The Congressional debate about United States
participation in United Nations peacekeeping
raises fundamental questions: Should the US
military be involved in UN humanitarian missions
or in efforts to stabilize far-flung regions of
the world? Or should it stay home and keep its
powder dry for the big conflicts that could more
directly affect US interests, or even the
survival, of the US?
The policymaking community has not come to
consensus. So where does the public weigh in?
A recent nationwide poll of 1,204 Americans by
the University of Maryland's Program on
International Policy Attitudes indicated that
approximately two-thirds of the public think UN
peacekeeping is a good idea and that the US
should contribute troops to it. If the US votes
in favor of a peacekeeping operation, 88 percent
think the US should be willing to contribute
troops to it. If an operation addresses a
situation in which civilians are being killed, 66
percent think the US should contribute troops
"whether or not it serves the national
interest."
When the president recently expressed a
willingness to send US troops to help reconfigure
UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, a firestorm of protest resulted
in Congress. Three different polls (for Newsweek,
Time, and USA Today) found, however, that two out
of three Americans were supportive. Newsweek also
found that 61 percent supported sending US ground
troops to Bosnia "to join United Nations
forces in all efforts to maintain peace and
protect relief operations."
Some Wrong Assumptions
It seems that in the American public's mind
the train has already left the station: The US is
perceived to be already contributing a major
portion of the troops in UN peacekeeping
operations. In our poll, respondents were asked
to estimate what percentage of the troops
committed to UN peacekeeping are American. The
median estimate was 40 percent overall and 30
percent in the former Yugoslavia.
So how do Americans feel about this presumed
level of commitment? Sixty percent feel that the
US is contributing more than its fair share. The
median American would like to cut back US
participation in peacekeeping to a 20 percent
share. This is 5 times the current US level
overall and eight times the current US level in
the former Yugoslavia. Asked how they would feel
about the US contributing 4 percent of the troops
to UN peacekeeping (the actual amount) only 9
percent said this would be too much. Most
Americans want to do their share--a share less
than they think is now being done, but more than
is in fact being done.
The public's misperception that the US is
contributing a large portion of the troops to UN
peacekeeping operations helps explain much of the
ambivalence about putting US troops under a
foreign UN commander in combat situations. While
recent polls show a modest majority (56 percent
in our poll) would find a foreign commander
acceptable. When asked how they would feel if
other countries were contributing more troops
than the US, the number accepting a foreign
commander jumped up to 73 percent.
But what about money? Are Americans willing to
see a substantial amount of the defense budget go
to supporting US participation in peacekeeping if
that eats into more traditional defense
functions? Here again, the public assumes this is
already occurring to an extent far beyond what
policymakers are considering. The median American
response is 22 percent of the defense budget goes
to US participation in UN peacekeeping. People in
this middle ground of opinion would like to cut
that back to about 15 percent, a level that is
still more than 15 times the actual current
level.
But what about the concern that participation
in UN peacekeeping cuts into the readiness of US
troops for more conventional conflicts? Only 33
percent in the poll sample worried that when US
troops participate in UN operations it is
"taking them away from training for more
important kinds of missions." Sixty-one
percent agreed that participating in peacekeeping
gives American soldiers "valuable experience
that will probably be useful in the future."
This does not mean, though, that Americans are
entirely enthusiastic about UN peacekeeping. The
recent events in Bosnia, with UN peacekeepers
being taken hostage, is symptomatic of what
Americans do not like about the way that UN
peacekeeping is being practiced.
Dangers of Peacekeeping
Even before these events, 75 percent agreed
with the statement: "UN peacekeeping
operations are often ineffective and even
dangerous because they send troops into civil
wars without the means to defend themselves or
the ability to deter attacks by being able to
retaliate effectively. UN troops end up being
sitting ducks."
These frustrations, however, do not lead most
Americans to want to back away from UN
peacekeeping. They feel that supporting UN
peacekeeping is the only way that the US can
avoid taking on the role of world policeman. They
would like, however, to see UN peacekeeping
carried out in a more assertive fashion and they
understand that for this to occur it is necessary
for the US to play a dynamic role.
Steven Kull is a fellow at the Center for
International and Security Studies at the
University of Maryland and director of its
Program on International Policy Attitudes.
Back
