|
Report Sections:
1) Introduction
2) Overestimating the Size of the UN Budget
3) UN Power to Tax
4) A Standing UN Military Force
1) Introduction Back
to top
In various polls, an overwhelming majority of Americans has stressed
that strengthening the UN should be a foreign policy goal for the
US. A November 1998 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
found that 84% felt that strengthening the UN should be a somewhat
(39%) or very important (45%) foreign policy goal, with only 11%
saying it should not be. A September 1997 Pew poll found that 83%
believed strengthening the UN should be a foreign policy goal, with
30% saying it should be a top priority and 53% saying it should
have some priority. Times Mirror found 81% in June 1995 and 87%
in 1993 embracing such a goal.
In its October 1999 poll, PIPA offered respondents a list of four
international organizations, including the UN, telling them: "Some
say that because of the increasing interaction between countries,
we need to strengthen international institutions to deal with shared
problems. Others say that this would only create bigger, unwieldy
bureaucracies." They were then asked, for each institution
whether "you think it needs to be strengthened or not."
Sixty-seven percent thought that the UN needs to be strengthened,
while only 30% thought that it did not.
Respondents were asked whether they would be more likely to vote
for a presidential candidate who would weaken the UN or for one
who would strengthen it in an April 1996 Wirthlin poll. Seventy-one
percent said they would be more likely (41% much more) to vote for
the candidate who would strengthen the UN, while just 19% said they
would be more likely (10% much more) to vote for a candidate who
would weaken it.
In a November 1995 PIPA poll, respondents were first presented a
pro argument and then a con argument for strengthening the UN. The
pro argument said: "For the US to move away from its role as
world policeman and reduce the burden of its large defense budget,
the US should invest in efforts to strengthen the UN's ability to
deal with potential conflicts in the world." Seventy-three
percent agreed and 24% disagreed.
The con argument stressed the potential loss of US sovereignty that
might result from a strengthened UN: "Strengthening the UN
is not a good idea because if the UN were to become stronger, the
US could become entangled in a system that would inhibit it from
full freedom of action to pursue its interests." Only 37% agreed,
while 57% disagreed.
Finally, on a more neutral note, respondents were asked: "Overall,
do you think that in the long run efforts to strengthen the UN would
be a good investment or not a good investment?" Sixty-eight
percent said that it would be a good investment, while 28% said
it would not be.
Respondents, in the same poll, were also presented four concrete
options for strengthening the UN all of which received very strong
support. These included:
- improving UN communication and command facilities- 83% in favor
- having joint military training exercises- 82% in favor
- having UN members each commit 1,000 troops to a rapid deployment
force that the UN Security Council can call up on short notice-
79% in favor
- allowing the UN to possess permanent stocks of military equipment
stored in different locations around the world- 69% in favor
PIPA's April 1995 poll also found low levels of public concern about
the UN impinging on US sovereignty. Respondents were asked to choose
between two statements about the power of the UN. Only 36% chose
the statement: "I am afraid that things like UN peacekeeping
are getting so big that the US is losing control of its foreign
policy to the UN, while a 58% majority chose: "I am not afraid
that the UN is becoming too powerful. The US has a veto in the UN
Security Council and therefore the UN cannot dictate anything to
the US."
There seems to be little fear that the UN might evolve into a world
government that could override US sovereignty. In June 1995, ATIF
respondents were presented the argument that "The UN might
become a world government and take away our freedom." Seventy-three
percent rejected this (58% strongly) with just 17% agreeing (11%
strongly).
When Americans are asked concrete questions about the US accepting
the jurisdiction of courts that are part of the UN, a majority says
the US should accept such jurisdiction. In October 1999, a PIPA
question described World Court jurisdiction to respondents as follows:
The World Court is part of the United Nations. It makes rulings
on disputes between countries based on treaties the countries have
signed. Some countries have made commitments to accept the decisions
of the World Court. Other countries decide in advance for each case
whether to accept the court's decisions. Do you think the US should
or should not make the commitment to accept the decisions of the
World Court?
A modest majority of 53% thought that the US should make this commitment,
while 38% thought the US should not do so.
A stronger majority supported the US accepting the jurisdiction
of the proposed International Criminal Court, even though the argument
against doing so was spelled out in the question. Sixty-six percent
agreed that "the US should support such a court because the
world needs a better way to prosecute war criminals, many of whom
go unpunished today." Only 29% said that "the US should
not support the proposed Court because trumped up charges may be
brought against Americans, for example, US soldiers who use force
in the course of a peacekeeping operation."
2) Overestimating the Size of UN Budget Back
to top
Support for an expansive UN exists even though most Americans appear
to grossly overestimate the magnitude of UN activities. This can
be inferred from the public's exaggerated notion of the UN budget.
In September 1996, PIPA asked respondents for their impressions
of the size of the UN budget, offering four other government budgets
for comparison: those of Wyoming ($2 billion), Alabama ($10 billion),
Texas ($40 billion), and the US federal government ($1600 billion).
Forty-eight percent thought the UN's budget was closest to that
of Texas, and 28% thought it was closest to that of the US government
(closest to Alabama, 13%; closest to Wyoming, 7%). When the budgets
for the UN, for UN peacekeeping operations, and all UN agencies
(supported by states voluntary contributions) are rolled together,
the total is less than $10 billion. In short, 75% believed that
the UN budget was four or more times its actual size. Yet this (mis)perception
of the UN as already being much larger than it is does not dissuade
the public from wanting to see a stronger UN.
3) UN Power to Tax
Back to top
Support for strengthening the UN even extends to bold ideas such
as giving the UN the power to collect its own taxes, an idea that
has been proposed by a number of prominent economists as well as
political analysts.
In a June 1995 poll, ATIF tested the proposal that "the United
Nations should monitor and tax international arms sales with the
money going to famine relief and humanitarian aid." Seventy-two
percent of respondents supported the proposal.
In April 1996, the Wirthlin Group posed a more extensive series
of questions on the subject of UN taxes and found a curious disjunction
the majority rejected the idea in principle but supported it in
most specific cases. The poll question in which the idea of UN taxes
was rejected by 61%, however, was long and rather complex, and included
several pro and con arguments for the idea, thus it is difficult
to determine whether respondents were reacting to something specific
in the wording of one of the arguments, given that they then supported
the concrete cases. Two of the proposals received over 70% support
"a charge on international oil sales dedicated to programs
to...protect the world's environment" (72% in favor) and "a
charge on international sales of tobacco dedicated to programs to...improve
health care" (71%). A "charge on international arms sales
dedicated to keeping peace in regional conflicts" was next
in popularity (67%), while 51% favored "a charge on international
currency transactions dedicated to UN activities generally."
The one idea that did not receive majority support was for "a
charge on international airline tickets," which was favored
by just 33%.
4) A Standing UN Military Force Back to top
Perhaps the boldest idea for strengthening the UN envisions giving
it its own standing military force, which was originally envisioned
in the formation of the UN and has been more recently discussed
by former Deputy Secretary General Brian Urquhart and other policy
analysts.
PIPA tested the waters for this idea and found very strong support
in 1993 and 1995, which then diminished to a modest majority by
1999. In October 1993, 68% of respondents said they favored "the
idea of having a standing United Nations peacekeeping force made
up of soldiers who were not part of a national army but had independently
volunteered to be part of the UN force." Twenty-nine percent
opposed the idea. An identical 68% favored it in PIPA's April 1995
poll, with 27% opposed. In October 1999 the same question found
53% support with 41% opposed--though in the same poll, 67% said
that the UN "needs to be strengthened" (as mentioned above).
This drop in support for the idea of a UN volunteer force has come
since the UN command in Bosnia was replaced by a much more successful
NATO command, and this experience may have altered the public's
view of the UN's potential for managing military forces.
|
