|
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Americans on UN Peacekeeping
Any links to other sites in this file from 1995 are not clickable,
given the difficulty in maintaining up-to-date links in old files.
However, we hope they may still provide leads for your research.
Africa: Americans on UN Peacekeeping
Date Distributed (ymd): 950528
A Study of US Public Attitudes
Selected Excerpts from Summary of Findings
A new study of American public attitudes on UN peacekeeping
was recently conducted by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes of the Center for International and
Security Studies of the University of Maryland. It
included a poll of 1,204 randomly selected adult Americans
carried out April 19-23 (margin of error plus or minus
3-4%), focus groups, interviews and a review of other polls.
The study found:
* Approximately two out of three Americans support UN
peacekeeping in principle, contributing troops to UN
peacekeeping, paying UN peacekeeping dues in full, and also
support most UN peacekeeping operations. Among Republicans,
Democrats and Independents, there were no significant
differences.
Sixty-seven percent said that they favor the idea of UN
peacekeeping. An overwhelming 89% embraced the
argument that "When there is a problem in the world
that requires the use of military force, it is
generally best for the US to address the problem
together with other nations, working through the UN,
rather than going it alone."
* A majority would accept US troops serving under a foreign
UN commander.
* A majority feels that the US is contributing too much
money and more than its fair share of troops to UN
peacekeeping, but these attitudes are based on extreme
overestimations of how much the US is actually contributing.
* There is a good deal of frustration with the lack of
assertiveness of UN peacekeeping operations. The public
seems to feel that UN peacekeeping, as it is presently being
practiced, is too constricted a vessel for the purposes that
they would like to see it fulfill.
The findings of the study suggest:
1. A strong majority of Americans supports UN peacekeeping
in principle, but is frustrated by its lack of assertiveness.
This frustration does not lead Americans to back away from
UN peacekeeping but to want the UN to be more ready to
use force, when necessary, to fulfill its mandates.
2. A strong majority supports contributing troops and money
to UN peacekeeping. At the same time, this support is
dampened by the majority's feeling that the US contributes
too much. However, this feeling seems to be based on an
extreme overestimation of how much the US is really
contributing. When asked how much they would like to see
the US contribute, a majority proposes a level that is
substantially higher than the actual level.
Sixty-five percent favored the US contributing troops
to UN peacekeeping operations. ... At the same time,
60% said that "As compared to other UN countries...the
number of troops the US is presently contributing to UN
peacekeeping is more than its fair share." ...
This attitude seems to rest on some major
misperceptions. When half the sample was asked to
estimate "what percentage of the troops that are
presently participating in UN peacekeeping are
American," the median estimate was 40%--ten times the
actual level.
"What percentage of UN peacekeeping troops are
American?"
Median estimate perceived: 40%
Median estimate appropriate: 30%
Actual: 4%
A strong majority, 65%, said the US should pay its UN
peacekeeping dues in full. At the same time, 58% say
the amount the US spends on UN peacekeeping is "too
much," with only 13% saying it is too little. However,
here again, this attitude seems to rest on a
misunderstanding of how much is actually being spent on
UN peacekeeping.
"The equivalent of what percentage of the defense
budget goes to UN peacekeeping?"
Median estimate perceived: 22%
Median estimate appropriate: 15%
Actual: 1%
When the other half sample was told that the US spends
the equivalent of about 1% of the defense budget [on UN
peacekeeping], only 18% said that this was "higher than
it should be"--down from the 58% who initially said
that the US was spending too much. A majority of 52%
said that this amount was "lower than it should be," up
from the 12% who had initially said the US spends too
little on peacekeeping.
3. A majority would accept having US troops under a foreign
UN commander in a UN peacekeeping operation that might
require combat. If other nations have contributed more
troops than the US, then a very strong majority would find a
foreign commander acceptable.
4. A strong majority feels that participation in UN
peacekeeping is an appropriate function for the US military
and rejects the idea that participation in it undermines the
readiness of US forces or dulls their fighting edge.
5. A slight majority favors deducting from the US's
peacekeeping dues the cost of voluntary contributions to UN
peacekeeping, but a strong majority rejects the idea of
doing so unilaterally, or doing so if it would mean that UN
peacekeeping would have to be drastically cut back.
6. The majority is frustrated with the UN peacekeeping
operation in Bosnia and would like to see it be more
forceful.
7. A strong majority feels that the UN should have used
military force to stop the genocide in Rwanda and that the
US should have contributed troops to such efforts. A
majority now favors sending a UN peacekeeping force to
Burundi and contributing US troops to it.
Respondents were presented a series of possible steps
that could have been taken in Rwanda while the large-
scale "killings" were going on last year (the word
'genocide' was never used to describe events there).
Seventy-four percent said the UN should have forcibly
entered the country and set up safe havens. Sixty
percent favored destroyed the government radio stations
that were broadcasting messages encouraging the
killings.
If these steps had been taken and the killings
continued, 62% said the UN should have "gone in with a
large military force to occupy the country and stop the
killings." Of those that favored sending in such a
force 86% would have favored contributing US troops to
it.
This support for intervention is not simply an
expression of retrospective guilt. In a June-July PIPA
poll, taken while the genocide was occurring, 60%
favored US participation in a UN operation to set up
safe havens, while 61% favored US participation in a
"large" UN force to "occupy [Rwanda] and forcibly stop
the killing."
When asked about Burundi--where there is tension
between the same ethnic groups as in Rwanda--the recent
PIPA poll found that 62% favored sending a UN
peacekeeping force in the event that the Burundian
government asks for such a force. The same number,
62%, favored contributing US troops to such an
operation.
8. A slight majority favors US troops staying in Haiti a
while longer as part of the UN peacekeeping operation. A
stronger majority now feels the US did the right thing by
threatening to use force to get the Haitian military to step
down and to send in troops in reinstate President Aristide.
9. When respondents envision the possibility of American
troop fatalities in the course of a UN peacekeeping
operation, only a small majority say they would want to
withdraw USA troops. The majority would favor an active
response of either beefing up forces or striking back hard
at the attackers.
In retrospect, despite the fatalities in Somalia, an
overwhelming 82% currently approve UN peacekeepers
having delivered humanitarian aid there, though a 46%
plurality say it was a mistake to have tried to end the
civil war.
The study *Americans on UN Peacekeeping: A Study of US
Public Attitudes*, was conducted by the Program on
International Policy Attitudes, a program of the Center for
the Study of Policy Attitudes and the University of Maryland
Center for International and Security Studies. An 8-page
summary is available free from the Center for the Study of
Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 610,
Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202) 232-7500. Fax: (202)
232-1159. Email: cspa@vita.org. Inquire to CSPA for
pricing on the full study.
*******************************************************
This material is being reposted for wider distribution
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's
primary objective is to widen the policy debate in the
United States around African issues and the U.S. role
in Africa, by concentrating on providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a
wide range of groups and individuals. APIC is
affiliated with the Washington Office on Africa (WOA),
a not-for-profit church, trade union and civil rights
group supported organization that works with Congress
on Africa-related legislation.
*******************************************************
|
