Report Sections:
1) General Attitudes Toward Paying UN Dues
2) UN Peacekeeping Dues
3) Concerns about the Magnitude of UN Dues

1) General Attitudes Toward Paying UN Dues  Back to top

A majority of Americans has consistently shown a readiness to pay UN dues. In polls, a majority has consistently said that it favors paying UN dues in full. Most recently, Zogby found 62% agreeing that "the United States should pay all its back dues" (December 1998); in August 1998, 77% favored paying dues when hearing the information that "All members of the United Nations are required to pay dues under the UN Charter. In recent years the United States has not been paying all its dues, and in December it will be two full years behind" (Wirthlin Group). Furthermore, it appears that much of the opposition to paying UN dues is not derived from an intrinsic resistance to the UN but rather from reservations about UN performance. In the April 1998 PIPA poll, support for paying UN dues went up to 77% when this was made contingent on the UN making financial reforms.

When presented pro and con arguments, in the April 1998 PIPA poll, respondents found arguments in favor of paying UN dues more convincing. An overwhelming 73% agreed with an argument that confirmed the value of the general idea of the UN saying, "The US. was one of the original founders of the UN and has benefited from its existence" and "the US has an obligation to...pay its full dues." An argument that challenged the idea of the UN, by saying "the UN is...meddling in areas where the US, not the UN, should be taking the lead," was found convincing by just 28%, while 69% found it unconvincing.

An argument then being used by a number of proponents of paying UN dues--that doing so is a "good investment" because UN negotiations with Saddam Hussein made it "unnecessary for the US to mount a large and costly military action"--was found convincing by a more modest 52%. The argument that paying UN dues "is a bad investment" because "the UN is ineffective and wasteful" was found convincing by only 28%.

In a June 1996 poll, PIPA asked respondents whether they favored or opposed paying UN dues in full. Fifty-eight percent said they favored doing so, while 29% were opposed.

In September 1996, PIPA tested the issue of UN dues in the context of a congressional election, by presenting respondents with two sharply worded attack ads. Respondents first heard:

I would like you to imagine that there is an upcoming election for Congress in your district. For the sake of this exercise, let's say that your Congressman is named John Allen, and he is being challenged by someone named Tom Miller. I am now going to read you two political ads, and afterward I will ask you which candidate you would be more inclined to vote for.

Then respondents heard a strong attack on the incumbent for his vote in favor of paying UN dues:

Congressman Allen--he's voted again and again to pour your tax money into the United Nations. Most members of Congress have voted to limit US payments to the UN until that money is spent more wisely. But Allen has voted to keep doling it out. Tom Miller says we need that money for problems here at home. Stop your tax dollars from supporting UN bureaucracy and waste. Vote for Tom Miller.

This was followed by Congressman Allen's rebuttal ad:

Tom Miller wants to make Uncle Sam a deadbeat by breaking America's commitment to pay its dues to the United Nations. Congressman Allen says Americans keep their promises. Besides, UN dues are just 1% of what we spend on defense. Congressman Allen knows that if we do not support peace now, we will probably wind up spending more on war later. Reelect Congressman Allen.

Fifty-six percent said they would be more inclined to vote for the incumbent who favored paying dues, as compared to 37% who favored the challenger who called for holding back--a 19% advantage to the candidate who favored paying UN dues.

The Wirthlin Group in August 1998 also asked whether, if a member of Congress’ vote against paying UN dues led to the US losing its vote in the General Assembly, this would affect respondents’ votes. Among the 69% who said that it would, 54% of the total sample were more inclined to vote against a member who voted against paying dues, while only 15% were more inclined to support the member. In December 1995 Wirthlin Group asked a similar question that did not mention the possibility of the US losing its General Assembly vote: 43% of respondents said their votes for Congress would be affected, 30% said they would be less inclined to support such a member, and only 13% said they would be more inclined to do so..

When the issue of paying UN dues is placed in the context that the US is presently withholding UN dues and that this withholding is related to a US effort to bring about UN reform, this produces a more varied response. The October 1998 Chicago Council on Foreign Relations poll found a 48% plurality thought that though "Congress has held up payment of these dues, citing the need for reform of the UN," "the United States should go ahead and pay the back dues," while 38% thought it should not. A modest majority (53%) thought in August 1998 that "the US should always pay its full dues," while 42% thought it should "hold back its dues to pressure other members to agree to changes it believes are needed" (Wirthlin Group). In some questions, though, those wanting to pay dues have been in the minority, especially if withholding dues is presented in the question as established US policy. In November 1997 Gallup told respondents, "The US has withheld... dues...to force the UN to change its financial practices. Do you favor or oppose this decision by the US?" Sixty-three percent were in favor, with 26% opposed. And when Time/CNN asked in February 1997, "Do you think the US should pay...or not pay...until [the UN] carries out reforms the US has requested," a 47% plurality said the US should hold back, while 41% said the US should pay.

When the two values of seeking financial reforms and complying with the norm of paying UN dues were both presented in a single question, the value of paying dues without conditions prevailed by a modest margin. In April 1998 PIPA asked:

On the question of UN dues, some say the US should hold back paying its UN dues so as to pressure the UN to become more efficient and that this is the only way to get results. Others argue that the new Secretary General Kofi Annan has recently begun a new program for reforming its operations and that withholding dues is too high-handed a way to apply pressure. Do you think the US should or should not hold back paying UN dues as a way of pressuring it to become more efficient?

Fifty-three percent said that the US should not hold back dues as a means of pressure, while 40% said that it should.

When some of the conditions posed by Congress for the payment of dues to the UN are presented to respondents, these do not elicit majority support. Wirthlin Group (August 1998) described four conditions, and for each one asked whether "the US should refuse to pay back dues unless this is done," or "whether it should pay the dues without this condition." "Lower the US share of UN expenses and have other countries pay more" was rejected by 51%, with 46% in support. "Make ongoing staff and budget cuts at the United Nations" was rejected by 50%, with 45% in support. "Prohibit other countries from offering troops on standby for UN peace operations" and "Require the UN to accept only partial payment of US back dues and write off the rest" were both rejected by a larger 59% (with 37% and 36% in support, respectively). In all four cases, a majority or plurality preferred paying the dues over holding back the dues until the condition is met.

Another current barrier to the payment of the US's back dues to the UN has been an amendment based on what is called the "Mexico City policy" (named after a past international conference), which generally prohibits US funds going to family planning programs overseas that discuss abortion with their clients. The proposed amendment would also make the abortion-related policy into law. Because other members of Congress and President Clinton oppose the amendment, if it is added, the bill to pay UN dues would probably not become law.

While a plurality appears sympathetic to the abortion-related policy, a strong majority opposes attaching it to UN dues legislation. When Wirthlin (August 1998) explained the policy and asked, "Do you think the payment of UN dues should or should not be linked to this abortion provision?," an overwhelming 80% said it should not (should be linked: 17%). PIPA in April 1998 asked the 78% of its sample who favored paying dues--either in general (60%) or under the condition of UN financial reforms (18%)--whether they favored adding the amendment. Only 20% of the full sample favored adding the amendment, but this did drive down support from 78% to 58%.

In December 1995 the Wirthlin Group posed the following question:

Some people say America’s large share of dues gives the United States special leverage over other UN member countries. Do you believe the United States should always pay its full dues to the UN on schedule or should the United States hold back its dues to pressure other members to agree to changes it believes are needed?

As you may know, the United States currently owes the United Nations approximately one billion dollars in back dues. Do you think the United States should: pay the UN now what it owes in back dues because it is the US’s obligation to pay its share of the UN budget, or not pay back dues until it carries out reforms that the US has requested.

A plurality of 47% said the US should hold back until reforms are carried out, while 41% said the US should pay now. Apparently most Americans are inclined to pay UN dues and are uncomfortable with the idea of withholding dues so as to pressure for reforms. But once the US has undertaken such an effort a modest plurality may be ready to support it provided that it is placed in a context that includes paying dues at some point.

2) UN Peacekeeping Dues  Back to top

The majority’s preference for paying UN dues also extends to paying UN peacekeeping dues. Asked in an April 1995 PIPA poll whether "the US should or should not pay its UN peacekeeping dues in full," 65% said the US should, while 22% said it should not. In PIPA’s February 1994 poll, respondents were given three options: paying dues in full, paying a partial amount, or not paying at all. In this case 55% said the US should pay its UN peacekeeping dues in full, just 5% said it should not pay any of its dues, and 34% said the US should pay a partial amount.

In the February 1994 poll, respondents were also presented with arguments for and against paying UN peacekeeping dues. The arguments against paying fared poorly. Fifty-seven percent found unconvincing (40% convincing) the argument that: "UN peacekeeping is a nice idea, but with the American economy having the troubles that it is, we should postpone paying our full dues until things get better here."

A massive 78% found unconvincing (21% convincing) the argument that: "UN peacekeeping is a bad idea. It tries to solve other people’s problems in parts of the world that are of little concern to the US. We should pay as little as possible for UN peacekeeping—preferably nothing."

By contrast, two arguments in favor of paying dues fared very well. Sixty-six percent found convincing (unconvincing: 32%) the argument that: "UN peacekeeping helps contribute to stability in the world. This makes it less likely the US will need to do expensive things like sending military aid and US troops to other countries. In the long run, if we don’t spend money on UN peacekeeping we will probably end up spending more money on defense."

A similar 65% found convincing (unconvincing: 32%) the argument that: "Since all peacekeeping operations must be approved by the US, and the US agreed to pay a certain share of the UN peacekeeping budget, it is hypocritical for the US to not pay its dues."

Some members of Congress have raised an additional argument for not paying UN peacekeeping dues in full, saying that the US should deduct from its UN dues the cost of making voluntary, in-kind contributions to UN peacekeeping operations (e.g. airlifting UN peacekeepers). In April 1995, PIPA found that 53% favored the idea of deducting from US peacekeeping dues the cost of such contributions.

However, when these same respondents were asked to think through some of the other dimensions of such a decision, support for deducting dropped dramatically. When half were asked whether they would favor taking this action unilaterally—which is how such an action would be done—support dropped to 13% overall. When half were asked if they would favor deducting if doing so would lead to other countries doing the same and thus to drastic cutbacks in UN peacekeeping—a likely prospect, according to arguments being made by top State Department officials at the time—support dropped to 30% overall.

3) Concerns About the Magnitude of UN Dues  Back to top

Although a majority of Americans favors paying UN dues, there is evidence that most feel the US spends too much on UN activities. In PIPA’s April 1995 poll, 61% said that "the amount of money the US spends on UN peacekeeping is probably too much," while 11% said it was "too little," and 11% volunteered that it was about right. In February 1994, 59% said the US was spending "too much," 15% "too little," and 10% volunteered that the amount was about right. Even a majority of those who favored the idea of UN peacekeeping said the US was spending too much.

Some of this opposition may be derived from the general feeling that the US is contributing more than its fair share. A June 1995 Times Mirror poll asked: "As compared to other major countries, do you think the United States pays more than its fair share for United Nations activities, less than its fair share, or about its fair share?" (emphasis added) Sixty percent thought the US pays more than its fair share, and 28% thought it pays "about its fair share" (less than fair share: 4%).

However, this feeling that the US pays more than it fair share is primarily in relation to the "major countries," but not necessarily to UN countries as a whole. When PIPA asked in June 1996, "As compared to other countries, do you think that the amount that the US is assessed for UN dues is more than its fair share, less than its fair share, or about right?" (emphasis added) 50% thought that it was more than the US’s fair share, while 31% thought the amount was "about right" (less than fair share: 4%). When PIPA asked respondents in February 1994 whether it was their impression that the amount the US is being assessed for UN peacekeeping is too high, too low, or about right, only 34% said "too high," 14% said too low, 32% "about right," and 20% did not answer.

Furthermore, when Americans are given correct information about the actual levels of US contributions relative to other countries, a solid majority embraces the amounts contributed as fair. In the June 1996 PIPA poll, respondents were told that "In fact, UN dues are assessed according to a country’s share of the world economy or GNP. The US is assessed 25% because that is its share of the world economy," and then were asked, "Does this method seem fair or not fair to you?" Fifty-six percent found the method fair, while just 37% found it unfair. In the February 1994 PIPA poll, as a follow-on to the above-mentioned question on whether US assessments were too high or too low, respondents were told that "the US is charged 25% because that is its share of world GNP plus an additional 5% because it is a permanent member of the Security Council" and can veto peacekeeping operations. After this information, the number feeling the US was being assessed too much stayed nearly constant (33%). However, the number saying the amount was "about right" jumped to 58% (too low: 4%). As a Columbus woman said in a focus group: "If it’s a fair share, and it’s a thing of the net GNP, and everybody else is doing it that way, I’d say that’s about as fair as anything’s going to get."

To decide that UN dues are assessed fairly, Americans need to know that a rule is being applied universally to all countries. CNN/USA Today asked a question in November 1997 that told respondents the US share was 25%, but did not spell out the rule that assessments were based on each country's share of the world economy: in this question, 52% thought the US share was too much. On the other hand, Wirthlin (August 1998) explained the rule, said the US paid 25%, and added that European countries paid a third: 60% said this was fair (unfair: 37%).

The belief that the US spends too much on the UN may also be derived from the feeling that the US allocates a disproportionate share of the federal budget to the UN. However, a variety of poll questions reveal that the attitude that the US spends too much on the UN seems to rest on extreme overestimations of how much is being spent. When asked how much the US should spend, the majority favors spending an amount that is substantially more than the actual amount. When told the actual amount, the majority reports that it is both less than what they expected and less than what they think it should be.

Respondents gave this pattern of responses when asked about spending on UN peacekeeping as compared to spending on the defense budget, in terms of how much the respondent was personally willing to pay in taxes, and in response to information about the total amount spent in terms of dollars and relative to a number of budget items.

In Terms of Defense Spending:

In PIPA’s April 1995 poll, when respondents were asked to estimate the amount the US spends on UN peacekeeping as compared to the US defense budget, the median estimate was that the equivalent of 22% of the defense budget goes to UN peacekeeping. The actual amount is 1%. When asked what percentage would be appropriate, the median answer was 15%. Eighty percent of respondents proposed as appropriate an amount higher than 1% of the defense budget—the approximate current level. (In the February 1994 PIPA poll, the median respondent proposed that the equivalent of 10% of the defense budget should be devoted to UN peacekeeping.)

When another sample was told that the US spends the equivalent of about 1% of the defense budget on UN peacekeeping, only 18% said that this was "higher than it should be"—down from the 58% who initially said the US was spending too much. A majority of 52% said that this amount was "lower than it should be," up from the 12% who had initially said the US spends too little on peacekeeping.

A modest majority said they would also be willing to shift funds from some part of the defense budget to UN peacekeeping. In PIPA’s April 1995 poll, a bare 51% said they would be willing to "shift" defense funds toward UN peacekeeping, while 43% were not willing. In February 1994, 62% said they would be willing to "cut" defense spending so as to increase spending on UN peacekeeping (not willing: 31%).

In Terms of Taxes Paid:

When given the chance to say how much they themselves would be willing to pay in taxes for UN peacekeeping, the average American settles on an amount well above the real amount. This question was approached in two different ways in PIPA’s April 1995 poll. When one half-sample was asked, "How many tax dollars would you feel comfortable paying personally each year toward UN peacekeeping?", the median response was $20. When the other half sample was first told that the average taxpayer spends about $5, 73% saw this amount as "lower than they expected." When asked to determine how much they would feel comfortable paying personally, the median amount was $10—twice what they had been told the average taxpayer pays. Only 22% set an amount less than $5.

Similar results were found in the February 1994 PIPA poll. Asked: "How many tax dollars would you feel comfortable paying personally each year toward UN peacekeeping?" the median response was $10. Informed that the average taxpayer pays about $4 each year for UN peacekeeping (the correct amount at that time), 72% said this amount was lower than they expected and 62% said it was lower than it should be.

In the same poll respondents were then asked, "How much, if any, would you be willing to pay in increased taxes in support of UN peacekeeping?" Forty percent said "nothing," and 46% said amounts ranging from $1 to $500. The median amount among those willing to increase their taxes was $10. Adding in those who oppose increasing their taxes, the median amount was $1—a 25% increase over present levels.

Respondents were also asked how much money, if any, they would be willing to pay in increased taxes to make it possible to send peacekeeping forces to try to settle the civil war in Burundi. Similarly, 39% said "nothing," while 42% were willing to pay some amount. The median amount among those willing to pay was $7—almost twice then-current spending levels for all UN peacekeeping operations combined. Adding in those unwilling to pay, the median amount was $1.

In Terms of Budgetary Items:

In the February 1994 PIPA poll, respondents were also told the total amount the US spent on UN peacekeeping during fiscal year 1994 (about three-quarters of a billion dollars). To illustrate the significance of the number, respondents were also told how much goes to five other public spending items. Respondents were then asked whether the three-quarters of a billion was more or less than they expected. Fifty-five percent said it was less, with 31% saying it was more. Respondents were then asked whether this amount was "higher or lower than it should be." Thirty-nine percent said it was higher than it should be, down from the 59% who had initially said the US was spending too much. A plurality of 42% now said that the amount being spent was lower than it should be, up from the 15% who had initially said the US was spending too little.

Back to top