Jump to content

Talk:Major non-NATO ally

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GabeIglesia (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 8 March 2024 (MOS:TIES). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

Saudi Arabia, India and Ethiopia

Why is  Saudi Arabia,  India and  Ethiopia not a MNNA?

Why should they be? State your argument rather than asking a surfaceless question, and sign your posts. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 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]

Looks good. Nice work! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map update

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]

{{Major non-NATO ally}}

Template:Major non-NATO ally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming biased toward USA

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:COMMONNAME, it seems that we should name the article after the actual name being used. For example, there are 138,000 Ghits for "Major non-NATO ally" versus 8 Ghits for "MNNA of U.S." Likewise, 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. Caleb KG (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

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]

Brazil is a MNNA

This list (dated January 30, 2020) of MNNAs include Brazil: https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/

Brunei, Colombia and Taiwan

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]

Sorry. MNNA's. Andrew1444 (talk) 14:59, 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.

WP:CRYSTALBALL. CowHouse (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Argentina no longer is MNNA

Argentina no longer is an Major Non-NATO ally, as they lost this status one decade ago: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/eeuu-cree-que-la-argentina-ya-no-es-aliado-estrategico-nid1392668/. 190.183.247.137 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the United States Department of State disagrees with you. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another sources, like this, confirms that Argentina lost their status in the year 2012: https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-221895-2013-06-09.html?mobile=1... And following too many tensions with USA and UK, Argentina cannot be still considered ally of them. It's more, it never was.---190.183.247.210 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the US Department of State government disagrees with you just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not true. DiSantis19 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2023 (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]

Argentina is still a MNNA

(Today: 2023, May 2nd) Argentina is still on the list: https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacApps (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Major_non-NATO_ally&oldid=1212529863"