What reservations do Americans have about the UN?

Summary: The strongest reservations Americans have about the UN are about whether it is doing a good job in performing its functions. Assessments of UN performance have varied over the last decade. A strong majority has felt that the UN has been too passive in peacekeeping operations. However, the majority does not view the UN's performance as worse than other major public institutions.

Report Sections:
1) Reservations about Recent UN Performance
2) Comparing the UN's Performance to that of Other Institutions

1) Reservations About Recent UN Performance  Back to top

Notwithstanding general support for the UN and US participation in it, at times Americans have had reservations about recent UN performance. These reservations may help explain why, at times, favorability ratings for the UN are a bit lower than support for the UN in principle. It may also partially explain why policymakers misperceive the public, believing that most Americans take a negative view of the UN, mistaking the public's short term criticisms of performance for more fundamental objections.

Recently the public's job approval rating of the UN has been fairly positive. In response to the question of whether "the UN is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has to face" 52% in a May 2000 Gallup poll and 60% in an August 1998 Wirthlin Group poll said it was doing a good job. A September 1999 poll by Taylor Neslon Sofres International asked "How satisfactory do you find the results achieved by the UN up until now."sixty five percent said that results were were very (8%) or somewhat (57%) satisfactory, while 30% said they were soemwhat (20%) or very (10%) unsatisfactory. However over the last decade this assessment has varied from subtantially higher in the early 1990s to substantially lower in the mid 1990s.

Shortly after the Gulf War the assessments were quite positive. Asked in October 1991 67% said that the UN was doing a good job (CBS, October 1991). In June 1993, when the Somalia operation had scored initial successes, 61% said the UN was doing a good job (CBS).

However in the spring of 1995, when the UN peacekeeping operation in Bosnia was faring badly, support for UN performance dropped. In June of that year, CBS and Times Mirror both found just 42% saying that the UN was "doing a good job."

In the spring of 1995, PIPA found overwhelming agreement with statements that criticized the passivity of UN peacekeeping operations. In an April 1995 PIPA poll, an overwhelming 79% complained that UN peacekeeping operations "do just enough to keep the situation from getting totally out of hand, but not enough to really solve the problem." Similarly, 75% agreed that "UN peacekeeping operations are often ineffective and even dangerous...UN troops end up being sitting ducks."

Frustration with the performance of UN peacekeeping operations is also more apt to lead Americans to want to increase the assertiveness of those operations rather than discontinue them. In the April 1995 PIPA poll, 74% agreed that the UN should "strengthen its reputation for following through on its threats to use military force, even if this means sometimes taking some risks." Sixty-four percent said that UN peacekeeping forces should not be limited to mediating between warring parties, but should be allowed to use force. Asked what they would like to see peacekeepers do in Bosnia (this was before the Dayton accords, when the UN peacekeeping operation was still in place), 50% called for the peacekeepers to "get tougher," 13% to "stay the course," while just 29% called for them to withdraw. More emphatic, strong majorities favored a variety of options that involved a more muscular approach than was being used at that time. Eighty-seven percent favored using military force when aid convoys were attacked or obstructed, 65% to defend civilians in safe havens, 62% to enforce a peace agreement, and 64% to intervene with a large military force to stop ethnic cleansing.

In June 1995, Times Mirror also found criticism of UN performance on a number of functions related to the pursuit of peace. On "providing a forum where countries can try to resolve their conflicts peacefully," 43% thought the UN was doing an excellent or good job, while 53% said the UN was only doing "only a fair job" or a "poor job." On "keeping the peace in world trouble spots," just 34% thought the UN was doing an excellent or good job, while 63% said it was doing only a fair or poor job. On "restoring law and order in parts of the world where it has broken down," approval ratings were lowest: only 27% thought the UN was doing an excellent or good job, while 69% rated the UN as doing only a fair job or a poor job.

After the Bosnia Dayton accords were signed in November 1995, approval of UN performance recovered a bit. The percentage saying that the UN is doing a good job jumped from 42% in June 1995 to 54% in December 1995 (Wirthlin), though it slipped again to 46% in February 1996 (CNN).

Even some questions about US participation in the UN seem to be responsive to UN performance. In October 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, 77% of respondents agreed that "the United States should cooperate fully with the United Nations" (Times Mirror). However in June 1995 this number dropped to 62% (Times Mirror) and stayed close to this level with 58% agreement in September 1996 (PIPA) and 59% agreement in September 1997 (Pew). Most recently, agreement went up to 65% (Pew, March 1999). This question may be particularly affected by the visible ups and downs of UN performance because the wording implies US compliance with the UN.

2) Comparing the UN's Performance to That of Other Institutions  Back to top

Public skepticism about UN performance does not seem to be particularly unique to the UN, and is actually a bit less than skepticism directed at other institutions, including the US government. In a June 1999 Times Mirror poll 70% rated their feelings about the UN as mostly or very favorable. However only 56% gave Congress such a rating, while 49% gave this rating to the CIA.
A June 1995 ATIF poll asked one half-sample, "How much of the time do you think you can trust the United Nations to do what is right?", and asked a different half-sample the same question about the US government. For the UN, 47% said "just about always" or "most of the time", while only 24% gave this rating to the US government.

Consistent with perceptions expressed in the elite interviews, discussed above, Americans do hold the view that a substantial portion of UN funds are wasted, but not as much as US government funds are. When PIPA asked respondents in June 1996 to estimate how much of each year's UN budget is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse, the median respondent estimated 30%. However, when another sample was asked to apply this question to the US government, the median respondent estimated that 40% of US government funds were lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.

This suggests that there is a generally low level of public confidence in big regulatory institutions, and suspicions of inefficiency and corruption are not specific to the UN. A June 1995 ATIF poll confirms this: 64% agreed that "People are distrustful of almost all institutions today; there is no special reason to distrust the UN more than other institutions" (ATIF, June 1995).

Other Related Reports: 
1) Do Americans like the United Nations?
2) Would Americans prefer to use military force through the UN or NATO?
3) Do Americans want the USA to pay its UN dues in full?