In addition, NATO cooperates and discusses its activities with many other non-NATO countries. The Mediterranean Dialogue was launched in 1994 to ensure similar coordination with Israel and North African countries. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was announced in 2004 as a dialogue forum for the Middle East, modelled on the Mediterranean Dialogue. The four participants are also connected via the Gulf Cooperation Council.  In June 2018, Qatar expressed its desire to join NATO.  However, NATO rejected membership, stating that under Article 10 of NATO`s founding treaty, only other European countries could join.  Qatar and NATO signed a joint security agreement in January 2018.  Political dialogue with Japan began in 1990, and since then the Alliance has gradually strengthened its contacts with countries that do not participate in any of these cooperative initiatives.  In 1998, NATO established a set of general guidelines that do not allow for the formal institutionalization of relations, but reflect Allies` desire to strengthen cooperation. After lengthy discussions, Allies agreed on the term “contact countries” in 2000. In 2012, the Alliance expanded this group, which meets to discuss issues such as anti-piracy and technology exchanges under the names of “partners from around the world” or “global partners”.   Australia and New Zealand, two contact countries, are also members of the AUSCANNZUKUS strategic alliance, and similar regional or bilateral agreements between contact countries and NATO members also support cooperation. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said NATO must “deal with the rise of China” by working closely with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
 Colombia is NATO`s youngest partner and Colombia has access to all of the cooperation activities that NATO offers to its partners. Colombia was the first and only country in Latin America to cooperate with NATO.  Schiff, M., & Wang, Y. (2003). Regional Integration and Technology Diffusion: The Case of the North American Free Trade Agreement. World Bank Working Paper on Policy Research, 3132.Google Scholar Research The result of these extensive negotiations was the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. In this agreement, the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom agreed to consider an attack on an attack on all, as well as consultations on threats and defence issues. This collective defence agreement formally applied only to attacks on signatories that took place in Europe or North America; Conflicts in colonial zones were not included.
After the treaty was signed, some of the signatories asked the United States for military assistance. Later in 1949, President Truman proposed a military assistance program, and the Mutual Defense Assistance Program was passed by the U.S. Congress in October, allocating about $1.4 billion to build Western European defenses. On 14 September, NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen issued a statement welcoming the US-Russia agreement on Syrian chemical weapons. Rasmussen stressed that full respect by Syria was the key to the success of the agreement. On the 12th. In September, NATO welcomed Turkey`s announcement to host a radar, which will help detect missile threats from outside Europe. On September 14, the United States and Romania signed an agreement allowing the United States to deploy anti-missile missiles on Romanian territory. On September 15, the Basic Agreement on Missile Defense between the United States and Poland entered into force. www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/trump-says-germanyis-captive-to-russia-in-fiery-opening-salvo-against-nato/2018/07/11/56aa7174-7f0a-11e8-a63f-7b5d2aba7ac5_story.html?utm_term=.def944cb5150 In this article, we analyze the impact of multilateral defense alliances on the arms trade between allies.
We postulate that access to advanced weapons, which will only be made possible for military allies, will intensify the arms trade. It is claimed that the benefits of such trade lie in security and the proliferation of technology. For the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we conduct an empirical analysis. The results show that NATO member countries or partners are significantly increasing arms imports from the Alliance and that this increase is not due to the economic and additional characteristics of the countries. On 2 February, the NATO Verification Coordination Committee held its 10th seminar on conventional arms control agreements, the first seminar since the signing of the Convention on the Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in November 1999. . .