Skip to main content

Why We Stand With NATO

On April 4, 1949, Johannes Kaiv, the acting consul general of Estonia’s government-in-exile, sent a letter to Secretary of State Dean Acheson, which read:

I have the honor to offer my best wishes to the signatories of the North Atlantic Pact, and to express my confidence that they, inspired by the ideals of democracy, of individual liberty, and the rule of law, will strive relentlessly for peace with justice, which excludes peace at any price. Therefore, I express the belief that countries which were forcibly deprived of self-government and independence will benefit by this noble endeavor.

Estonia would have to wait 55 years to join NATO, a decade after the nation regained its freedom from the Soviet empire. But the values that make NATO relevant today are the same that Kaiv identified in 1949, when he lamented the fate of his occupied homeland. As we celebrate the 70th anniversary of this historic alliance, we must remember what is at stake: protecting democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.

In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine, illegally annexed Crimea, and supported armed proxies that continue to occupy a part of eastern Ukraine to this day. According to the United Nations, 13,000 Ukrainians have died, with as many as 30,000 wounded, as a result of Russian-backed aggression in Ukraine.

Had Estonia not been a member of NATO in 2014, would it have shared Ukraine’s tragic fate? We doubt that the residents of Tallinn—or Vilnius, Riga, Warsaw, Prague, or Budapest, for that matter—would ever want to test that proposition.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, our NATO allies did more than signal their support for us. They invoked Article 5, the provision of the treaty supporting the principle of collective defense, for the first—and, so far, only—time in the history of the alliance. They joined us on the battlefields of Afghanistan to bring those responsible for that heinous attack against the United States and the American people to justice. They partnered with us for the past two decades on counterterrorism and security operations throughout the world. More than 1,000 men and women from our allied partners gave their lives in this conflict for our freedoms. The United States Congress and the American people will never forget their sacrifice.

This is why more than three in five Americans view NATO favorably. This is why we are leading an effort in the Senate to pass legislation that would require the consent of two-thirds of the United States Senate for any present or future president of the United States to be able to exit NATO.

In an alliance as broad as NATO—with its 29 members, 21 partners for peace, and an additional 15 nations engaged in formal programs—there will always be differences. For instance, some of Turkey’s recent actions have raised serious questions regarding Ankara’s intentions and commitments to certain fundamental democratic principles, such as human rights and press freedoms. Yet we must seek to resolve these differences within the alliance, not outside of it.

For long-term sustainability, it will be important for all NATO members to increase their spending on defense, in order to meet and exceed the minimum threshold of 2 percent of GDP. We strongly believe that as allies, we should have frank but respectful conversations about this important issue.

NATO should also devote more resources to the challenge of hybrid warfare, including protecting our cyberspace and countering information operations that seek to damage our democratic systems. NATO should also become more global and use both its Partnership for Peace program and its formal dialogues around the world to grow beyond its North Atlantic focus.

As Winston Churchill famously said: “There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.”

This is why we will always stand with NATO.



from The Atlantic http://bit.ly/2G2Wlhk

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...