Americans’ Opinion of United Nations at Record Low

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44971

Friday, March 13, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor




Flags of member nations flying at United Nations headquarters in New York City. (U.N. Photo by Araujo Pinto)(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration’s attempts to revamp the U.S. relationship with the United Nations comes at a time when Americans’ opinion of the world body’s effectiveness has dropped to an all-time low.

In the latest annual Gallup poll on the subject, only 26 percent of respondents said the U.N. was doing a good job “in trying to solve the problems it has had to face.”

The score marks a new low point in a steady decline since 2002, when 58 percent of respondents thought the U.N. was doing a good job. This year’s is also the lowest score registered by Gallup in more than half a century of tracking the issue.

Gallup previously attributed the downward trend since 2002 to the U.N.’s stand on the 2003 war in Iraq, corruption and scandals including the oil-for-food affair and sexual abuse by peacekeepers in Africa. But even subsequent attempts to reform the U.N. and the departure of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2006 do not appear to have checked the slide.


More recent criticism has focused on the inability of the Security Council to take unified positions on contentious issues including Iran, Burma, Darfur and Zimbabwe; controversies at the new, ostensibly reformed Human Rights Council; claims of financial irregularities in the U.N. Development Program’s operations in North Korea; alleged collaboration between the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA and Hamas in Gaza; and attacks on U.S. and Israeli policies in the General Assembly, including by the body’s current Nicaraguan president.

The Democratic Party platform for 2008 called the U.N. “indispensable,” and said while it needed reform those problems would not be solved unless the U.S. “rededicates itself to the organization and its mission.”

Since taking office, President Obama has taken steps to improve the relationship, including reinstating funding to the U.N. Population Fund, restoring the position of ambassador to the U.N. to cabinet rank, and returning to the Human Rights Council as an observer.



U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and President Obama hold a joint press conference after holding talks at the White House on March 10, 2009. (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)On Tuesday, he met with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and said afterwards that “the United Nations can be an extraordinarily constructive, important partner in bringing about peace and stability and security to people around the world.”

He also praised Ban, saying he had “shown extraordinary leadership during his tenure.”

One day later, Ban angered some Republican lawmakers when during a visit to the U.S. Congress he was quoted as having described the U.S. as a “deadbeat” donor to the U.N.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday called the word choice “unfortunate, given the fact that the American taxpayer is the largest contributor to the United Nations.”

Ban at a press conference also addressed the incident, calling it a “misunderstanding.”

He said he had noted the generous U.S. financial support for the U.N. but also pointed out that the U.S. was “the largest debtor, owing more than $1 billion in arrears, soon to reach $1.6 billion. My point was simply that the United Nations needs the fullest support of its members, and never more so than in these very demanding time.”

Ban also said Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had both “showed their commitment to resolve this issue as soon as possible.”

“America being called a ‘deadbeat’ by an organization that as a whole excuses catastrophic human rights abuses, terrorism and widespread financial fraud around the world might be laughable, if it weren’t so expensive,” Rory Cooper, director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation, commented in a blog posting Thursday.

‘Paying our dues’

One of the advocacy priorities for 2009 for the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. is to lobby for the U.S. to “pay its dues” on time and in full.

“By failing to fully pay our mutually agreed-upon share of U.N. expenses, we are undermining our influence at the United Nations and the important work of the organization,” the association argued in an advocacy agenda document adopted last December.




U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon meets with President Obama at the White House on March 10, 2009 (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)“The United States can make a powerful statement about its support for global cooperation and the importance of fulfilling international commitments by meeting the most basic obligation of UN membership – paying our dues.”

U.N. member states’ contributions to operating costs are calculated from assessments based on their relative “capacity to pay,” taking into account gross national income and other factors.

The U.S. contribution is assessed at 22 percent of the regular operating budget, which finances the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and several other bodies. It also contributes 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget.

The next biggest contributor (2008 figures) is Japan, at 16.6 percent. No other country comes close, including the other four permanent members of the Security Council – Britain 6.6, France 6.3, China 2.6 and Russia 1.2 percent.

Together, the top 15 contributing nations contribute around 84 percent of the regular budget.

In 2006, the Bush administration proposed reforming the assessment process, arguing that using purchasing power parity (PPP) data rather than gross national income as determined by GDP would produce a “more balanced” outcome.

PPP compares living conditions across countries, by comparing how much is needed to buy the same basket of goods and services.

If that measure was used to calculate U.N. contributions, major funders including the U.S. and Japan would pay less, while Russia and China would pay more – in China’s case, significantly so.

Japan that same year also proposed changes to the way member states’ dues are assessed, stung by China’s ongoing opposition to Japan’s aspirations to become a permanent member of the Security Council.

Arguing that contributions should reflect member states’ status and level of responsibility at the U.N., Tokyo said each permanent Security Council member should contribute a minimum of 3-5 percent of the total budget.

Like the U.S. proposal to shift to calculations based on PPP, the Japanese recommendation would have impacted on Russia and China, both of which contribute less than three percent. Meanwhile dues paid by others – including Japan – would have consequently dropped.

China and Russia quickly rejected Japan’s proposal.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told lawmakers in 2007 that a system of “voluntary contributions” would allow the U.S. and other member states “to judge the effectiveness of the various parts of the U.N. system, and demand results.”

“Non-responsive programs and funds can be defunded, effective agencies and personnel can be rewarded and augmented,” he said. “Most importantly, the crippling mentality of ‘entitlement’ that pervades the main U.N. organization will be stripped away.”







Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.


Showing 1-3 of 3 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...


thinking at 06:33 AM - March 15, 2009
The best way to change the disparity in pay is to make it so that your vote carries the same weight as your % of financial support. It'll never happen but boy I bet China and Russia would up what they pay real quick hehe. In any event I have to agree, turn out the lights. It was a failure under the name of "The League of Nations" and its a failure now. It has been taken over by corrupt people and Leftist organizations. They only have power and control on there minds and if we're not careful they will control us soon. If your not convinced look at the EPA and how it is in danger of being replaced or overseen by the UN's version. I would be interested it seeing what other agencies the UN has its sights on.

zanne at 11:26 PM - March 13, 2009
A useless U.S. taxpayer expense. Turn off the lights/send everyone home. The UN is a filthy,ugly money pig.

Peted at 09:23 AM - March 13, 2009
Is the U.N. paying rent on the U.N. building or is that a U.S. taxpayer giveaway? These jackasses have to be evicted and the whole mess moved to a more accommodating country such as Zimbabwe.