United
Nations
Paying UN Dues
A majority favors the US paying its UN dues in full,
including its UN peacekeeping dues, rising to three
in four when given information about spending on the
UN and UN peacekeeping relative to other foreign policy
budget items. Political candidates who favor paying
UN dues are viewed more favorably than those who do
not.
A majority of Americans has consistently shown a readiness
to pay UN dues. A majority has consistently said that
it favors paying UN dues in full. Most recently, the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found in a poll
conducted in June 2002 that 58% of Americans favor the
“US paying its UN dues in full.” Only 32%
opposed this action; 10% were not sure or declined to
answer.[1]
The same percentage favored doing so when PIPA asked
the same question in June 1996, while in April 1995
65% were in favor. [2]
An August 2003 Gallup poll found only minority support
for reducing US funding of the UN. Following a battery
of questions about UN performance after the Iraqi war,
Gallup asked respondents if they "think the United States
should...increase its funding of the United Nations,
keep it the same, or decrease its funding of the United
Nations." A majority of 61% said the US should either
"increase funding of the United Nations" (11%) or "keep
it the same" (50%). Only 37% favored reducing it.[3]
Respondents have also favored paying back dues owed
by the US. Zogby found 62% agreeing that "the United
States should pay all its back dues" (December 1998).[4]
In August 1998, 73% 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).[5]
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 an April 1998 PIPA poll, support for paying UN dues
went up to 78% when this was made contingent on the
UN making financial reforms.[6]
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. The argument that paying
UN dues "is a bad investment" because "the
UN is ineffective and wasteful" was found convincing
by only 28%.[7]
An October 2006 PIPA/KN poll found evidence that support
for paying UN dues would be substantially higher if
respondents had a better understanding about the actual
amount of spending. Respondents were initially asked
whether they favor their member of Congress voting to
pay US dues for UN peacekeeping. A relatively modest
51% said that they would, while 42% were opposed. However
later in the same poll respondents were presented the
foreign policy budget including the spending on the
UN and UN peacekeeping compared to other items. With
this information, 75% increased (48%) or left unchanged
(27%) the US contribution to the UN system.[8]
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."[9]
Attitudes Toward Candidates
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.[10]
The Wirthlin Group in August 1998 also asked whether,
if a member of Congress's vote against paying UN dues
led to the US losing its vote in the General Assembly,
this would affect respondents' votes. Among the 66%
who said it would, 49% of the total sample were more
inclined to vote against a member who voted against
paying dues, while only 17% were more inclined to support
the member.[11]
In December 1995, the 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.[12]
|
