United Nations
Strengthening the UN
The majority of Americans would like the UN to be stronger. Only a small minority is concerned that a stronger UN might compromise US sovereignty. Support for strengthening the UN exists though most Americans appear to grossly overestimate the magnitude of UN activities. Even some proposals for giving the UN the power to tax receive strong majority support.
In various polls, an overwhelming majority of Americans has stressed that strengthening the UN should be a foreign policy goal for the US. . An October 2001 Pew poll found that 92% believed strengthening the UN should be a foreign policy goal, with 46% saying it should be a top priority and 46% saying it should have some priority. This was a distinct increase over September 1997, when 83% saw strengthening the UN as having top (30%) or some (53%) priority-an increase possibly due to heightened awareness of international matters at the start of the war on terrorism. Times Mirror found 81% in June 1995 and 87% in 1993 embracing such a goal.[1] 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.[2]
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.[3]
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.[4]
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.[5]
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.[6]
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.[7]
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[8]
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."[9]
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).[10]
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.[11]
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."[12]
Overestimating the Size of UN Budget
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.[13]
UN Power to Tax
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.[14]
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.[15] 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%.[16]
|
