U.S. STILL FUNDING OLD WORLD ORDER

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, January 19, 1992                   TAG: 9201200196
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium
U.S. STILL FUNDING OLD WORLD ORDER
Sen. Claiborne Pell was startled by the scene at a New Year's party in Moscow: The Russian Army men's chorus, in full uniform, singing "God Bless America."
Amid such stark signs of a New World Order, there is virtually unanimous agreement among U.S. policy-makers, academics and lobbyists that the country's $15 billion foreign aid program, aimed for decades at containing communism, needs to be revamped.
That kind of review will likely jeopardize allies who found favor under the old system, countries such as Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Greece. It could benefit the developing world - Africa, Latin America - and nations embarking on experiments with democracy, such as the former Soviet republics.
But agreement is just as solid that American taxpayers are going to be paying for the Old World Order for at least another year.
The reason? This is election season, and no politician wants to breathe the words "foreign aid," let alone become immersed in a complicated rewrite of the program, at a time when "America first" has become a political battle cry.
Since World War II, U.S. foreign policy has been dominated by the idea that all efforts - economic, diplomatic, military or humanitarian - should be aimed at thwarting Moscow. That threat has vanished, replaced by worries about economic competitiveness, political instability, ethnic strife and terrorism.
But U.S. aid programs, insulated by well-entrenched lobbying groups, bureaucratic inertia and governmental indifference, have remained immutable.
Most U.S. foreign aid continues to flow in the form of weapons or cash that simply props up the budgets of foreign governments.
Relatively little aid goes to the smaller-scale programs that experts agree provide the greatest help to Third World countries - programs such as population control, agricultural development, health care and education.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell, D-Fla., said the United States will have to increasingly act through organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank, and rely less on the current brand of direct aid to individual countries.
"We just can't take care of everybody," he said in an interview. "There's not enough money. . . . We're going to take care of ourselves."

THE TOP 10\ 1991's BIGGEST RECIPIENTS OF U.S. FOREIGN AID
\ 1. Israel, $3 billion\ 2. Egypt, $2.2 billion\ 3. Philippines, $556 million\ 4. Turkey, $553 million\ 5. Greece, $350 million\ 6. El Salvador, $299 million\ 7. Pakistan, $238 million\ 8. Portugal, $144 million\ 9. Nicaragua, $193 million\ 10. Bangladesh, $127 million

by Archana Subramaniam by CNB