countries, Rousseff said. U.S. President Barack Obama was en route to the United Nations while Rousseff spoke. Speaking immediately after Rousseff, he avoided direct reference to her criticism. We have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share, said Obama, who concentrated mostly on the crisis in Syria and the prospects for a diplomatic opening with Iran. Rousseff rejected the U.S. government reasoning that the NSA surveillance was aimed at detecting suspected terrorist activity and she accused the agency of engaging in industrial espionage. Rousseff said she had asked Washington for explanations, an apology and promises the surveillance would never be repeated.
Gertrude S. Carraway, North Carolinas only DAR President General, petitioned President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955 to set aside September 17-23 annually to be dedicated for the observance of Constitution Week, since the Federal Convention adopted the final draft of the Constitution (as it was then) on September 17, 1787, beginning the ratification process. Ironically, the Constitution seems to be best known for the amendments – additions made to it after the ratification process. Only after the Bill of Rights – the set of the first ten amendments – was added in 1789 did North Carolina ratify the Constitution. Technically Congress proposed 12 amendments, but only 10 were ratified. The 11th was adopted in 1992 as the 27th Amendment and is the most recent. The 12th (which was actually the first approved by Congress) deals with how the seats in the House of Representatives should be appointed. The Bill of Rights was not referred to much in the first 100 years or so after the Constitution was ratified, but has been the basis of many landmark cases before the Supreme Court in the 20th and 21st centuries. While the Fifth Amendment – the right not to testify against one’s self – has been very recently questioned, and the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms – seems to be under particular attack of late, the one that everyone seems to know best and think they are experts on is the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Generally, this is the first document people will turn to in order to prove a point about “separation of church and state”. However, there is no such language in the Constitution of the United States.
God can indeed be found in the United States Constitution
I agree… America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong…” The question Syria has awakened is whether it is the United States’ job to “be the world’s police,” an unappealing designation to many. If police are responsible for preventing and detecting crime and maintaining the public order, international relations theory dictates that, yes, it is our job. In the 19th century, we had a multipolar international system in which Great Britain, Austria, Russia, France, and Prussia shared equal power. Later, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two world superpowers that emerged from WWII in the new bipolar system. The Cold War began in 1945 because these superpowers had conflicting ideologies and national interests (capitalism vs. socialism, for example) that influenced their perceptions of the international system and thus, their actions. When the Cold War ended in 1989, an unprecedented world order was established with United States as the global leader, or hegemon. A hegemon is defined as a dominant state that has a preponderance of power that often establishes and enforces the rules and norms in the international system. The United States consciously took on this position of leadership in the post-Cold War order. In our contemporary international system, the U.S. remains the central power, with the European Union and China lagging behind. As hegemon, the United States has more military, economic, technological, diplomatic, political, and geographical advantages than other countries.