```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5869-S5870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       PEACEKEEPING CONTRIBUTION

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Sunday's New York Times has an article 
entitled ``Poll Finds American Support for Peacekeeping by U.N.,'' 
written by Barbara Crossette. It is a poll conducted of 1,204 people by 
the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of 
Maryland and by the Independent Center for the Study of Policy 
Attitudes in Washington.
  Let me just read a couple of paragraphs:

       There was a general perception among those polled that 
     about 40 percent of United Nations peacekeeping troops are 
     American, and that this should be halved to 20 percent. In 
     fact, 4 percent of peacekeepers are American.

  I do not know where the 4 percent figure in the Times comes from. The 
last figure I saw was as of March 6 and at that point, the United 
States was No. 20 in its contribution and less than 4 percent. Jordan, 
with 3 million people, was contributing more than twice as many 
peacekeepers as the United States with 250 million people. Nepal was 
ahead of us at that point.
  The article also says:

       Asked about the cost of the Federal budget of international 
     peacekeeping, half of the sample in the poll gave a median 
     estimate of 22 percent. Less than 1 percent of the military 
     budget is actually spent on these operations . . . 
  Mr. President, we do have a choice here, and that is whether we are 
going to work with those countries or whether we are not. To use the 
old overworked phrase, if the United States is not going to be the 
policeman of the world, we have to work with other countries.
  Here let me add that one of the things that we get all emotionally 
hung up about is whether U.S. troops can be under a non-U.S. commander. 
The reality is that back since George Washington had troops under a 
French commander, we have had troops under foreign commanders. I do not 
know why we get so hung up on this. It does not bother me, frankly, if 
the next NATO commander should be a Canadian, or a Brit, or an Italian, 
or one of the other NATO countries. I think that is a perfectly 
plausible thing.
  If we want other countries to work with us around the world, we will, 
on occasion, have to have American troops under foreign commanders.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the New York Times article.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 30, 1995]

   Poll Finds American Support for Peacekeeping by the United Nations

                         (By Barbara Crossette)

       United Nations, April 28.--As Congress considers making 
     significant cuts in contributions to United Nations 
     peacekeeping, the findings of a new study show that Americans 
     may not only be supportive of such operations but are also 
     willing to see missions 
     [[Page S5870]] become more aggressive, even when Americans 
     are involved.
       The study also found that about 80 percent of those 
     questioned believed that the United Nations had the 
     responsibility to intervene in conflicts marked by genocide. 
     But Americans in the poll and in group discussions indicated 
     that they knew little about the extent and cost of United 
     States participation in peacekeeping.
       There was a general perception among those polled that 
     about 40 percent of United Nations peacekeeping troops are 
     American, and that this should be halved to 20 percent. In 
     fact, 4 percent of peacekeepers are American. The absence of 
     television reporting of operations that do not have a 
     substantial American involvement may at least in part explain 
     this misperception.
       Asked about the cost to the Federal budget of international 
     peacekeeping, half of the sample in the poll gave a median 
     estimate of 22 percent. Less than 1 percent of the military 
     budget is actually spent on these operations, although 
     Washington is assessed 31 percent of the costs of United 
     Nations peackeeping operations. Total costs amount to about 
     $2 billion, the assessment plus supplemental costs, of the 
     $270 billion Federal military budget.
       The study was based on a poll conducted by the Center for 
     International and Security Studies at the University of 
     Maryland and by the independent Center for the Study of 
     Policy Attitudes in Washington.
       The results of the study did show some ``softening'' in 
     support for peacekeeping generally, said Steven Kull, of the 
     Program on International Policy Attitudes at the center. A 
     little more than a year ago, 84 percent of those polled 
     indicated strong support for United Nations peacekeeping. 
     This year, that figure was 67 percent.
       But 89 percent of the people polled said that when there 
     was a problem requiring military force, it was best for the 
     United States to work with other countries and the United 
     Nations in dealing with it.
       The study questioned 1,204 people through a method known as 
     a random-digit-dial sample, with a margin or error of 3 to 4 
     percentage points. It also drew on focus-group discussions in 
     Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and Virginia.
       At the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Larry DiRita, 
     deputy director for foreign policy and defense, expressed 
     skepticism of polls that ask about issues like peacekeeping 
     in very broad terms.
       ``The American people are basically very generous and want 
     to do good,'' he said in an interview, adding that citizens 
     are quick to respond when faced with images of starvation, 
     violence and displacement. But he said he believed that this 
     changes markedly when people are presented with concrete 
     choices about sending Americans into one dangerous situation 
     or another, especially when they have seen disturbing images 
     on television.
       ``A general American optimism comes out in polls,'' he 
     said. ``But when faced with reality, they take a more 
     skeptical view.''
       In the questioning and discussions, a majority of people 
     voiced frustration with the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia 
     and suggested that it eroded the long-term reputation of the 
     United Nations. Mr. Kull said a focus-group comment that 
     ``the United Nations has no clout'' seemed to reflect the 
     widespread sense that the real problem with peacekeeping was 
     its ineffectiveness.
     

                          ____________________
```