By Shelton A. Gunaratne Professor emeritus of mass communications, Minnesota State University Moorhead

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Tea Party troglodytes and several of the Republican contenders for the U.S. presidency want to abolish the U.S. foreign-aid program and withdraw from the United Nations.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who is known as a vocal opponent of U.S. military intervention abroad, has argued that U.S. foreign aid should be the easiest thing to cut because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world,” as he described it at the Las Vegas debate on Oct. 11.

Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, also expressed his aversion to U.S. foreign aid by calling for an ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-entire debate about all of our foreign aid ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ but in particular the United Nations. He asked, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Why are we funding that organization?ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Thus, American conservatives are playing political football with foreign aid and the United Nations, easy targets to trash because of the U.S. electorateƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s apathy toward both. U.S. foreign aid adds up to less than 1 percent of the federal budget although a new WorldPublicOpinion.org/Knowledge Networks poll conducted in November 2010 revealed that the American public impression was that foreign aid constituted 25 percent of the federal budget.

Politicians like Paul and Perry are presumably taking advantage of this public impression to promote anti-liberalism in the electorate. These two candidates, as well as Rep. Michele Bachman, R-Minn., owe a public apology for trying to hoodwink the people by failing to clarify the truth about foreign aid.

The American media and public must understand that foreign aid is more than just charity. For example, Eisenhower initiated the Food for Peace (Public Law 480) aid program in 1956 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-for a permanent expansion of our exports of agricultural products with lasting benefits to ourselves and peoples of other lands.”

In 2010, the U.S. gave $47.7 billion in aid to other countries: $33.9 billion in economic assistance and $13.7 billion in military ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-assistance.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Of the total amount, $11.7 billion went through the United States Agency for International Development. The Hudson Institute estimates for 2004 show that the U.S. private sector contributed an additional $24.2 billion in foreign aid.

Contrary to public perception of American largesse overseas, the major beneficiaries of the U.S. aid program are a handful of U. S. client countries. In 2009, the top recipients were Afghanistan ($8.8 billion of which 66 percent was military ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-assistanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚), Iraq ($4.9 billion: 53 percent military), Israel ($2.4 billion: 98 percent military), Egypt ($1.8 billion: 72 percent military), Pakistan ($1.8 billion: 78 percent economic), Sudan ($1.2 billion: 97 percent economic), and West Bank/Gaza ($0.9 billion: 100 percent economic).

The mass media must provide dispassionate analyses of American foreign aid so as to force all presidential contenders to reveal how they intend to slash the foreign aid budget further in the age of globalization.

Perry should substantiate that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-foreign aidƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ is unconstitutional and that the U.S. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-military assistanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan was based on predominantly altruistic motives.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Next, Perry should present his alternative plan after withdrawing the U.S. from the United Nations. As a charter member of the United States and a permanent member of its Security Council, the U. S. paid 25 percent of the U.N. budget as its membership calculated on the basis of the per capita income of each member country. Since 1985, however, the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, and to settle on a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

The U.S. and the U.N. negotiated an agreement, which required the United States to pay a large part of the money it owed. In turn, the U.N. agreed to reduce the U.S. membership dues from 25 percent to 22 percent. The 1999 Helms-Biden legislation linked the payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the U.N. and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

Mitt Romney, the current front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, has condemned the United Nations as a failure. In 2007, Romney said he would support ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-a new coalition of the free nations of the world.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ But Perry, as well as the other aspirants for the presidency, has yet to announce how a new coalition can challenge the preeminent multilateralism (multiple countries working together) of the U.N. What gives legitimacy to U.N. norms (approved by the Security Council), the status of international law, is the organizationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s unique multilateralism, which has served the U.S. well so far in its international military interventions. Groups such as NATO cannot claim preeminent multilateralism.

The truth is that the U.S. is losing its dominance in the U.N. because of the rise of Asia and the decline of the European Union in the world system. Americans have incorrectly judged the decline of U.S. clout in the international arena as the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-failureƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ of the United Nations. ItƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s wrong toƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ call U.S. dues to U.N. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-foreign aid.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚