The U.S. State Department has released a report on the voting behavior of other countries at the United Nations — and has identified the top ten best and worst countries in terms of voting for to against the U.S., respectively.

The April 26 report, “Voting Practices in the United Nations 2017,” was prepared after the Trump administration made clear it would consider cutting aid to countries that voted against the U.S. in UN institutions. That warning came after the UN General Assembly voted 128 to 9 (with 35 abstentions) last December to oppose President Donald Trump’s decision to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the capital city of Jerusalem.

“They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot. We don’t care,” the president said. His warning was reiterated by UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who said after the vote: “We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations and we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

The report on UN votes is prepared annually, but has additional significance this year due to those warnings.

In 2017, the best U.S. ally at the UN was Israel, and the worst U.S. enemy at the UN was Zimbabwe.

The report also notes the best ten: “The 10 countries with the highest voting coincidence with the United States were, in descending order: Israel, Micronesia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Australia, United Kingdom, France, Palau, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic.”

It also notes the worst ten: The 10 countries with the lowest voting coincidence with the United States were, in ascending order: Zimbabwe, Burundi, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Bolivia, and South Africa.”

According to the USAID website, the latter countries received the following amounts of U.S. aid, across all agencies, in fiscal year 2016 (the last year for which full records are available, rounded to the nearest million):

• Zimbabwe: $261 million
• Burundi: $75 million
• Iran: $3 million
• Syria: $916 million
• Venezuela: $9 million
• North Korea: $0
• Turkmenistan: $3 million
• Cuba: $16 million
• Bolivia: $1 million
• South Africa: $597 million

The total was close to $2 billion.

Haley said last week, upon release of the report: “[T]his is not an acceptable return on our investment. When we arrived at the UN last year, we said we would be taking names, and this list of voting records speaks for itself. President Trump wants to ensure that our foreign assistance dollars – the most generous in the world – always serve American interests, and we look forward to helping him see that the American people are no longer taken for granted.”

Of the ten countries voting least often with the U.S., South Africa may already be feeling the consequences.

On Monday, South Africa learned that the U.S. would not be exempting it from new steel tariffs. The South African government released a statement in protest against the U.S. decision: “South Africa is concerned by the unfairness of the measures and that it is one of the countries that are singled out as a contributor to US national security concerns when its exports of aluminium and steel products are not that significant.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

An unidentified source told CNN on Tuesday that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has tentatively agreed to meet with President Donald Trump, and there is a “strong possibility” the summit will be held in late May in Panmunjom – the same “peace village” on the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) where Kim met with South Korean President Moon Jae-in last Friday.

CNN’s source is described only as “an official with deep knowledge of North Korea’s thinking on the matter.” The report does not say which government this person works for.

The source made a reasonable case for the convenience of Panmunjom to North Korea, a significant benefit since the dictator does not travel well for a variety of reasons. Also, the necessary facilities for the meeting are readily available after the work done to prepare for the Kim-Moon summit, and it would be possible for President Trump to take a historic step across the border onto North Korean soil, as President Moon did last week.

Both the U.S. and South Korean governments have also looked favorably upon Panmunjom as a possible venue for the Trump-Kim meeting. A spokesperson for South Korean President Moon noted the symbolic significance of the DMZ village as a “place to erode the divide and establish a new milestone for peace.”

In a phone call on Sunday, President Trump and Moon reportedly discussed the possibility of holding the summit there. Trump went so far as to ask the American public on Twitter what they thought of the idea:

Just had a long and very good talk with President Moon of South Korea. Things are going very well, time and location of meeting with North Korea is being set. Also spoke to Prime Minister Abe of Japan to inform him of the ongoing negotiations.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 28, 2018

Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country? Just asking!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 30, 2018

In a press conference on Monday, Trump said of Panmunjom, “I threw it out today as an idea. There’s something I like about it because you’re there, you’re actually there – where, if things work out, there’s a great celebration to be had on the site, not in a third-party country.”

“Maybe a lot of things will change, but Kim Jong Un has been very open, very straightforward so far,” Trump added. “I can only say ‘so far,’ but he’s talking about getting rid of the site. He’s talking about no research, no launching ballistic missiles, no nuclear testing. He has lived up to that for a longer period of time than anybody has seen.”

The “site” President Trump referred to is North Korea’s nuclear test site at Punggye-ri, which a combination of Beijing’s annoyance, Mother Nature’s agony, and shoddy North Korean engineering might have already gotten rid of. However, some analysts believe North Korea could resume activity at the site unless Kim makes a verifiable commitment to shut it down for good.

Kim himself refuted the terminal prognosis offered by Chinese geologists on Sunday and claimed Punggye-ri still has “two bigger tunnels than the existing test facilities” that remain in “very good condition.” He pledged to close the site and invite inspectors from South Korea and the United States to verify it has been decommissioned.

Both President Trump and a senior U.S. official quoted by Reuters said Monday that Singapore is also a possible venue for the Trump-Kim summit.

“Some U.S. officials have argued privately that having the summit in the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas would present the unwelcome appearance of Trump traveling to Kim instead of the two of them meeting at a neutral site,” Reuters observed.

Business Insider proposes an additional reason North Korea might want to hold the summit in Panmunjom: it would “sideline China,” whose relations with North Korea have become strained. Kim sent a strong signal that vexing Beijing is on his to-do list by offering to meet with Trump without demanding a halt to joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises – long a North Korean demand and the very heart of the “freeze-for-freeze” diplomatic strategy China has been pushing with monomaniacal determination for many years.

“Beijing is committed to the eventual exit of the US military from the Korean Peninsula – and from the Asia Pacific writ large – so the willingness of Kim to meet without a first step toward a reduction in the US presence could not have made Beijing happy,” Asia studies director Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told BI.

“China is desperate to remain relevant in this process of potential denuclearisation and reunification. It was taken aback by the decision of Kim and Trump to meet and unhappy about the lack of preconditions on the North Korean side,” she elaborated. “It very much wants to host the meeting between Kim and Trump as a means of playing a significant role in the process and ensuring that its interests are not ignored.”