with many countries throughout the world, not just to protect other nations, but to protect ourselves. Our NATO allies have raised sizable military forces.   They are producing military equipment and supplies in significant quantities. They provide many important ports and bases for common defense. They are supplying more military power to supplement and reinforce American defense efforts than we can find anywhere else in the world. NATO represents our first line of defense; the degree of its effectiveness has a tremendous impact upon the dependability of our own national defense system. As part of our contribution to the NATO partnership, we have stationed a large number of United States military forces in Europe. While those forces are a minority of the total, their presence is indispensable to NATO. In political and psychological terms, they represent a body of trained and skilled persons for which no substitution from European sources is practical. They operate ports and air bases and other technical facilities that are vital to effective defense in modern warfare. Our allies want these troops to stay in Europe. We recognize the need to have them there. They are part of an overall pattern of defense that could not be disrupted without injury to the entire structure. The important point for us to remember is that American troops are not in Europe as a favor to our allies. They are there because we know we can get more total protection by combining our strength with that of other nations than by standing alone. They are there because we want to prevent war altogether—to stop it before it starts. If war comes despite our best efforts to prevent it, those military forces are in the place where they can do the most good—where they can help to halt an enemy attack and to retaliate with immediate effect. No credit is given today to the idea that American armed forces can best protect American citizens by staying at home and waiting for an enemy to strike the United States. JURISDICTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS In peacetime, before 1939, many troops were stationed in colonies and territories of their own countries, but military forces were not stationed in sovereign foreign countries on a large scale. During World War II, unprecedented numbers of military persons were stationed in foreign countries, particularly those of the Western powers; but jurisdiction over their alleged criminal offenses seemed relatively unimportant to hard-pressed nations. For example, when the fate of Britain was at stake, England was in no position to argue over criminal jurisdiction; and when a sending state, such as the United States, insisted on exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal offenses of its forces and accompanying civilians, Britain quickly agreed. The same has been true in other countries. After the war, large numbers of United States military forces remained in foreign countries. At first, they remained as occupying forces. Later, with the permission of the foreign governments, they remained while these countries recovered, economically and politically, from the aftereffects of the war. Once these countries regained their independence and sovereignty, the United States no longer could claim it was entitled to exclusive jurisdiction over the members of our own-armed forces. Today, a basic principle of international law is that a country has a right to try all offenders for crimes committed within its territory. There are a few exceptions to that rule, the best known one being the immunity of diplomatic personnel from the jurisdiction of the host country. Some other exceptions are based on special treaties and agreements. We object to trial of United States personnel in foreign courts. We feel that a member of our forces, tried in a foreign court under a different legal system and in a language he or she may not understand, might not receive a fair trial. The purpose of the Status of Forces Agree- ments is not to grant jurisdiction to foreign courts over cases not normally under their jurisdiction. On the contrary, in some cases the objective of the agreement is to gain the same right of jurisdiction as the foreign court. This equal right of jurisdiction is called concurrent jurisdiction. In other cases, the objective of the agreement is to acquire waiver of jurisdiction by the foreign court. Most countries generally yield jurisdiction to our military courts because of the Status of Forces Agreements. Therefore, we cannot object too strongly to the trial of those Americans who have committed offenses which that country believes should be under their jurisdiction. We cannot expect to gain concessions to criminal jurisdiction within a foreign country nor to obtain guarantees beyond those available to the citizens of that country. Military commanders of overseas commands have reported that the jurisdictional arrangements in the countries under their responsibility have 2-20