This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
Major non-NATO ally is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kuwait, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kuwait on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KuwaitWikipedia:WikiProject KuwaitTemplate:WikiProject KuwaitKuwait articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Enlargement of NATO#Finland and Sweden|membership of NATO]] The anchor (#Finland and Sweden) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
American and democracy
India is a democracy and Pakistan is a dictatorship. Which one is a valued allied of the United States? Pakistan of course! 62.31.55.223 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia should refree like an nato ally, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.64.33.190 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Very good point!QZXA2 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
India does not want to be pinned down for one side or the other. That is their right. Pakistan is in flux at the moment. They desperately need economic development, but that cannot come from the West. The task is gigantic and too expensive. The current PM Khan seemed to have looked towards China but that prompted his ousting. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278 (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are non-nato allies for strategic reasons, like how they don't want to make new enemies and want dis-counts on black gold. The U.S. only begrudgingly helps dictatorships and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.139.162 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 August 2007
Let's keep political discussions not relevant to the development of the article to your own personal blog pages, please! –SESmith 22:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they be? State your argument rather than asking a surfaceless question, and sign your posts. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribs 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MNNAs have to be designated as such by the President. 98.218.229.58 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of MNNAs
On the titles (Initial MNNAs, Subsequent ,etc) would be nice to have also the US President who name them. --Jor70 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map needs to be updated to reflect addition of Afghanistan. Doyna Yar (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addl map update needed: map now needs update to reflect the subtraction of Afghanistan per the collapse of the regime in August 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.54.106 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the name is not neutral, I propose to change it to MNNA of U.S. --Cheol (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per
WP:PRECISION
states that, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that," and adding "of U.S." to the end of the title would appear to be unnecessary preemptive disambiguation. 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Without the inclusion in the title that the article is entirely about the US allies, it defines neither "precisely enough" nor "unambiguously" the "topical scope" of the article. At the very least there should be something along the lines of "US defense policy" in parentheses after the current title, since the article does not consider the non-NATO allies of any other country. Wikipedia isn't US-specific so resorting to appeals to ghits on US-specific resources is biased, intellectually dishonest and dickish. 84.250.167.255 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other speculated MNNAs
This section is just getting silly. According to Wikipedia, 'U.S. Armed Forces troops were stationed in 150 countries'. Where does all this speculation end? Doyna Yar (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to include it. Speculation has no place on wikipedia. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
India
India is now a part of the MNNA, the map must be updated.
Does DJT saying Brazil should be an MNNA make it so? There is specific legislation for this status - Brazil has not been added to that list, at least not yet. Therefore, the material benefits and political meaning don't exist yet. I would think specify as such, and remove from map.
128.164.22.78 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brunei and Colombia are not MNNAs per the U.S. Department of State website: state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status.
The same site addresses Taiwan: "Pub. L. 107-228 provides Taiwan shall be treated as an MNNA without formal designation as such." Andrew1444 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone put this page as semi-protected? Brunei and Colombia have not been named as NMMAs and the anonymous user who keeps changing it doesn't even provide sources. Andrew1444 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Brunei Darussalam and Colombia are Major Non-NATO Ally Because they are Friends to the United States Brunei Darussalam is a US Ally Since 1845 via the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed by the Two Countries in 1850, also the Brunei Darussalam and the United States of America Have a Defence Relations Because of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Military and Defense Cooperation in 1994 Which the Two Countries resulted in joint exercises, training programs, and other forms of military cooperation between the Two Countries, and Also the Two Countries Have an Economic Relations Because It Is Part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Colombia is Also a US Ally Because It Is the Only Latin American Country That Send Its Armed Forces Into the Korean War. Laemonly Paul Labrador (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since "major non-NATO ally" is a formal designation by the US government, neither Brunei nor Colombia belong. For that to change, the US government would need to award them that status. --Darth Occulus (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of the United States of America Under President Joe Biden Will Award Brunei Darussalam and Colombia to the Status of a Major Non-NATO Ally.
Request for comment on Moroccan control of Western Sahara
Should Western Sahara, up to the de facto border, be colored orange as part of Morocco, on the map of US-designated non-NATO allies, given the US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty of Western Sahara? — kwami (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a debate between User:M.Bitton and myself. They respond below. We really shouldn't have 'support' and 'oppose' from the two of us, but oh well. — kwami (talk)
Support If this were a map of UN member states, then IMO the answer would be 'no', because the UN has designated Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory and does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty. But then, in a list of UN member states, Taiwan would need to be shown as a province of China, since the UN does not recognize it as independent. On this map, we show Taiwan as a separate country, because that's part of the American recognition of Taiwan as a MNNA.
The US explicitly recognizes Moroccan sovereignty of Western Sahara. That was done in exchange for Morocco normalizing relations with Israel. And Morocco as recognized by the US is a MNNA. A MNNA has no meaning apart from US recognition, so this map is intrinsically about US recognition, at least as far as MNNA's are concerned. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) we don't draw international borders according to a specific country's POV (thank god for that, otherwise all the states with limited recognition will be erased from most of our maps). 2) this is not a map about U.S. recognition, it's a map that is meant to show Major American Non-NATO allies, as specified in a source that doesn't mention anything about the international borders. If it did, and seeing as the U.S. recognizes the sovereignty of Morocco over all of Western Sahara and not just part of it, we'd need to add a proper caption to the map (per
WP:NPOV) explaining to the reader that the map they're looking at includes the non-self governing territory of Western Sahara (part of which is illegally occupied by Morocco and the other part belonging to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). Luckily, it doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Whose recognition are you basing that on? There is no neutral map. This wouldn't affect most maps, because most maps are not drawn from a particular POV. But the map of UN member states you drew follows the UN POV. You left out Taiwan, Kosovo and Somaliland, for example. And I agree with that, because a map of countries defined by the UN should reflect the POV of the UN. For a map of countries defined by the US, we should similarly follow the POV of the US. Neither is an NPOV violation, because both are explicitly a specific POV. Similarly, Crimea is sometimes shown as part of Russia, part of Ukraine, or as disputed. It depends on the purpose of the map.
BTW, I don't have a problem with coloring all of W.Sahara as part of Morocco, I was just following the de facto border, but don't mind changing that. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the U.S., if that helps. Of course there is no completely neutral map, but there is a POV one (like the one you're suggesting). The POV of the UN is based on international law (unlike some countries that are now living the consequences of their double standards). In case you've forgotten: the map you're referring to was created for you following your request and was based on an existing map that it was supposed to replace (anyone who's familiar with Commons rules would tell you that your chances of overwriting an existing amp with a totally different one are rather slim). You were also asked to check it and you ended up changing it. Taiwan (that you mentioned above) is obviously a bad example as it's listed in the source, and therefore, we have no choice but to show it (though it should be coloured differently from the others as it's not officially designated as an MNNA). I said what I needed to say and don't intend on bludgeoning the process. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't help to give a non-answer.
Re. the straw-man argument here, I corrected some errors that M.Bitton made on the UN map, such as some official NSGT's being colored NSGT grey but some as UN-member blue. Not that that has anything to do with this map. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you're being so deceitful. Like I said: the map you're referring to was created for you following your request on
WP:GL/M and was based on an existing map that it was supposed to replace. M.Bitton (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And what does that have to do with anything here?
Accusing people of acting in bad faith when they've said nothing inaccurate or misleading, and simply disagree with you, makes it look like you won't tolerate honest disagreement. That's the reason I opened this up for comment in the first place. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up the map to try to make a point and when reminded of the facts, you are now pretending that it's irrelevant. If that's not acting in bad faith, I don't know what is. 01:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm saying that your false allegations are irrelevant. Why you're so quick to assume that someone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith, I don't know. We can continue to bad-mouth each other on your talk page, but it's not helpful in a request for comment. Can you refactor your comments to what is relevant for the discussion at hand, and I'll do the same, so that we're not bludgeoning the other readers with our inability to get along? I'd collapse it myself, but you have relevant comments and opinions mixed in. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Political borders in a map should be as recognizable and unambiguous as possible, with exceptions only as necessary. Coloring the map to account for US recognition of the Western Sahara claim is bound to cause confusion; it's better to stick to the best-known borders of Morocco. If the article were about claims to the Sahara, you'd certainly want to account for it, but it's not particularly relevant to this topic. In the case of Taiwan, it makes sense to highlight US relations with that quasi-state, even if it's not recognized by other authorities, given its significance. But there is no compelling case for illustrating sovereignty over the Sahara, which for the purposes of this article is rather obscure. Xcalibur (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dubious and confusing. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the US government agrees or disagrees with me. I only say that Argentina should be removed from this list, because it has never had good relations with NATO countries and they had even requested the expulsion of Argentina. --190.183.247.210 (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does NATO have to do with this? This is about non-NATO allies. As in: not NATO. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership" is the top foreign relations level of the Vietnamese Government. Awarding it puts the US relationship on par with Russia and China. However I don't believe it in any way relates to an alliance of any form. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential MNNA
Do we really need a speculation section? Doyna Yar (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a bill before the US congress, or some other concrete indication they may become a MNNA, backed by RS's, then I don't see why not. We have sections on possible future expansion in many articles. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
Saudi Arabia, 
India and 
Ethiopia not a MNNA?