Who Supports the USA?
By Larry L. Eastland

The United Nations provides a window into the interests and issues of the member countries who make up the body itself. If one wants to know what a country values, look at how it votes: what it is for and against, and who it votes with and who it opposes. The General Assembly, whose 191 countries and so-called countries have an equal vote on every issue, is the body where all nations can most easily be evaluated. This is particularly true of the actual votes of the body, where each nation’s vote is recorded. There are three kinds of votes in the General Assembly with which we are concerned:

• Important Votes on "non-consensus issues," where a vote of the General Assembly is taken. These are defined in [U.S.] Public Law as "votes on issues which directly affected United States interests and on which the United States lobbied extensively."
• Overall Votes where a division of the house is called.
• Votes of either kind where there is no dissent, and therefore, is a Consensus Resolution.

It is the first group of issues that tells us the most. Of particular interest is whether each nation votes with the United States or against the position of the United States. It is a diplomatic question whether to view the votes of nations -- when compared with the U.S. votes on those same plenary questions -- by defining them in terms of support for the U.S. The State Department defines this as the coincidence of the vote with the U.S. (Real people would say it tells us whether a particular government is "fur us or agin’ us.") The term coincidence suggests that there is little pressure being exerted by the U.S. to agree; support presumes that the U.S. cares about the votes and is exerting its influence on countries to vote with them; or, in the government-eze phrase just cited, "and on which the United States lobbied extensively." Further, by tracking this over a period of time, one can make some fairly concrete observations about the direction of the nations of the world vis a vis the USA. If it is true, as Lord Palmerston once observed, ‘Britain has no permanent friends, she has only permanent interests,’ how each country votes tell us what each one sees its permanent interests to be.

Table 1 shows the topics of those General Assembly resolutions during 2003 (the latest full year) on which there was no consensus, and therefore, a roll call was made. Obviously, these are important issues to America. By deduction, then, how countries voted on these issues that "directly affected the United States interests" are significant enough to form the basis upon which to judge whether they shares U.S. values or not.

This view of the United Nations, as a representative snapshot of the nations that make up its membership, rather than just looking at the collective body as a separate entity unto itself, ought to give the U.S. leadership cause to rethink America vs. the world. Several of these issues are fundamental to America’s values: real human rights, freedom and democracy, life and free markets. They are among the issues that define America in the world. To vote in opposition to the United States’ position, therefore, would be to share a different set of values, and have a different set of interests.

THE U.S., THE UN, AND THE NATIONS THEREIN
Beginning with the collapse of the Soviet empire in the early 1990s, the realignment of nations from the three-legged stool of the Free World, the Soviet World and the Third World began. And, as the U.S. ascended the ladder from being a super power to being the super power, many countries were no longer left in anonymity, able to hide behind the protection of "we must remain undeclared because of the Soviet Union." Now their votes can be counted, as President Bush would say, based solely on "if they’re for us, or if they are against us." Looking at just the aggregate numbers for the All Votes and Important Votes categories in the UN from 1993 to 2003 (Table 2 ), it is readily apparent that some very significant things have been taking place in the world in the past 11 years.

The decline of agreement with the United States over this period of time from 37 percent to 26 percent is remarkable. Further, the usual view that the Bush Administration is responsible for this decline is not borne up by the facts: the decline began at the end of the first term of the Clinton Administration (1995) and has grown steadily worse each year since then. Only Important Issues in 2003 showed any serious up tick in these numbers.

This raises several questions, the most important of which would be: have the nations of the world drawn away from the U.S. or has the U.S. drawn away from the world in terms of its policies and/or leadership? What is unmistakable, however, is the widening gap between the U.S. and the other nations of the world on a broad range of issues, but more importantly on the role of the United States itself in the world.

WHO SUPPORTS US; WHO DOES NOT
When nations are grouped according to regional, political or ethnic ties , some very significant patterns emerge (Table 3.) The level of agreement, for purpose of this study, has divided nations into three categories: Agree the Most, In the Middle, and Agree the Least:

• • Western Europe and Other Group (WEOG)
• • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
• • European Union (EU)
• • Nordic Group
• • Eastern European Nations (EE)
• • Latin American Countries (LAC)
• • Asian Group
• • Arab Nations
• • Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
• • Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC)
• • African Group
• • Non-aligned Movement (NAM)

Is there not a pattern here? The nations of Europe, overall, are our best Allies, and the nations we are trying so hard to assist today barely support us. As they say: what’s wrong with this picture? How can America commit so much resource, expend so many lives, and invest so much of its prestige in areas of the world that simply do not share its values, priorities or interests? From the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Gulf War and the War in Iraq, it is obvious that we are engaged with governments who do not reciprocate on issues of importance to us in the United Nations.

U.S. TAX DOLLARS AT WORK
The matter is made even more frustrating by the fact that we are paying billions of dollars in foreign aid to these nations who oppose us, a fact not lost on the American public. They are very aware of the injustice and ingratitude that this displays, and want this corrected. They know we are not getting our money’s worth.

HOW U.S. TAXPAYERS FEEL
What began in San Francisco in 1945 (as a group of 25 nations dedicated collectively to principles laid down primarily by the United States, and nurtured by U.S. tax dollars over the past half century), has become a permanent international elite who have become a power unto themselves. And this from a body that receives nearly a quarter of its total funding from the U.S. taxpayers. Last year, in 2004, for example, 22 percent of the total UN budget ($362,853,000) was being paid by the USA. France, our "friend" and "ally," contributed only six percent ($99,454,708.)

U.S. DOLLARS TO THE UN
In addition to the regular contributions the U.S. makes to the United Nations, there are billions allocated to everything from refugees to environmental issues. Much of this comes from so many different budget categories, and goes to so many places, that it is hard to track. But, the total is in the billions. At the same time, (Table 4 ) even the funds that Americans do see, they overwhelmingly believe we are spending too much and getting too little. Almost nine out of ten Americans believe the funding should not go up. And, four times as many Americans want the funding to decrease as want the funding to increase.

Nor are Americans unmindful that there ought to be a connection between the money we give away to foreign countries in military and economic aid, and how those countries vote on matters of importance to the U.S. in the United Nations.

WHAT WE GET FOR WHAT WE PAY
Three quarters of Americans believe that there ought to be some reciprocity (Table 5 ). It is American taxpayer funds that are paying for things that other countries want, so they must be doing something to influence our government to support them. Should not this also be true coming back in this direction? Very few people expect a quid pro quo of dollars for votes. But, for all that quid, Americans do expect a little more quo.

The American public thinks so. For example, here are the 36 countries (Table 6 ) whose position supported ours less than 15 percent of the time in 2003, and the amount of foreign aid dollars given away by the U. S. taxpayers to each country.

• Kenya gets $93 million and supports us less than 15 percent of the time.
• As does Somalia who gets $140 million.
• Or, how about South Africa who gets $72 million?

The point here cannot be adequately made unless one also recognizes that there is no place one can look in the federal budget to get an absolute amount of U.S. dollars being given to any one country – just those listed as foreign aid. Money from the Department of Agriculture, Justice Department, CIA, FBI and so on, never gets aggregated in a way that one can develop a map of what we’re spending country by country, and region by region.

In fact, it is safe to say that the budget is designed in such a way so as to actually prevent this from happening. There is no easy way to make a complete assessment of whether the security interests of the United States are being served by the taxpayer funds being spent across the globe This is something that ought to be basic to our security evaluation in a time of ideological and state-sponsored terrorism aimed at the West in general, and the United States in particular.

Why is there no place in the governmental structure where strategic questions are being discussed (accompanied by factual data of actual expenditures) by strategic interest, fund group, with the purpose in mind of allocating scarce resources to places where the outcomes can be measured in specific ways: such as by the votes in the UN?

Of particular interest ought to be the countries in the Middle East whose very existence depends on the umbrella provided by the United States economic and military might . The following countries come to mind (Table 7 ). It is easy to excuse many of these countries that provide energy resources to the world – for a generous price – as being of strategic importance to the United States beyond their role in the United Nations. This is, of course, true. But, in assessing the United Nations and its members, it reaffirms that the UN has unraveled as a vital institution performing an indispensable function of resolving global issues based on principles enunciated in its Charter.

And, it should be noted that the countries that support the U. S. position the most are (dare I say this?) the Christian countries of Europe and – most importantly – Israel . (Table 8). As Dragnet’s Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, m’am." As much as it is unpopular to touch on this delicate subject of a world seen through the different eyes of the world’s major religions, it is clear, at least from the perspective how they see their interests and alliances, that of the divide between the Judeo-Christian developed countries that support the U.S. 68 percent of the time, vs. the Islamic countries that support the U.S. 21 percent of the time -- including the Arab countries, specifically, doing so less than 10 percent of the time.

This does not, therefore, bring into question whether American should be engaged in the world, nor whether there are broader interests at stake in how America approaches nations across the globe. But, from the eyes of the American public, one cannot divorce the question of what we’re getting for what we’re paying vs. results in an organization that seems irrelevant to American’s interests.

There will always be those who are concerned that what this suggests is that a comparison between U.S. foreign aid and how countries vote on questions of interest to the USA in the UN is inappropriate: that it smacks of buying votes.

Far from it. These are not private dollars. They are U.S. taxpayer funds, and the taxpayers have the right to decide how they are spent, and whether they want those dollars spent the way they are.

CONCLUSION
In a time of crisis, a nation counts friends by those who stand by it on the important things. Even the recent cooperation by the continental nations that Secretary Don Rumsfeld called "Old Europe" must be seen in the light of the success of U.S. resolve staying the course in Iraq to a very successful election, to the re-election of the American President himself.

These are more than indications of American power, they are a demonstration of the vision of the American worldview: freedom burns in the hearts of people everywhere.

Look around: Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan, Palestine. There has been more movement toward democracy and individual freedom – however haltingly -- since the election of George W. Bush than in the past generation. Why, even so myopic a person as former President Jimmy Carter has been forced to admit the success of the Iraq election.

There are a lot of nations that need to consider whether their votes and support in the United Nations are truly what they want the American public to know about them.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Voting Practices in the United Nations , 2003, p. 119.

These figures are taken from the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Voting Practices in the United Nations , 2003, p. 119. Previous figures are found in the same publication for the year indicated.. No “Important Issue” comparables were published before 1997.

These categories were developed by the U.S. Department of State at the direction of the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. State Department defines the “Western European and Others Group” as: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.

The U.S. State Department defines the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” as: Belgium , Canada , Czech Republic , France , Germany , Greece , Hungary , Italy , Denmark , Luxembourg , Netherlands , Norway , Poland , Portugal , Spain , Turkey , United Kingdom .

The U.S. State Department defines the “European Union” as: Austria , Belgium , Denmark , Finland , France , Germany , Greece , Ireland , Italy , Luxembourg , Netherlands , Portugal , Spain , Sweden , United Kingdom .

The U.S. State Department defines the “Nordic Group” as: Denmark , Finland , Iceland , Norway , Sweden .

The U.S. State Department defines the Eastern European Nations as: Poland , Albania , Georgia , Czech Republic , Bulgaria , Lithuania , Hungary ,

Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Slovak Republic, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, TFYR Macedonia, Slovenia, Romania, Serbia/Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine.

The U.S. State Department defines the “Latin American Countries” as: Antigua-Barbuda , Argentina , Bahamas , Barbados , Belize , Bolivia , Brazil , Chile , Colombia , Costa Rica , Cuba , Dominica , Dominican Republic , Ecuador , El Salvador , Grenada , Guatemala , Guyana , Haiti , Honduras , Jamaica , Mexico , Nicaragua , Panama , Paraguay , Peru , St. Kitts and Nevis , St. Lucia , St. Vincent/Grenadines, Suriname , Trinidad/Tobago, Uruguay , Venezuela .

The U.S. State Department defines the “Asian Group” as: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, DPR of Korea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen.

The U.S. State Department defines the ‘Arab Group” as: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

The U.S. State Department defines the “Association of South East Asian Nations” as: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia , Indonesia , Laos , Malaysia , Myanmar ( Burma ), Philippines , Singapore , Thailand , Vietnam .

The U.S. State Department defines the “Organization of Islamic Countries” as: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

The U.S. State Department defines the “African Group” as: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Rep., Chad, Comoros, Dem. Rep. Congo, Congo, Cote 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, Sao Tome/Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, UR Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

The U.S. State Department defines the “Non-aligned Movement” as: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Rep., Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Dem. Rep. Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, DPR of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome/Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia/Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad/Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, UR Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen,

Zambia , Zimbabwe .

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 25-26, 2003. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Associated Press Poll conducted by ICR. Sept. 14-18, 2001. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

This figure is the one reported in U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Voting Practices in the United Nations , 2003. It does not take into account the amount of money spent by the many departments and agencies of the U. S. government that do not report their fund expenditures to the State Department. There is no place in the Federal Budget, or in the information supplied by the various departments and agencies, where one can find the total amount of U. S. taxpayer dollars being spent country by country, region by region, interest group of nations by interest group of nations.

This is not conjecture on my part. When I was at the State Department for a short time, we requested this: no response. Recently, at my request, a U. S. Senator asked for this information. Again, it was not made available.

Not germane to this study, but an important question must be asked about why Mexico, our nearest neighbor and the one receiving not only huge payments, but whose nation's economy is propped up by employment in the U.S., only votes with us only 20.7 percent of the time?

This figure is the one reported in U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Voting Practices in the United Nations , 2003. It does not take into account the amount of money spent by the many departments and agencies of the U. S. government that do not report their fund expenditures to the State Department. There is no place in the Federal Budget, or in the information supplied by the various departments and agencies, where one can find the total amount of U. S. taxpayer dollars being spent country by country, region by region, interest group of nations by interest group of nations.

Also included, but not significant to this analysis are Palau , Micronesia , Marshall Islands , and Sao Tome and Principe .

Email the Editor