Should NATO reform/rename (ex: "Free Alliance") and invite Japan, SKorea, Australia, NZ, Mexico?

[Blue3]

Should NATO reform/rename (ex: "Free Alliance") and invite Japan, SKorea, Australia, NZ, Mexico, and other free democracies that make sense?

[Ebowed]

New Zealand would be thrilled to have a security guarantee!  As it stands they love to criticize Western governments relentlessly while having practically no defense capability whatsoever.

[Blue3]

New Zealand would be thrilled to have a security guarantee!  As it stands they love to criticize Western governments relentlessly while having practically no defense capability whatsoever.

There's already ANZUS, as I'm sure you know. But all being part of NATO would be a much better guarantee.

[Ebowed]

New Zealand would be thrilled to have a security guarantee!  As it stands they love to criticize Western governments relentlessly while having practically no defense capability whatsoever.

There's already ANZUS, as I'm sure you know. But all being part of NATO would be a much better guarantee.

The United States suspended its treaty obligations towards New Zealand in 1986.

[WMS]

New Zealand would be thrilled to have a security guarantee!  As it stands they love to criticize Western governments relentlessly while having practically no defense capability whatsoever.

So they’ll fit right in.

[GALeftist]

Risk here is provoking China, but frankly, I think appeasement has now been thoroughly discredited if it wasn't already.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

This is clearly the only way forward for the free people's of the world.

I think there needs to be a conference of Democracies very soon to both condemn Russian imperialism but also to reiterate and update in the strongest terms the Atlantic Charter for the 21st century.

[Vosem]

NATO has 8 global partners, though only 7 of them are in active control of their countries and one is a government-in-exile (Colombia, Iraq, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand). 13 more states are major non-NATO allies of the United States, and while Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and India aren't formally on that list, that's essentially 16 more countries.

The issue here is not just that NATO is by design geographically limited, but that there are in fact pretty important NATO allies in the Middle East that aren't very free at all. (Also an alliance that included both Pakistan and India would not make a ton of sense).

[CumbrianLefty]

Leave it as it is.

[NewYorkExpress]

Yes, although I'm pretty Japan's constitution would preclude them from joining.

My list if NATO reforms it's charter of new global members would be:

South Korea:

Taiwan or China (the reason to even consider adding China is NATO is explicitly anti-Russia, and in any event, the only Article 5 mission was 9/11 anyways)

Israel

Australia

Brazil

[dead0man]

New Zealand would be thrilled to have a security guarantee!  As it stands they love to criticize Western governments relentlessly while having practically no defense capability whatsoever.

There's already ANZUS, as I'm sure you know. But all being part of NATO would be a much better guarantee.

The United States suspended its treaty obligations towards New Zealand in 1986.

who would attack NZ?  Tonga?  Samoa?  It's a long way from Peru.  Plus, aren't the Maori pound for pound some of the best fighters in the world?  And for what, a good place to shot Lord of the Rings movies?


edit-as for the OP, yes, of course.  The world would be a safer place if we did.  We shouldn't be scared to include countries with "issues" either, internal or external.  "issues" need solving and what better way than overwhelming military force directed by a coalition of liberal democracies?  Of course that's how many "in the not to distant future..." type sci-fi films start, but never mind that.  This is the real world, what could go wrong?

[Santander]

NATO should always remain a transatlantic alliance so that it remains laser-focused on the defense of Europe. It would be diluted even further with the addition of other countries with completely different security concerns.

You do realize there can be multiple alliance groups going on at the same time, right...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's the new AUKUS agreement between the US, UK, and Australia that pissed off France.