http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-09-un-poll_x.htm U.S. view of U.N. largely negative By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY UNITED NATIONS — More Americans say the United Nations is doing a poor job in solving world problems than at any time in the past 50 years, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. The negative view appears to stem from the Security Council's lack of support for the war in Iraq. The poll was taken Aug. 25-26, before President Bush began pushing for a stronger U.N. role in postwar Iraq. It was the first time Gallup asked the question since the war began. Sixty percent of those polled said the United Nations is doing a poor job, compared with 37% who said it is doing a good job. More than half, 55%, said the Security Council's refusal to explicitly back the war made them view the U.N. less favorably. The dissatisfaction has not led most Americans to want to cut congressional support for the institution: 37% said U.N. funding should be decreased, 50% said it should stay the same and 11% said it should be increased. The Gallup organization has tracked U.S. attitudes toward the United Nations since 1953, when 55% said it was doing a good job. Mark Malloch Brown, chief administrator for the U.N. Development Program, said the numbers reflect prewar tensions but not a fundamental shift in core U.S. support for the United Nations. "A lot of the American public's view at the moment is, 'We may not like what the U.N. does, but they are indispensable, and we've got to find a way of working with them,' " he said. Analysts who study the United Nations and U.S. attitudes toward it say passage of a resolution giving the world body greater authority in Iraq could help heal prewar wounds and begin to repair the United Nations' image with the American people. The poll was taken after a bomb attack on U.N. offices in Baghdad but before Bush's call for a new U.N. resolution.
Aren't you guys a bit behind, here? Bush was trashing the UN; now he wants to be friends so they can save his ass in Iraq. Get with the program. Didn't you see the speech?
The UN should be_looking at it's policies, and methods. But the reason the U.S. has a negative opinion is months of trashing with little to no positive stories about the UN in Iraq has tainted the view many have about the UN. If there were stories coming for months about how many refugees are helped, how many starving people are fed, etc. the US would have a positive view of the UN. The UN inspections suceeded in getting missles destroyed keeping WMD prgrams from springing back up, and no soldiers in an unthreatened land had to lose their lives to accomplish it.
disagreed..the UN was exposed. they pass meaningless measures because they were unwilling to back them up. saddam violated UN order after UN order...and was never held accountable for it. the UN was reduced to a debating society, colored by the obvious self-interests of the nations represented therein. that's the problem with centralized powers...
Glynch is not playing with a full deck. He convienently forgets that we ASKED the UN for help, and due to some of the governments with secret contracts with Iraq they turned us down. Now we are reaching out with an olive branch asking the UN to try to gain some legitimacy, and what do they do? Same ole...same ole. Disband the UN it is worthless now. DD
They did need prodding. Once that happened inspectors were back in Iraq, the WMD were prevented from being redeveloped, Saddam started destroying his missles. They were effective in that way. But even if none of that happened your view of the UN is limited. The only case that you use to say the UN wasn't effective was Iraq. That's one out of about a multitude of things they are doing. Media coverage made it seem that the number one issue that the UN was dealing with. However, feeding starving regugees around the world, peace keeping Kosovo, and elsewhere were also important. There were far greater threats to the world than Saddam that the UN was worrying about, and dealing with to varying degrees of success. But to dismiss the UN because they weren't doing enough on Iraq is cutting off the nose to spite the face. I don't think an organization that feeds millions, shelters refugees, is dealing with the N. Koreans, war criminals in the former Soviet Block has been reduced to nothing but a debating society. There are the resolutions that weren't enforced in Iraq, Israel, and many other places around the world. But only one set was hyped for months to discredit an organization that wouldn't go along with plans for war. Coverage made it seem like that was all the UN had on their plate, and it that were true, I would grade them a 'D'. But they do much more, and in terms of world threat and consequence more important things to deal with.
the UN was reduced to a debating society, colored by the obvious self-interests of the nations represented therein Many members of the UN urged caution because they though Iraq would turn into a quagmire, which it has. Doesn't it appear that UN inspectors and the pre-war program largely if not totally eliminated the wmd? The US has had by far and away the biggest clout of any one country in the UN. Do you deny this? The US has self interests also. Do you deny this.? Halliburton is a US corporation is it not? The UN is not supposed to be only responsive to US interest is it?
If you call freedom for Iraqi citizens, and overwhelming support of the majority of it's people a quagmire, then I guess so. Too early to tell, being that biological or chemical weapons can be stored in a petri dish. The prewar program only proved that Saddam was desperate to continue his programs, and would go to great lenghts to hide them. Not to mention, he did not allow inspectors in his country for YEARS, even though that was a condition of us not taking him out. Glynch, we agree, the US does have interests and thus under OUR INTERESTS we took out the Iraq threat. Saddam was a threat to the US and it's interests, so by your logic we have a right to protect our interests. DD
Yeah, and in other news... The earth completes a 360-degree spin in roughly twenty-four hours. I mean, are you really telling me than the administration can influence public opinion? Bush et al. are very good at this. Disturbingly good. People still conflate Iraq with Al Qaeda. I've been keeping score since he was elected. Here are the results of opinion polls for 287 important topics covering domestic and international issues. What Bush tells public: 287 Reasoned well-informed analysis: 0
FB -- agreed the UN does much more...but this is a public opinion poll where perception is huge. the perception of the UN in the US right now is framed largely from that event. glynch -- yes, the US has its own interests! and yes, they should put those interests first...just as every nation should put its own interests first. that's the problem with global governing bodies... ultimately, self-interest is legitimate and can't be discarded...particularly when nations like Iraq, Libya and N. Korea have a seat at the table. Troy -- i said it here before Bush said it. i take credit for it. Bush stole it from me.
He convienently forgets that we ASKED the UN for help, and due to some of the governments with secret contracts with Iraq they turned us down. Nice spin. The UN argued for continued inspections as an alternative solution, we said no because they were an immediate threat. Contrary to your bizarre spin about the freedom of Iraqi citizens, we never once presented our case to the UN based on freeing Iraqis. It was always about the weapons. The UN asked for evidence - we provided none. These countries asked us to prove to them, before they commit their own soldiers' lives, that Iraq was an immediate threat like we claimed - we couldn't do it. They asked for proof of WMD - we *still* have none. Now we are reaching out with an olive branch asking the UN to try to gain some legitimacy, and what do they do? Oh, that's a load of crap. We realized this entails more than we expect, and we're asking the UN to now foot the bill with troops and money for something that the most of the world felt we shouldn't do in the first place. Disband the UN it is worthless now. Never mind the unprecendented amount of success it has had with peacekeeping, environmental issues, economic disputes, poverty issues, etc. Since they wouldn't invade Iraq because we asked them to, they are worthless. What use is an organization that doesn't just do whatever the US wants, right?
