As we progress daily into the military action in Iraq that will ultimately afford freedom to the Iraqi people, rid the world of a terrorism threat and complete one of many stages in the War on Terror it seems that each day another disturbing piece of news comes to light about the character and cooperation of our so-called allies. As the revelations of illegal business dealing with Iraq, Iran and other volatile countries by nations classified as friendly mount, serious thought about how we award the status of ally is called for.

 Russia, a country that not too long ago was knocking on the door of the United States, hat in hand and asking for financial assistance as they started on the road to rebuilding their country into a democracy, has provided night-vision equipment, anti-tank missiles and navigation jamming technology to the Iraqi military in direct violation of the very United Nation sanctions that they professed were working. To top it off, they have also provided the government of Iran with technology to help further the construction of nuclear power sites that could ultimately be used to develop nuclear weapons. With Russia being responsible for fifty percent of all Iraqi weapons imports and roughly 5.8 percent of all Iraqi annual imports, these disclosures have to bring into consideration the possibility that many more dealings between Russia and nations unfriendly to the United States are in play. Of course the official statement from the Russian government is that no arms sales of any kind have taken place but that if they find out there were the perpetrators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is fairly reminiscent of something that would have been during the Cold War. This endangers the lives of American people.

 Germany, a country that owes us its very existence, if not for our amazing generosity after World War II then for keeping them from being the smallest province of the USSR during the cold war, not only built the personal bunkers for Saddam Hussein but has a leader, Gerhardt Schroeder, who was elected on a very anti-American platform. Their political leanings are increasingly becoming more socialist and while this in itself isn’t alarming their increasing tolerance of the anti-Semitic movement by the mainstream German ideal should be. They have aligned themselves with the French in a power play for influence within the European Union in order to oppose the influence of the United States and currently several German companies are suspected of channeling weapons equipment that would be used for boring large barreled weapons to Iraq via Jordan purportedly for Saddam Hussein’s Supercannon project aimed at targeting Iraqi neighbors and foes. Their actions and ideals are opposed to what the United States stands for.

 France, the nation that actively courted nations from around the world to oppose the United States in its efforts to remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of a man who embraces terror as a tool of control on his own people and his neighbors, is responsible for approximately thirteen percent of Iraqi arms imports and is Iraq’s largest European trading partner. The French government and French owned companies have contracts worth tens of billions of dollars with the mortally wounded Iraqi regime to cultivate oil fields throughout Iraq. This represents a significant interest in the Iraqi regime’s survival and the French actions in recent months have demonstrated that its government is much more interested in protecting their economic interests than they are supporting an ally that literally gave them back their country twice after occupation. The French have also been integral in the research and development of Iraq’s nuclear program.

 Now, there have been calls that the United States should pull out of the United Nations because of its lack of effectiveness but I do not join in those calls. The United Nations, as a world body, is still a viable forum for world opinion; it is just a very sorry organization when it comes to enforcing its resolutions. In retrospect, the United Nations should be restructured to be an advisory council that concurs or does not concur with serious events and situations around the world rather than an enforcement council and should be structured to focus on the humanitarian aspect of these situations. It is a fact that whenever the United Nations has to employ military action the bulk of the military assistance always comes from the United States and its closest allies, which also incurs most of the cost of these actions. Without assistance from the US and its closets allies in these matters we have been witness to failure after failure by the United Nations. So, rather than embrace the charade that the United Nations is the one enforcing the resolutions during times of great stress in regions around the world it should be structured so that the United Nations should have to formally request assistance from the United States and its closest allies for a military coalition to be formed to address the matter.

 The larger picture here actually has to do with how the United States defines who an ally actually is. After the Iraqi situation is stabilized President Bush, his cabinet and perhaps even the leaders from the House and the Senate should sit down and restructure the process used that defines just who the United States considers an ally. After World War II we thought we knew who we were aligned with as far as loyalty was concerned but as the grass continues to grow on the graves of the fallen American soldiers who literally liberated the likes of France and Germany it would seem that time has allowed their memories to fade. With that thought still fresh in the mind so should we allow ourselves to measure the loyalty of any given country by its most current actions.

 And after the new process has been agreed upon we should embrace our most trusted of friends by heaping on them the title of ally accompanied by all the benefits that come with it. The United States has many tools that it can use in denoting who we consider allies and who we consider those of a lesser loyalty.

 Finance is the first thing that comes to mind. Instead of granting everyone most-favored-nation trade status this should be reserved for those we consider allies. All other countries that want to engage in trade with the United States should have to do so with the understanding that trade deficits will no longer be the order of the day. Countries that are currently receiving any kind of foreign aid would have it titrated to their cooperation with the United States as well as the attitude it expresses toward our nation. And nations such as Russia who have used American financial influence in recent times to help bolster their status with organizations like the World Bank for monetary assistance and who quite indignantly work against the interests of the United States (as in the case of their trade and assistance to Iraq as noted previously) should have that financial influence and support yanked from underneath them faster than the French military can surrender.

 It is time to utilize the tool of financial access, which foreign governments and their companies desire with the United States, to our advantage. The idea of giving a country monetary appeasement just so they like us should be exorcised from the American foreign policy’s lexicon. Hell, most of the countries that we give the foreign aid to hate us anyway!

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.