United Nations
UN Dues Relative to Other Countries
The majority feels the US spends too much on UN dues, relative to other major countries. However, this feeling appears to be based largely on misperceptions. When informed about what portion of UN dues the US pays, relative to other countries, and how it is set, the majority finds it appropriate.
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, 58% said that "the amount of money the US spends on UN peacekeeping is probably too much," while 12% said it was "too little," and 14% volunteered that it was about right.[1] In February 1994, 59% said the US was spending "too much," 15% "too little," and 10% volunteered that the amount was about right.[2] 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?" (emphais 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%).[3]
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) Fifty percent thought that it was more than the US's fair share, while 31% thought the amount was "about right" (less than fair share: 4%).[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.[5]
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.[6] 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%).[7] 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.[8] 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%).[9]
|
|
|
