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