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.