Global Policy Forum

US Public Attitudes on the United Nations

Print

 

July 31, 2001

 

 

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]

 

 

Notes

 

1. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. (United States) paying its UN (United Nations) dues in full?
Favor
58%
Oppose 32
Not sure/Decline 10
Organization: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations/German Marshall Fund
Dates: June 1-30, 2002
Subpopulation/Note: See note Asked of partial sample A, one quarter of telephone interviews (1/5 of sample)

 

2. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. (United States) paying its U.N. (United Nations) dues in full? (If favor/oppose, ask:) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Favor strongly
30%
Favor somewhat 28
Oppose somewhat 13
Oppose strongly 16
Don't know/Refused 13
Organization: PIPA
Date: June 21-27, 1996

 

Do you think the U.S. (United States) should or should not pay its U.N. (United Nations) peacekeeping dues in full?
Should pay dues
65%
Should not pay dues 22
Don't know/Refused 13
Organization: PIPA
Sample Size: approx. 600
Date: April 19-23, 1995

 

3. Do you think the United States should--increase its funding of the United Nations, keep it the same, or decrease its funding of the United Nations?
Increase funding
11%
Keep it the same 50
Decrease funding 37
No opinion 2
Organization: Gallup/CNN/USAToday
Date: August 25-26, 2003

 

4. The US (United States) owes $1.4 billion in back dues to the UN (United Nations). Do you agree or disagree that the US should pay all of its back dues to the UN?
Agree
62%
Disagree 27
Not sure 11
Organization: Zogby International
Sample Size: 1003 likely voters
Date: December 1998

 

5. 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 (1998) it will be two full years behind. Please tell me your feeling about paying dues to the United Nation. Would you be strongly in favor of paying the dues, somewhat in favor, somewhat against, or strongly against paying dues?
Strongly in favor
37%
Somewhat in favor 36
Somewhat against 15
Strongly against 10
Don't know/Refused to answer 2
Organization: Wirthlin Worldwide / United Nations Association of the USA
Sample Size: 1005
Date: August 21-25, 1998

 

6. Do you favor or oppose the US paying its UN dues in full?
Strongly Favor

32.4%

Somewhat Favor 27.9
Somewhat Oppose 10.7
Strongly Oppose 16.1
Don't know/Refused 12.8
[Those who answered "oppose" or don't know or refused]
As you may know, the US is behind on its UN dues. At present there is a bill before Congress that would have the US pay most of its back dues to the UN, but only on the condition that the UN make some financial reforms. Do you favor or oppose Congress passing this legislation?
Percent of Total Sample
Favor
45.1% 17.9%
Oppose 36.3 14.4
Don't know/Refused 18.6 7.4
Organization: PIPA
Sample Size: approx. 600
Date: April 1998

 

7. Now I would like to read you some arguments that have been made for and against the US paying its UN dues. For each one I would like to know if you find the argument convincing or not convincing and whether you feel that way strongly or somewhat. Here's the first/next one... Do you find this argument convincing or unconvincing? (Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?)

...The US was one of the original founders of the UN and has benefited from its existence. The US has an obligation to meet its commitment to pay its full dues just like all other member countries.

Strongly Convincing 46.4%
Somewhat Convincing 26.6
Somewhat Unconvincing 11.4
Strongly Unconvincing 12.6
Don't know/Refused 3.0

...The UN is becoming too powerful. It is meddling in areas where the US, not the UN, should be taking the lead. To make sure that the UN does not gain too much control over US foreign policy we should stop giving it money.

Strongly Convincing
15.8%
Somewhat Convincing 11.8
Somewhat Unconvincing 30.2
Strongly Unconvincing 39.1
Don't know 3.1

...Because the UN successfully got Saddam Hussein to allow in weapons inspectors it became unnecessary for the US to mount a large and costly military action. For this and for other reasons it is a good investment for the US to pay its UN dues.

Strongly Convincing 24.3%
Somewhat Convincing 27.9
Somewhat Unconvincing 16.8
Strongly Unconvincing 27.1
Don't know/Refused 3.7

...Because the UN is ineffective and wasteful, the US does not get a good return on its money. Therefore it is a bad investment and the US should not feel obliged to pay all of its UN dues.

Strongly Convincing 15.0%
Somewhat Convincing
13.4
Somewhat Unconvincing 31.7
Strongly Unconvincing 36.3
Don't know/Refused 3.6
Organization: PIPA
Sample Size: approx. 600
Date: April 1998

 

8. Would you favor or oppose your member of Congress voting to pay America's dues for UN peacekeeping?
Favor
51%
Oppose 42
Don't know/Refused 7
Organization: WorldPublicOpinion.org/Knowledge Networks
Date: October 6-15, 2006
[3/4 SAMPLE A,C,D]

 

STATEMENT: As you may know, every year Congress passes a budget, part of which includes spending for US foreign policy, defense, and security. We would like to know how you think this part of the budget should be distributed. For this exercise, this part of the budget is divided into 15 areas. Please imagine that you have $900 of your tax money to divide among these 16 areas. This is about how much of the average taxpayer's money goes to these 15 areas as a whole. For each area, you'll see how much of your $900 goes to each of these areas in the current year's budget. Then you can indicate how many of your dollars you'd like to see go to that area next year. You'll be able to monitor how much of the $900 you have left as you make decisions by scrolling down to the bottom of the page.

[Table shows respondents' mean choices converted back into actual federal budget amounts]
FY2006 Congressional
Budget Appropriations Program
2006 Appropriations (billions) Mean preference (billions) Change ($)
UN and UN Peacekeeping
$2.50 $14.03 +$11.53

For UN and UN Peacekeeping funding (Percent saying):
Increase 48%
Stay the same 27
Decrease 25
Organization: WorldPublicOpinion.org/Knowledge Networks
Date: October 6-15, 2006

 

9. (Another controversial issue is whether the U.S. (United States) should pay its U.N. (United Nations) peacekeeping dues in full. For several years now, the U.S. has significantly underpaid its dues. Last year it paid less than half. Here are some arguments that have been made on this issue. Please tell me if you find them convincing or unconvincing.)...

... U.N. (United Nations) 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.

Very convincing
21%
Somewhat convincing 19
Somewhat unconvincing 25
Very unconvincing 32
Don't know/Refused 3

...U.N. (United Nations) 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 U.S. (United States). We should pay as little as possible for U.N. peacekeeping--preferably nothing.

Very convincing

11%

Somewhat convincing 10
Somewhat unconvincing 22
Very unconvincing 56
Don't know/Refused 1

...U.N. (United Nations) peacekeeping helps contribute to stability in the world. This makes it less likely the U.S. (United States) will need to do expensive things like sending military aid and U.S. troops to other countries. In the long run, if we don't spend money on U.N. peacekeeping we will probably end up spending more money on defense.

Very convincing 34%
Somewhat convincing 32
Somewhat unconvincing 17
Very unconvincing 15
Don't know/Refused 2

...Since all peacekeeping operations must be approved by the U.S. and the U.S. agreed to pay a certain share of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, it is hypocritical for the U.S. to not pay its dues. Do you find this argument convincing or unconvincing? (Would that be somewhat or very?)

Very convincing
34%
Somewhat convincing 31
Somewhat unconvincing 16
Very unconvincing 16
Don't know/Refused 3
Organization: PIPA
Sample Size: 700
Date: February 9-13, 1994

 

10. 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. In this first ad, Tom Miller's campaign criticizes Congressman Allen. It goes like this:
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.
Now here's an ad from Congressman Allen's campaign that criticizes Miller:
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.
Just based on this information, who would you be more inclined to vote for: Congressman Allen, who favors paying UN dues, or his challenger Tom Miller, who wants to hold back on paying UN dues.
Congressman Allen 56.1%
Tom Miller (challenger)
37.3%
Don't know / refused 6.6%
Organization: PIPA
Sample Size: approx. 600
Date: April 1998

 

11. If your member of Congress voted against paying dues and as a result the US (United States) would lose its vote in the UN (United Nations) General Assembly, would that make you much more likely to vote to re-elect that representative, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, much less likely, or would it not affect what you thought about voting for this representative?
Much more likely to elect
6%
Somewhat more likely to elect 11
Somewhat less likely to elect 22
Much less likely to elect 27
Not affect what I thought 34
Organization: Wirthlin Worldwide / United Nations Association of the USA
Sample Size: 1005
Date: August 21-25, 1998

 

12. As you may know, the United States this year is not paying its assessed share of the UN's expenses as determined under the UN Charter, and payment of UN dues has become politically controversial in Washington. If your member of Congress voted against paying America's dues to the United Nations, would that make you more or less likely to vote to re-elect that representative, or would it not affect what you thought about voting for that representative?
More likely to vote to re-elect representative

13

Less likely to vote to re-elect representative

30

Not affect what you thought about voting for representative . 46
Don't know/Refused 12
Organization: Wirthlin Group / United Nations Association--USA
Sample Size: 1007
Date: December 1-3, 1995

 

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.