by Congressman Michael Turner
Last year, I co-introduced in the U.S. House with Congressman Jim Marshall, D-Georgia, defense bill language to maintain the current U.S. military force presence in Europe and to uphold U.S. commitments under the NATO treaty. The NATO First Act would ensure trans-Atlantic security remains a priority. The NATO First Act proposes a number of proactive measures in promoting the building of coalitions.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 to provide for the collective security of the free nations of Europe, as well the U.S. and Canada, the alliance helped keep the peace during the Cold War. Some 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO’s role as a stabilizing force in the region is still necessary and should not be sacrificed as the White House searches for new ways to court the Russian Government.
America faces many new national challenges to the security of our homeland. Attempted terror attacks on U.S. soil, cyber attacks, and proliferation of nuclear and missile technology have been added to the list of challenges our nation faces. This includes traditional nuclear and conventional threats already on the list.
NATO is fundamentally a security alliance. So in the 21st century, NATO’s strategic concept must strengthen the security of member states, establish policies that continue to deter potential adversaries, and reassure member nations. In particular, Central and Eastern Europeans—who have been some of America’s staunchest allies—need and deserve NATO’s reassurance.
This guarantee is crucial for a number of reasons. First, Moscow has steadily increased its aggressive rhetoric and actions towards countries that the Kremlin considers within its “sphere of influence.” With growing insecurity in Europe following Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, some believe the United States is shifting its attention away from the region in an effort to “reset” its relations with Russia.
Russia’s behavior is also a reminder that traditional NATO security principles like strategic deterrence are still important. Russia’s 3,800 tactical nuclear weapons remain a threat to many NATO states. As the United States Secretary of Defense recently highlighted in testimony before Congress, U.S. nuclear forces in Europe provide a visible sign of reassurance and commitment to our NATO Allies.
The United States also has an opportunity strengthen and reassure NATO of our commitment to its mission. Iran’s progress in developing nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles has highlighted the need for territorial missile defense capabilities. Our ongoing operations in Afghanistan have highlighted NATO’s key role in training and mentoring Afghan security forces. The United States should consider strengthening joint training capabilities to help NATO better support counterterrorism operations.
If NATO does not address traditional security threats, expand on the ways to mitigate them, and incorporate emerging security areas, it risks further deterioration of a successful “reset” in relations between Moscow and Washington. Only a strong and adaptable NATO can guarantee continued trans-Atlantic security in the years to come.
Sir,
I know the U.S. pays its fair share to support NATO, and rightfully so, but I also know that the ratio of U.S. “American” employed by NATO is much less than our contribution, about 3% from my friend who works for NATO. I myself have applied for and even interviewed several times for NATO. Some of my experiences since 2001 are;
1. Told made the final cut and they would hire from that list only to be told the following week that they decide to re-announce and I could apply if I want to wait another 7 months. (this happened twice)
2. Told I would be called in for an interview the next week, when the week was almost over I called to find out, and was told, “we decided to hire from the applications and we can do that! (Click! As he hung up).” (Geilenkirchen, Germany)
3. Went to an interview for a job at NATO HQ in Brussels, job info stated “must be proficient in one of the two NATO languages, English and French.” Arrived and found out I had to take a “French Language test” which of course I did not pass being an American. It was clearly made clear to me that I would not be offered the job as they were looking for someone who spoke French, even though the announcement did not state that.
4. Applied for a job at the Allied Land Component Command at Heidelberg, on Campbell Barracks, was told I was not referred because I was not qualified (this is not true) and never interviewed. I was 3 buildings over and ended up working with them to help them set up. I was asked by the staff, why I did not apply by them when I told them I did, they were very surprised, but said they thought the job was “earmarked“for someone.
5. Asked to send in my application and apply for a job in Geilenkirchen, which was sent promptly back stating they were going through a job review. Normally they just hold them on file for a year.
I have interviewed other times with NATO with some very professional people and no issues, but I will say that I every time I for and interview I was the “token American present. I have a couple of Friends in NATO some U.S. citizens, who only got their jobs because of who they happened to know. They tell me to keep trying but to be aware that they do see a very strong anti-American ethic in NATO.
I do not want you to do anything about the above. The only thing I as a U.S. Taxpayer would like to see is that the NATO employment equal the percentage amount the U.S. supplies.