United Nations
Reservations About the UN
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 as worse than other major public institutions.
Reservations About Recent UN Performance
Notwithstanding general support for the UN and US participation in it, many Americans have reservations about recent UN performance. These reservations may help explain why 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 and mistaking the public's short term criticisms of performance for more fundamental objections.
In November 2001, as the war on terrorism got under way, the public's job approval rating of the UN approval rose to 63%, a level last seen in the early 1990s (CBS). In the last few years job approval of the UN had recovered somewhat to the 50-60% range (54% in Gallup's February 2001 poll, 52% in May 2000 (Gallup), 60% in the August 1998 Wirthlin Group poll)[1] This followed a lengthy dip in approval of performance, and is still lower than it was in 1991. Just several years ago assessments of UN performance were quite positive, especially shortly after the Gulf War. Asked in October 1991 whether "the UN is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has to face," 67% said that it was doing a good job (CBS, October 1991).[2] In a November 1991 ATIF poll, 78% approved of "the job being done by the United Nations." In March 1991, ATIF asked respondents to rate their feelings toward the UN on a scale of 0 (the least positive) to 100 (the most positive). The average response was 75, with 78% of respondents giving the UN a rating of 51 or higher.[3] In June 1993, when the Somalia operation had scored initial successes, 62% said the UN was doing a good job (CBS).[4]
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," and ATIF found 59% approving of "the job being done by the United Nations" both findings significantly lower than those of earlier polls using the same question. [5]
Also 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." [6]
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. [7]
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). [8]
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 59% agreement in September 1996 (PIPA) and 59% agreement in September 1997 (Pew). In March 1999 agreement went up to 65% (Pew)and most recently (PIPA, November 2001) rose higher to 70%, apparently in response to the new international context of the war on terrorism.[9] This question may be particularly affected by the visible ups and downs of UN performance because the wording implies US compliance with the UN.
ATIF probed for other sources of criticism of the UN by presenting nine strongly worded critiques in a June 1995 poll. Though this was a low watermark for approval of UN performance, only one critique received majority support. Fifty-four percent agreed that "The United Nations is run for the benefit of countries other than the United States" (31% disagreed, 15% neutral). This argument appeared to draw on the widespread feeling, discussed previously, that the US is not receiving its fair share of benefits. Still, it is unclear how many of those who saw this as true held it against the UN, because a very similar criticism--"The UN may help foreigners, but it does not work in the best interests of the American people"--got only 39% agreement (disagree: 42%, neutral: 17%).[10]
One critique implicitly related to performance in UN peacekeeping did receive 50% agreement: "The UN has done a poor job and has made some situations worse than they were before" (disagree: 29%, neutral: 18%). None of the other criticisms got majority agreement, though several received support from a substantial minority. Forty-seven percent agreed that "The UN gets involved in too many situations that they should stay out of," 46% agreed that "UN leaders are not elected by Americans and are too remote from the problems and interests of ordinary Americans," and 38% agreed that "United Nations leadership will limit the effectiveness of United States troops in an intervention." [11]
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. 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.[12]
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.[13]
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.[14]
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).[15]
3) Support for Sustaining Commitment and Improving Performance Back to top
Whatever reservations Americans feel about UN performance, this does not lead the majority to want to pull back from active membership. In December 1995 the Wirthlin Group asked: "With the Cold War behind us, do you think the United Nations has become more or less important to us for dealing with problems around the world?" Just 33% said it was less important, 9% said there was no change in its importance, while a strong plurality of 49% said it was more important.[16]
The same poll found strong support for at least maintaining--and in some cases increasing--spending on UN activities, even though, as will be discussed below, the majority grossly overestimated the actual size of the UN budget. Presented with thirteen different types of UN activities, robust majorities wanted either to maintain or increase spending for each. Across all thirteen activities, the number of respondents who wanted to cut funds never rose above 31%. In two areas, a majority wanted to increase spending--on environmental protection and narcotics control.[17]
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.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20]
|
|
|
