Skip to main content

Potential NATO Partners — Political and Military Utility for NATO

  • Chapter

Part of the New Security Challenges Series book series (NSECH)

Abstract

First implemented in 1989 as a revision to the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, the US Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) distinction was formed primarily as a means to improve American bilateral relationships through improved defense trade relationships and to encourage and advance cooperative agreements for research and development on conventional weapons. To be clear at the onset, this distinction has nothing to do with NATO, provides no enhanced security guarantee between the US and its identified MNNA, and by some measures barely alters the existing relationship between the US and the MNNA (Center for Defense Information, 2004). In many respects, the injection of ‘NATO’ into this term, as well as the term ‘allies’ (at least in the Article 5 sense as understood in the North Atlantic Treaty), provides a false impression of the bilateral agreement in place.

Keywords

  • Bush Administration
  • Clinton Administration
  • Obama Administration
  • American Foreign Policy
  • Joint Training

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1057/9780230297500_8
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-230-29750-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   100.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Agence France Presse (AFP) (1997) ‘US Sees no Problem with Britain Over Special Status for Argentina’ (16 August 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agence France Presse (AFP) (2003a) ‘Full US Military Ally Status Timely for Beleagured Philippines’ (20 May 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agence France Presse (AFP) (2003b) ‘Bush Designates the Philippines a Major Non-Nato ally’ (7 October 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agence France Presse (AFP) (2009) ‘Argentina Seeks Colombian for 1994 Terror Strike’ (20 May 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Asia Pulse (2003) ‘Philippine Politicians Question U.S. Non-Nato Ally Role’ (23 May 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Associate Press (2007) ‘Thailand Will Send 800 Troops to Darfur on peacekeeping Mission’ (10 October 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barany, Z. (2006) ‘NATO’s Post Cold War Metamorphis: From Sixteen to Twenty-Six and Counting’ International Studies Review, 8, 1, pp. 165–78.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • BBC News (2004) ‘India not Informed of US decision on Pakistan Ally Status — Vajpayee’ (15 April 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzezinski, Z. (2009) ‘An Agenda for NATO’, Foreign Affairs, 88,5, pp. 2–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. and Landingin, R. (2001) ‘Leaders See Opportunity as Regional Tensions Rise’, Financial Times (10 October 2001), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Defense Information (2009) ‘U.S. Arms Transfers to America’s Newest “Major Non-NATO Ally” ’, http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2194, date accessed 30 April 2010.

  • Chambers, P. (2004) ‘U.S.-Thai Relations after 9/11: A New Era in Cooperation’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 3, pp. 460–79.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chanlett-Avery, E. (2009) ‘Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations’, Congressional Research Service (8 June 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, A. (1999) ‘East Timor and Australia’s Security Role: Issues and Scenarios’, Current Issues Brief, 3 (21 September 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Record (24 March 2004): H1483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense (1998) ‘Secretary Cohen’s Press Briefing En Route to Buenos Aires, Argentina (22 May 1998)’ http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1128, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • Department of State (2004) ‘Remarks in Route to Kuwait (18 March 2004)’ http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remakrs/30562.htm, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • Department of State (2008) ‘Country Reports on Terrorism’, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • Deutsche Presse-Agentur (1999a) ‘First Batch of Thai Troops Head for East Timor’ (4 October 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Presse-Agentur (1999b) ‘Philippines to Send 400 More Troops to East Timor’ (9 November 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez, J. (1999) ‘Argentina, NATO’s South Atlantic Partner’, NATO Review (Spring, 1999), pp. 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. A. (2005) ‘NATO Enlargement and the Spread of Democracy: Evidence and Expectations,’ Security Studies, 14, pp. 59–98.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fair, C. C. (2009) ‘Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S. Relations with Pakistan’, Washington Quarterly, 32,2, pp. 149–72.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Frühling, S. and Schreer, B. (2010) ‘Creating the Next Generation of NATO Partnerships’, The Russi Journal, 155,1, pp. 52–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gerleman, D. J., Stevens, J. E. and Hildreth, S. A. (2001) ‘Operation Enduring Freedom: Foreign Pledges of Military and Intelligence Support’, Congressional Research Service (17 October 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gheciu, A. (2005) NATO in the ‘New Europe’ (Stanford, CA.: Stanford Univ. Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Globe and Mail (2001) ‘Latin American Leaders Support U.S.’ (9 October 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • IPS-Inter Press Service (1997) ‘Argentina-Chile: U.S. Alliance Clouds Relations’ (17 August 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Landingin, R. (2003) ‘Manila Braced for Terror Attacks’, Financial Times (6 February 2003), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga, F. L. (2000) ‘Argentina, A New U.S. Non-Nato Ally’, Naval War College Review, 53,2, pp. 125–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lum, T. and Niksch, L. A. (2009) The Republic of the Philippines: Background and U.S. Relations’, Congressional Research Service (15 January 2009), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macan-Markar, M. (2003) ‘Thailand: Premier Faces Storm Over Upgraded Alliance with U.S.’, IPS-Inter Press Service (30 October 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahapatra, R. (2004) ‘India Disappointed with United States for not Sharing Its Decision to Elevate Military Ties with Pakistan’, Associate Press (20 March 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. R. (2007) NATO’s New Mission: Projecting Stability in a Post-Cold War World (Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. R. (2010) ‘NATO Partners in Afghanistan: Impact and Purpose,’ UNISCI Discussion Papers, No. 22, pp. 92–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • NATO (2009) ‘Strasbourg/Kehl Summit Declaration’, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_52837.htm?mode=pressrelease, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • Polak, N. M., Hendrickson, R. C. and Garrett, N. G. D. (2009) ‘NATO Membership for Albania and Croatia: Military Modernization, Geo-Strategic Factors, and Force Projection’, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 22,4, pp. 502–14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sanger, D. E. (2003) ‘Bush Yields a Bit on North Korea’, International Herald Tribune (20 October 2003), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • SFOR Informer Online (1998) ‘Argentina and Romania Join MSU’, http://www.nato.int/SFOR/sfor-at-work/msu/MSU1.htm, accessed 4 April 2010.

  • SFOR Informer Online (2000) ‘SFOR Argentinean Contingent’, http://www.nato.int/SFOR/indexinf/100/s100p03a/t0011083a.htm, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • Shane S. and Schmitt, E. (2010) ‘C.I.A. Deaths Prompt Surge in U.S. Drone Strikes’, New York Times Online (23 January 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagliabue, J. (2003) ‘Start of War condemned by many Government Leaders’, International Herald Tribune (21 March 2003), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Mission’s Summary detailed by Country (31 December 2009) at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • US Public Law, Title 10, Section 2350a, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Public Law, Title 22, Section 2321k, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • White House (1997) ‘President Clinton’s Bilateral Meetings with President Carlos Menem of Argentina’ (16 October 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • White House (2003a) ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom: Coalition Members’ (27 March 2003a) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030327-10.html, date accessed 4 April 2010.

  • White House (2003b) ‘Joint Statement Between the United States of American and the Kingdom of Thailand’ (11 June 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • White House (2003c) ‘Remarks by President Bush in a Photo Opportunity with Prime Minister Thaksin of Thailand’ (19 October 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Xinhua General News Service (2007) ‘Philippines Plans to Contribute More Troops to UN Peacekeeping Missions’ (20 June 2007).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2011 Ryan C. Hendrickson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hendrickson, R.C. (2011). Potential NATO Partners — Political and Military Utility for NATO. In: Edström, H., Matlary, J.H., Petersson, M. (eds) NATO: The Power of Partnerships. New Security Challenges Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230297500_8

Download citation