I'm not sure what you're referring to. All of these countries are officially listed as Non-NATO US Allies. It's an actual designation by act of US Congress.
Agreed, but the confusing thing about that is which of these would you expect to see as full NATO members? The only one I can see a real argument for is Morocco.
I have no idea what the point of this "designation" is. Does anybody know? If a war breaks out, the Americans will wade in if they think it's in their interest, and stay away if it is not.
I'm very surprised there are ANY Muslim countries besides Afghanistan here. Especially those against Israel (Egypt and Jordan). Yet no European countries which are more likely to become NATO members.
Unlike NATO, the Major Non-NATO Ally designation is not a multilateral alliance but just each country allied unilaterally with the US. The MNNTs aren’t bound to assist each other and even the US is not bound to assist MNNTs, unlike NATO. So having Israel as MNNT alongside Muslim countries that doesn’t like it is not a conflict.
Touchy one. If allied with India you are against Bangladesh and Pakistan. Even 2.2 million people who moved from India to the USA moved for a reason, AND might not be happy with a USA / India pact.
Especially, more than their activities in support of terrorists, because of their clear alliance with China. At this point in time, whether we acknowledge it or not, the world is most divided between those aligned with China and those aligned with the United States. Muslim terrorists, while not good, are only a distraction.
Because it was soooo much better under the previous administration... When the US were disregarding every historic allies they had for people like Kim Jong Un...
I was listening to a geopolitical podcast, and they were speculating as to the reason for US withdrawal. One of the underlying reasons was to divert forces to the South China sea.
Not sure if it's the real reason, but I'm guessing given how quickly Afghan forces collapsed, US intelligence knew the consequences of withdrawing, and this is a result they almost certainly saw coming. So the tradeoffs must've been something the Biden administration viewed as necessary to compensate for how bad the current situation looks.
The same thing most likely would have happened even if the US pulled out in 2031, 2041, 2051, or 2061. The US had been there for 20 years and could not stay forever. It is not good that the Afghani government fell so quickly, but at some point the US had to pull the plug. Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason.
I wonder how many of these have a collective security agreement equivalent to NATO's article 5. I know ANZUS does and I'd assume Japan does too, but can't imagine it for quite a lot of them.
i’m not sure if i’m being slow or the title and description are phrased confusingly - i read it as countries that are definitely not allies of nato, ie non-nato allies, and started guessing countries whose regimes the usa might identify as counter to their values, like north korea or saudi arabia. i know i was wrong but could the description offer a little clarification maybe?
The situation in Afghanistan is still pretty chaotic and probably won't be resolved for several months, if not years. The government of President Ghani is still the internationally recognized government, even though he's not even in Afghanistan anymore. The Taliban has taken over the capital by force and proclaimed a new government while simultaneously claiming they seek a peaceful transfer of power. I don't think the Taliban has even officially chosen a leader.
In other words, it's a hot mess, and probably too early to definitively update the quiz. (Also if I got any of that wrong please correct me--it's hard to keep track of everything going on right now.)
The Taliban might not be the "legitimate" government, but they are clearly in charge now. It's not like there's going to be another invasion to restore the old government. What a mess.
Granted, given current events, we should take the inclusion of Afghanistan on this list with a grain of salt the size of Kabul. I'm happy to update once the legal designation changes.
From Wikipedia: "Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States government to countries that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. Armed Forces while not being members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While the status does not automatically constitute a mutual defense pact (as would be the case through NATO membership) with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that are otherwise unobtainable by non-NATO countries."
Basically, there are countries that are working closely with at least one branch of the US military forces. They also get some benefits from doing so.
Since those benefits are sanctioned by the US government, it employs an official designation for them (Major Non-NATO Ally).
So what, it's like, "we need to give you arms to balance powers in the region. so we'll pick the least-worst & call you a 'designated ally'. now you can buy our stuff at a discount, or free - if you're that undeveloped. and we can proclaim to our constituents that it's legal and in our interest to move arms (and in some cases men/ships) at volume"
Because some of these don't make any sense in the traditional term of "ally" / "allegiance", like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Argentina, Israel, etc.
Set aside Afghanistan. AFAIK Pakistan's #1 enemy is India, and there's no way their worth combined would even approach attracting the US to involve itself between 2 nuclear-armed barely-functional countries (especially in support of Pakistan in that situation). I think their #2 enemy is Pakistan/a coup. And maybe #3 the US.
Maybe it's some legal loophole where you can't export 500 tanks to just anyone, or have US men doing state-related tasks on foreign soil without certain approval.
The only real surprise to me was Morrocco.
Don't even recognize Israel
Not sure if it's the real reason, but I'm guessing given how quickly Afghan forces collapsed, US intelligence knew the consequences of withdrawing, and this is a result they almost certainly saw coming. So the tradeoffs must've been something the Biden administration viewed as necessary to compensate for how bad the current situation looks.
Then they'd be a developed democratic country of peace and prosperity.
Just like all the other countries in the world.
In other words, it's a hot mess, and probably too early to definitively update the quiz. (Also if I got any of that wrong please correct me--it's hard to keep track of everything going on right now.)
Personally I'm more surprised Vietnam was never designated. I mean obviously during the Cold War it would be a bit controversial but after 1991...
(sitaution)
Basically, there are countries that are working closely with at least one branch of the US military forces. They also get some benefits from doing so.
Since those benefits are sanctioned by the US government, it employs an official designation for them (Major Non-NATO Ally).
Because some of these don't make any sense in the traditional term of "ally" / "allegiance", like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Argentina, Israel, etc.
Set aside Afghanistan. AFAIK Pakistan's #1 enemy is India, and there's no way their worth combined would even approach attracting the US to involve itself between 2 nuclear-armed barely-functional countries (especially in support of Pakistan in that situation). I think their #2 enemy is Pakistan/a coup. And maybe #3 the US.
Maybe it's some legal loophole where you can't export 500 tanks to just anyone, or have US men doing state-related tasks on foreign soil without certain approval.