Major Non NATO Allies

While NATO is the prominent alliance on the stage of international alliances, there are other alliances recognized by the United States that are instead placed under the category of MNNA, or “Major Non Nato Ally.” The recognized countries in this alliance have strong working relationships with the United States Military, but are not by default military alliances in a war should it break out. The MNNA is more of an affirmation that we recognize the strong working relationship with them and they are subsequently entitled to benefits, such as concrete assistance in the forms of weapons and loans to help arm the country. For example, Morrocco was entitled a MNNA after assisting the United States in the War on Terror in Iraq.  Benefits include “enhanced fi­nancial assistance in acquiring US arms, coordinated defence plan­ning, special training programmes and priority access to surplus US weapons.” However, the MNNA alliances are different than NATO because they do not necessarily foster communication and trust BETWEEN the countries involved, rather, it is a American-centric alliance that defines their relationship in terms of relations to us. For example, our strongest alliances in Asia (South Korea and Japan) have not sided with one another on critical issues, South Korea choosing instead to side with China on issues such as South Korea turning down a deal to share military intelligence with Japan. According to The Economist, China is South Koreas largest trading partner. Perhaps trade does not necessarily always influence cooperation, as is suggested by Liberal thinkers, nor does mutual membership to an outside alliance. It is also possible that it is not necessarily beneficial to make it easier for other countries to have access to weapons under MNNA, as it could mimic the destruction that ensued in the “Iraq Training Mission” which some blame for arming the state and preparing it to be destructive and ready to commit acts of terrorism.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Major Non NATO Allies

  1. To my mortification, I didn’t know the exsistence of MNNA, nor Japan is a menber country. U.S. has already made the treaty with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS), and with Japan (Japan-U.S. Security Treaty), so I doubt the raison d’etre of this alliance, although the relationship between U.S. and NZ was remedied because of it. As the author in this blog says, I can’t sweep away the suspicion that this alliance is, after all, American-centric one.

    Like

  2. This was a pretty interesting post, when studying international politics it is often easy to forget about MNNA and their role in the international system because NATO and the UN are such big alliances. I think MNNA are good for their ability to foster trade in the international system between countries without getting countries involved in war should their ally go to war.

    Like

  3. This is the first time I am hearing of the MNNA but I am not surprised. It is great that we can trade with other countries without dragging them to war with us. Every country is different and it would be near impossible to get them all on the same page. It seems that the MNNA allows us to trade with a larger amount of countries without as many obligations. However, I can agree that we definitely have to be careful about who we “ally” with when guns are involved and that goes for all countries.

    Like

  4. Like the commenters above, I have also never heard of the term MNNA until now. I think that it is good to have a stable and effective relationship with others but not have them in NATO so as to not have so many countries involved in war if it were to break out. I definitely agree with the commenter from above when it was started that the United States should be careful with who it allies itself with.

    Like

  5. I also have not known the MNNA. When I know the definition of MNNA, I thought that U.S. is the country which is good at taking the leaderships in the international world. I do not know much about MNNA but what I pay attention to is that it was created during the end of the Cold War. It could be assumed that U.S. sought more interdependence, or their national interests, with allied countries. Also I thought this ally became obsolete at first because it may not be as famous as NATO, ANZUS, SEATO and so on. However, it seems that U.S. include Middle East countries, such as Tunisia and Afghanistan, for this ally. This may be inferred that U.S. want to enhance the stability in the Middle East.

    Like

  6. I love the statement, “trade does not necessarily always influence cooperation”. This addition is visibly true in this post and in other examples throughout history/international relations. This is an incredibly interesting post and focuses on a rather under communicated topic of unconfirmed/ explicitly stated allies and their connections. Different post and enjoyble to read.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s