The Myth of American Rejectionism

Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay and Philip Warf are members of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), a public-opinion research institution of the University of Maryland, US.

In January, Jesse Helms, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a strongly worded speech to the United Nations Security Council. In it he portrayed the American public as having a fundamentally negative view of the United Nations. He claimed that Americans see the world body as a threat to US sovereignty, that they oppose pressure to pay America’s back dues to the organisation, that they are unwilling to “countenance” the United Nations’ effort to create “a new international order of global laws” and that they favour US withdrawal from the United Nations.

 

Senator Helms’s views reflect beliefs that are widespread among US policymakers and political elites. At the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland, we conducted interviews with members of Congress and their staffers, executive branch officials, journalists and members of think tanks.¹ Approximately half believed that most Americans have a negative attitude towards the United Nations, would oppose strengthening it, frown upon using US military forces as part of a UN military operation and object to paying UN dues.

 

But a comprehensive review of data from numerous polling organisations as well from PIPA shows quite a different picture. While the American public does have some reservations about UN efficiency and effectiveness, it overwhelmingly supports the United Nations and US participation in it. It also favours strengthening the United Nations, strongly prefers using military force through the United Nations rather than acting unilaterally and believes in paying outstanding UN dues.

 

This support is derived from a more general attitude among Americans about the role of the United States in the world. There are signs that a large majority of the American public would like to see the United States move away from its role as world leader or hegemon. This view is sometimes interpreted as a form of isolationism. In fact, however, most Americans also reject isolationism. Instead, the clear preference is for the United States to put more emphasis on participating in multilateral structures for maintaining world order. For example, in a June 1996 PIPA poll, respondents were presented with three options for America’s role in the world. Just 12 per cent chose the option that “the United States should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems”, and only 13 per cent embraced the idea that “as the sole remaining superpower, the United States should continue to be the pre-eminent world leader in solving international problems”. However, 74 per cent endorsed the view that “the United States should do its fair share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries”.

Backing for the United Nations

When asked their opinion of the United Nations itself, a solid majority of Americans expresses positive feelings. In a Pew Research Center poll of June 1999, 70 per cent said they had a favourable view of the United Nations, with 23 per cent saying they had an unfavourable view. Over the previous few years, the United Nations’ favourability rating has fluctuated between roughly 60 and 75 per cent. According to a November 1997 CNN/USA Today poll, 85 per cent said that the “United Nations plays a necessary role in the world today”.

 

A very large majority supports US participation in the United Nations, and only a very small minority would support US withdrawal. In an August 1998 Wirthlin Group poll, 93 per cent said that it is important for the United States to be “an active member” of the United Nations. Significantly, the United Nations scored higher than NATO, with 83 per cent saying that it was important for America to be an active member of the alliance. In November 1997, Gallup found that just 9 per cent thought the United States “should give up its membership in the United Nations”, while 88 per cent opposed the idea. This level of support for UN membership has been steady for decades in Gallup surveys.

 

In fact, rather than assuming that a more empowered United Nations would harm US interests, as many policymakers suggest, Americans are very responsive to the argument that participation in UN efforts ultimately serves US interests. In PIPA’s June 1996 poll, 79 per cent agreed that

 

Because the world is so interconnected today, the United States should participate in UN efforts to maintain peace, protect human rights and promote economic development. Such efforts serve US interests because they help create a more stable world that is less apt to have wars and is more conducive to trade and other US interests.

 

Respondents were also presented a counter-argument that rejected the idea that UN activities benefit the United States directly:

 

It is nice to think that UN efforts make the world more stable. But in fact the world is so big and complex that such efforts only make a minimal difference with little benefit to the United States. Therefore, it is not really in the US interest to participate in them.

 

Only 29 per cent agreed with this argument, while 69 per cent rejected it.

 

Even though there is general support for the United Nations and US participation in it, Americans do have reservations about UN performance. These reservations may help explain why favourability ratings for the United Nations on specific issues are a bit lower than support for the United Nations in principle. It may also partially explain why policymakers misperceive public opinion, believing that most Americans take a negative view of the United Nations and mistaking the public’s short-term criticisms of performance for more fundamental objections. However, the majority does not view the United Nations as worse than other major public institutions. And rather than pull back from the United Nations, it favours maintaining or increasing spending and making peacekeeping operations more assertive.

 

Although the public’s “job approval” rating of the United Nations has recovered somewhat recently (to 60 per cent in an August 1998 Wirthlin Group poll), this follows a lengthy dip in approval of performance and is still lower than it was in the early 1990s. Assessments of UN performance were particularly positive after the Gulf War. Asked in October 1991 whether “the United Nations is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has to face”, 67 per cent said it was doing a good job (CBS, October 1991). In June 1993, when the Somalia operation had scored initial successes, 61 per cent said the United Nations was doing a good job (CBS). However, 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 per cent saying the United Nations was “doing a good job”. After the Bosnia Dayton accords were signed in November 1995, approval of UN performance recovered slightly, jumping to 54 per cent in December 1995 (Wirthlin), though it slipped again to 46 per cent in February 1996 (CNN).

 

Even answers to some questions about US participation in the United Nations seem to be responsive to UN performance. In a March 1999 Pew poll, 65 per cent agreed with the unequivocal statement, “The United States should co-operate fully with the United Nations.” Only about one in four (26 per cent) disagreed, with 9 per cent not sure. This is a more positive view than Pew/Times Mirror polls in 1997 (59 per cent agreed) and 1995 (62 per cent), and is the highest level of support since shortly after the Gulf War in 1991when 77 per cent were in favour of full co-operation.

 

Public scepticism about performance is not uniquely directed at the United Nations and is actually a bit less than scepticism concerning other institutions, including the US government. In a June 1999 Pew Center poll, 70 per cent rated their feelings about the United Nations as mostly or very favourable. However, only 56 per cent gave the US Congress such a rating. A June 1995 poll by the Americans Talk Issues Foundation (ATIF) 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 United Nations, 47 per cent said “just about always” or “most of the time”, while only 24 per cent gave this rating to the US government.

 

Consistent with perceptions expressed in the interviews PIPA conducted in 1997, 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 per cent. However, when another sample was asked to apply this question to the US government, the median respondent estimated that 40 per cent of US government funds were lost to waste, fraud and abuse.

 

This suggests that there is a generally low level of public confidence in big regulatory institutions, and that suspicions of inefficiency and corruption are not specific to the United Nations. A June 1995 ATIF poll confirms this: 64 per cent agreed that “people are distrustful of almost all institutions today; there is no special reason to distrust the United Nations more than other institutions”.

A Stronger United Nations

Whatever reservations Americans may have about UN performance, this does not lead the majority to want to pull back from UN activities. In fact, most Americans would like the United Nations to be stronger, and only a small minority is concerned that a stronger United Nations might compromise US sovereignty.

 

In various polls, an overwhelming majority of Americans has stressed that strengthening the United Nations should be a foreign policy goal for the United States. A November 1998 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that 84 per cent felt that strengthening the United Nations should be a somewhat (39 per cent) or very important (45 per cent) foreign policy goal, with only 11 per cent saying it should not be. A September 1997 Pew poll found that 83 per cent believed strengthening the United Nations should be a foreign policy goal, with 30 per cent saying it should be a top priority and 53 per cent saying it should have some priority. In its October 1999 poll, PIPA offered respondents a list of four international organisations, including the United Nations, 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.” Respondents were then asked, for each institution, whether “you think it needs to be strengthened or not”. Sixty-seven per cent thought that the United Nations needs to be strengthened, while only 30 per cent thought it did not.

 

In a November 1995 PIPA poll respondents were asked a series of questions about strengthening the United Nations and had to evaluate a pro argument and a con argument. The pro argument said, “For the United States to move away from its role as world policeman and reduce the burden of its large defense budget, the United States should invest in efforts to strengthen the United Nations’ ability to deal with potential conflicts in the world.” Seventy-three per cent agreed and 24 per cent disagreed. The con argument stressed the potential loss of US sovereignty that might result from a strengthened United Nations: “Strengthening the United Nations is not a good idea because if the United Nations were to become stronger, the United States could become entangled in a system that would inhibit it from full freedom of action to pursue its interests.” Only 37 per cent agreed, while 57 per cent disagreed.

 

Finally, on a more neutral note, respondents were asked, “Overall, do you think that in the long run efforts to strengthen the United Nations would be a good investment or not a good investment?” Sixty-eight per cent said that it would be a good investment, while 28 per cent said it would not be.

 

Respondents were also presented with four concrete options for strengthening the United Nations, all of which received very strong support. These included:

 

• Improving UN communication and command facilities—83 per cent in favour.

 

• Having joint military training exercises—82 per cent in favour.

 

• Having UN members each commit one thousand troops to a rapid deployment force that the UN Security Council can call up on short notice—79 per cent in favour.

 

• Allowing the United Nations to possess permanent stocks of military equipment stored in different locations around the world—69 per cent in favour.

 

PIPA’s April 1995 poll also found low levels of public concern about the United Nations’ impinging on US sovereignty. Respondents were asked to choose between two statements about the power of the United Nations. Only 36 per cent chose the statement, “I am afraid that things like UN peacekeeping are getting so big that the United States is losing control of its foreign policy to the United Nations,” while a 58 per cent majority chose, “I am not afraid that the United Nations is becoming too powerful. The United States has a veto in the UN Security Council and therefore the United Nations cannot dictate anything to the United States.”

 

In interviews, some policymakers, including members of Congress, asserted that the idea of strengthening the United Nations aroused public fears that the organisation would evolve into a world government that could override US sovereignty. In June 1995, ATIF respondents were presented with the argument that “the United Nations might become a world government and take away our freedom”. Seventy-three per cent rejected this (58 per cent strongly) with just 17 per cent agreeing (11 per cent strongly).

 

Support for an expansive United Nations exists even though most Americans appear grossly to 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. Seventy-five per cent believed that the UN budget was more than four times its actual size.

A Standing Army

Perhaps the boldest idea for strengthening the United Nations is to give it its own standing military force. This was originally envisioned during the formation of the United Nations and has been more recently discussed by former Under-Secretary-General Brian Urquhart and other policy analysts. PIPA tested the waters for this idea and found very strong support in 1995, which then diminished to a modest majority by 1999. In April 1995, 68 per cent of respondents said they favoured “the idea of having a standing United Nations peacekeeping force made up of soldiers who were not part of a national army but had independently volunteered to be part of the UN force”. Twenty-seven per cent opposed the idea. In October 1999 the same question found 53 per cent in favour with 41 per cent opposed. This drop in support for the idea of a UN volunteer force has come since the UN command in Bosnia was replaced by NATO and since the United Nations was unable to provide the leadership ultimately provided by NATO in response to the Kosovo crisis. These experiences may have altered the public’s view of the United Nations’ potential for managing military forces.

 

However, support for an independent international force remains, even when it is made clear that such a force might intervene in the affairs of other countries. In a November 1999 Harris Interactive poll, 64 per cent agreed that “we need to have some kind of truly international army, with troops from many countries, that can be used in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor or Rwanda, where national governments fail to protect the lives, or even encourage the killing, of their own people”.

 

More recent polls also show support for establishing or strengthening judicial courts within the UN system. In an October 1999 PIPA poll a strong majority supported the United States’ accepting the jurisdiction of the proposed International Criminal Court, even though the argument against doing so was spelled out in the question. Sixty-six per cent agreed that “the United States should support such a court because the world needs a better way to prosecute war criminals, many of whom go unpunished today”. Only 29 per cent said that “the United States 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”.

 

The same study found that a modest majority also appears ready to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. The question posed was:

 

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 United States should or should not make the commitment to accept the decisions of the World Court?

 

A modest majority of 53 per cent thought that the United States should make this commitment, while 38 per cent thought the United States should not do so.

Using Military Force

In the event that it is necessary for the United States to use military force, a strong majority prefers to act whenever possible through the United Nations rather than unilaterally. Whenever polls have posed the option of using military force unilaterally or as part of a UN operation, the public nearly always opts for the latter. In an April 1995 PIPA poll (even though this was a time when the UN operation in Bosnia was not going well), 89 per cent agreed that “when there is a problem in the world that requires the use of military force, it is generally best for the United States to address the problem together with other nations working through the United Nations, rather than going it alone”.

 

This attitude was sustained even in the face of a strong challenge that the United States would be more successful acting on its own. Only 29 per cent agreed with the argument that “when there is a problem in the world that requires the use of military force, it is better for the United States to act on its own rather than working through the United Nations because the United States can move more quickly and probably more successfully”. Sixty-six per cent rejected it.

 

Most Americans are clearly more comfortable acting in concert with other nations rather than acting alone. PIPA asked respondents in June 1996, “As a general rule, when it is necessary to use military force to deal with trouble spots in the world, do you feel more comfortable having the United States contribute to a UN military action or for the United States to take military action by itself?” Sixty-nine per cent preferred the United States to contribute to a UN action, while only 24 per cent preferred the United States to act alone.

 

ATIF asked in June 1995, “When faced with problems involving aggression, who do you think should be ‘policeman to the world,’ the United States or the United Nations?” Only 19 per cent said the United States, while 76 per cent said the United Nations. ATIF also asked, “When faced with future problems involving aggression, who should take the lead, the United States or the United Nations?” In June 1995, 69 per cent said the United Nations, down from 85 per cent in March 1991, shortly after the Gulf War.

 

This preference of the public for acting through the United Nations rather than unilaterally leads to support for US participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Polls have consistently found majority support for the general principle of contributing US troops to UN peacekeeping operations. Even shortly after the deaths of the eighteen US rangers in Mogadishu in October 1993, NBC found 71 per cent support and ABC found 58 per cent support for contributing US troops to UN peacekeeping operations. More recently in a March 1997 Roper Starch poll, respondents were asked whether they would support using US troops “to be part of a United Nations peacekeeping force wherever needed”. A total of 72 per cent said they generally would support such a move, with 35 per cent saying they “definitely would” and 35 per cent saying they “probably would”.

 

One of the key reasons Americans support participation in UN peacekeeping is because it is seen as a means of burden sharing. In an April 1995 PIPA poll, an overwhelming 86 per cent agreed that, “The only way for the United States to not always be the world policeman is to allow the United Nations the means to perform some policing functions. UN peacekeeping is a way we can share the burden with other countries.”

 

Consistent with this thinking, when questions are posed about the United States’ sending troops to trouble spots, Americans are very sensitive to whether the wording of the question implies a unilateral or a UN operation. Support is consistently much higher when the operation is portrayed as a UN operation.

 

While the majority has consistently favoured contributing US troops to peacekeeping operations in principle, support for contributing to specific operations depends on a number of variables. These include whether the operation is clearly perceived as multilateral, whether the United States is perceived as contributing its fair share, whether the operation is perceived as likely to succeed, whether the US leadership is acting coherently and decisively and whether the operation could mitigate widespread civilian suffering.²

 

Contrary to widespread assumptions, Americans are amenable to putting US troops under a foreign UN commander. In a June 1999 CNN/USA Today poll, 75 per cent said that they “generally approve of American troops participating in peacekeeping forces under the United Nations command”, with only 24 per cent disapproving.

Paying UN Dues

A majority of Americans has consistently shown a readiness to pay UN dues in full. Most recently, in December 1998, Zogby found 62 per cent saying that “the United States should pay all its back dues”. In August 1998, the Wirthlin Group found that 73 per cent favoured paying dues when they were told, “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.” Furthermore, it appears that much of the opposition to paying UN dues is not derived from an intrinsic resistance to the United Nations but rather from reservations about UN performance. In an April 1998 PIPA poll, support for paying UN dues went up to 78 per cent when this was made contingent on the United Nations’ making financial reforms.

 

When presented with a series of pro and con arguments on the question of paying UN dues in an April 1998 PIPA poll, respondents found the pro arguments more convincing. Seventy-three per cent agreed with an argument confirming the value of the general idea of the United Nations which said “the United States was one of the original founders of the United Nations and has benefited from its existence” and “the United States has an obligation to ... pay its full dues”. An argument that challenged the idea of the United Nations by saying “the United Nations is ... meddling in areas where the United States, not the United Nations, should be taking the lead” was found convincing by just 28 per cent, while 69 per cent found it unconvincing. An argument then being used by some proponents of paying UN dues—that doing so is a “good investment” because UN negotiations with Saddam Hussein made it “unnecessary for the United States to mount a large and costly military action”—was found convincing by a more modest 52 per cent. The argument that paying UN dues “is a bad investment” because “the United Nations is ineffective and wasteful” convinced only 28 per cent.

 

The Wirthlin Group in August 1998 also asked whether, if a Congress member’s vote against paying UN dues led to the United States losing its vote in the General Assembly, this would affect respondents’ votes. Of the 69 per cent who said that it would, 54 per cent of the total sample were more inclined to vote against a member who opposed paying dues, while only 15 per cent were more inclined to support the member. In December 1995 Wirthlin asked a similar question that did not mention the possibility of the United States’ losing its General Assembly vote. In response, 43 per cent said their votes for Congress would be affected, 30 per cent saying they would be less inclined to support such a member and only 13 per cent saying they would be more inclined to do so.

 

When the issue of paying UN dues is placed in the context that the United States is presently withholding them in an effort to bring about UN reform, this produces a more varied response. The October 1998 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that 48 per cent thought that although “Congress has held up payment of these dues, citing the need for reform of the United Nations, the United States should go ahead and pay the back dues”, while 38 per cent thought it should not. In an August 1998 poll a modest majority (53 per cent) felt that “the United States should always pay its full dues”, while 42 per cent thought it should “hold back its dues to pressure other members to agree to changes it believes are needed” (Wirthlin Group).

 

In some questions, though, those wanting to pay dues have been in the minority, especially if withholding dues is presented as established US policy. In November 1997 Gallup told respondents, “The United States has withheld ... dues ... to force the United Nations to change its financial practices. Do you favor or oppose this decision by the United States?” Sixty-three per cent were in favour, with 26 per cent opposed. And when Time/CNN asked in February 1997, “Do you think the United States should pay ... or not pay ... until [the United Nations] carries out reforms the United States has requested?” a 47 per cent plurality said the United States should hold back, while 41 per cent said the United States should pay.

 

However, when the two values of seeking financial reforms and complying with the norm of paying UN dues were both presented in a single question, the value of paying dues without conditions prevailed by a modest margin. In April 1998 PIPA asked:

 

On the question of UN dues, some say the United States should hold back paying its UN dues so as to pressure the United Nations to become more efficient and that this is the only way to get results. Others argue that the new Secretary General Kofi Annan has recently begun a new program for reforming its operations and that withholding dues is too high-handed a way to apply pressure. Do you think the United States should or should not hold back paying UN dues as a way of pressuring it to become more efficient?

 

Fifty-three per cent said that the United States should not hold back dues as a means of pressure, while 40 per cent said that it should.

 

Moreover, when the Wirthlin Group (August 1998) presented respondents with five of the key conditions set by Congress for the payment of UN dues, none were endorsed by the majority. The most popular condition, endorsed by 46 per cent, was to require the United Nations to “lower the US share of UN expenses”; nonetheless, 51 per cent rejected it. Forty-five per cent endorsed requiring the United Nations to “make ongoing staff and budget cuts”, while 50 per cent rejected it. Fifty-nine per cent said the United States should not “require the United Nations to accept partial payment of US back dues”, while the same percentage rejected imposing a condition of “prohibit[ing] other countries from offering ground troops on a standby basis”. Respectively, just 36 and 37 per cent endorsed them.

 

Another major barrier to the United States’ paying its UN back dues was a movement in Congress to prohibit US funds going to family planning programmes overseas that discuss abortion with their clients. The proposed amendment was attached to the almost $1 billion the United States appropriated in 1998 to pay part of its back dues. When Wirthlin (August 1998) explained the policy and asked, “Do you think the payment of UN dues should or should not be linked to this abortion provision?” 80 per cent said it should not, while 17 per cent said it should.

 

Although most Americans favour paying UN dues, there is evidence that many feel the United States is contributing more than its fair share. When PIPA asked in June 1996, “As compared to other countries, do you think that the amount that the United States is assessed for UN dues is more than its fair share, less than its fair share, or about right?” 50 per cent thought it was more than the United States’ fair share, while 31 per cent thought the amount was “about right” and 4 per cent thought it less than a fair share.

 

To decide that UN dues are assessed fairly, Americans need to know that assessments are based on share of world GNP. CNN/USA Today asked a question in November 1997 that did not clarify this and found 52 per cent thought the US share was too much. On the other hand, when Wirthlin (August 1998) explained the assessment basis and added that European countries paid a third of the UN budget, 60 per cent said this was fair and only 37 per cent disagreed.

Mistaken Perceptions

It is not surprising that many observers assume the American public is not supportive of the United Nations. It is easy to claim that the resistance of the US Congress to paying UN dues and to contributing American troops to UN peacekeeping operations is reflective of a broad public sentiment. And indeed, it does appear from our interviews that some members of Congress genuinely believe that the general public does have a negative attitude towards the United Nations.

 

Apparently, this assumption about the public is derived from the correct perception that Americans feel that the United States has, for some decades now, been doing more than its fair share in maintaining world order. However, it is a mistake then to take that to mean that Americans want generally to disengage from the world and the United Nations. Rather, an overwhelming majority of Americans favours continued engagement, but wants to put much greater emphasis on working through multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations. Thus, Americans abundantly favour continued US participation in the United Nations. While some Americans have reservations about the performance of the United Nations as an institution, very strong majorities want to see it become even stronger than it is, and there is little concern that the United Nations will compromise US sovereignty. When it comes to the use of military force, Americans tend to support it in the context of a UN-sponsored operation. While Americans have some concern that the United States tends to do more than its fair share in supporting the United Nations, a majority does favour having the United States pay its UN dues.

 

Thus, there is little reason to assume that American public support for the United Nations is likely to wane. Rather, with increasing globalisation and the emergence of more global problems, it is more likely that Americans will increasingly look to the United Nations as an important and appropriate institution to address these issues. 

Endnotes

1. See Steven Kull and I. M. Destler, Misreading the Public: The Myth of a New Isolationism (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999).

 

2. A recent example is the UN operation in East Timor. Seventy-one per cent approved the United States’ contributing two hundred troops to the operation, while 25 per cent disapproved (PIPA, October 1999). For a discussion of other cases, see Kull and Destler, Misreading the Public, pp. 100–6.