I wanted to take note of some remarks made by President Trump on meeting with Brazil’s President Boldonaro this week:
Q Mr. President, will you grant Brazil NATO privileges? Will you grant Brazil NATO privileges? Are you —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re looking at it very strongly. We’re very inclined to do that. The relationship that we have right now with Brazil has never been better. I think there was a lot of hostility with other Presidents. There is zero hostility with me. And we were going — we’re going to look at that very, very strongly, in terms of whether it’s NATO or it’s something having to do with alliance. But we have a great alliance with Brazil — better than we’ve ever had before.
As I think I’ve made clear, I think expanding NATO beyond the original 12 members was an error and I think that further expanding it would compound the error. Additionally, Brazil is ineligible to become a member of NATO under the organization’s charter:
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
That’s not to say that I’m anti-Brazil. In the past I’ve expressed my opinion that Brazil should become a permanent veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council as should India.
Additionally, I think we have more in common with Brazil than we do with France or Sweden, countries with which we are incessantly compared.
Could we extend Section 5 protections to Brazil? Sure. As we could to Israel or South Korea. Indeed, I’d’ve preferred extending Section 5 protection to Latvia or Montengro over making them NATO members. I don’t think doing so would have been prudent but I’d’ve preferred it.
IMO Brazil would probably reject Section 5 protection if it was offered. Against whom would we be protecting them? Argentina? Venezuela?
Trump is proposing “major non-nato ally” status for Brazil;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
That list includes treaty allies like Australia, Japan, South Korea as well non-treaty friends like Egypt, Morocco, Thailand. The benefits seem minor, in that the DOD might return a call instead of slamming the door in your face.
I do believe that as the 21st century moves on, US – India and US – Brazil relations will be seen as important as US – China relations.
I’m wary of entering into treaties, probably because I think we should comply with the obligations we undertake in our treaties.
MNNA designations do not involve any obligations for another countries defense.