Poll: Americans tired of
being the world's cop By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Three years of the Bush
administration's "war on terrorism" appears to have
reduced the appetite of the US public and its leaders
for unilateral military engagements, according to a
major survey released on Tuesday by the Chicago Council
on Foreign Relations (CCFR).
Indeed, the survey,
the latest in a quadrennial series going back to 1974,
found that key national-security principles enunciated
by President George W Bush since the September 11, 2001,
attacks on New York and the Pentagon are opposed by
strong majorities of both the general public and the
elite.
While supporting the idea that Washington
should take an active role in world affairs, more than
three of every four members of the public reject the
notion that the United States "has the responsibility to
play the role of world policeman" and four of every five
say Washington is currently playing that role "more than
it should be".
In addition, overwhelming
majorities of both the public and the elite said that
the most important lesson of September 11 is that the
nation needs to "work more closely with other countries
to fight terrorism" as opposed to "act more on its own".
Similar majorities of both the public and
leaders rejected Bush's notion of preemptive war. Only
17% of the public and 10% of leaders said that war was
justifiable if the "other country is acquiring weapons
of mass destruction [WMD] that could be used against
them at some point in the future".
Fifty-three
percent of the public and 61% of leaders said that war
would be justified only if there is "strong evidence"
the country is in "imminent danger" of attack. For about
25% of both the public and the leaders, war would be
justified only if the other country attacks first.
The CCFR survey, which because of its rich
detail and consistency over the past 30 years is
generally taken more seriously than others that are
conducted more sporadically, queried nearly 1,200
randomly selected members of the public during the
second week of July.
A second survey of 450
"leaders with foreign-policy power, specialization, and
expertise" - including US lawmakers or their senior
staff, university faculty, journalists, senior
administration officials, religious leaders, business
and labor executives, and heads of major foreign-policy
organizations or interest groups - posed the same
questions to determine where there may be gaps between
the views of the elite and the public at large.
The last CCFR survey was taken in 2002, and
normally the next one would not be held until 2006. But
the council decided to commission one for 2004, in part
due to "the significant role foreign-policy issues are
playing in American political life and the 2004
presidential election", according to Marshall Bouton,
CCFR's president.
The council also collaborated
with similar efforts by partner organizations in Mexico
and South Korea, the conclusions of which will be
released in the coming days.
While terrorism and
other security threats still loom large in the public's
mind, according to this year's survey, "there is a
lowered sense of threat overall compared to 2002", when
foreign-policy concerns, particularly terrorism, topped
the list of foreign-policy issues that most concerned
the public.
"Protecting American jobs" was the
most frequently cited goal of foreign policy in the 2004
poll (78% called it a "very important" goal), followed
by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (73%), and
combating international terrorism (71%).
For the
elite respondents, on the other hand, nuclear
non-proliferation and terrorism topped the list, while
protecting US jobs ranked eighth out of 14 options.
As for "critical threats", three out of four
public respondents chose international terrorism, but
that was down 10 points from two years ago. Two of three
chose WMD, but that was also down by about 17 points
from 2002, and virtually all other threats cited in the
survey declined substantially.
Thus "Islamic
fundamentalism", which was considered a "critical
threat" by 61% of the public in 2002, was cited by only
38% this year, while the "development of China as a
world power", cited by 51% in 2002, claimed only 33% in
2004.
While for the public foreign-policy issues
virtually across the board were seen as less important
than in 2002, that was not true for the foreign-policy
elite, which rated "combating world hunger", securing
energy supplies, improving the global environment and,
most striking, improving the standard of living of less
developed nations, significantly higher than two years
ago.
In addition, 40% of the elite now consider
"strengthening the United Nations" as a "very important
goal" of US foreign policy, up 12% from 2002.
Conversely, the percentage of leaders who cited
"maintaining superior power worldwide" as a very
important goal, fell from 52% in 2002 to only 37% in
2004, the first time it has received less than majority
support since the question was first asked in 1994.
A more chastened approach to foreign policy also
showed up in declining support on the part of both the
public and the elite for maintaining military bases
abroad, particularly in hot spots such as the Middle
East and states linked to terrorist activities.
More than two-thirds of both the public and the
leaders agreed the United States should withdraw from
Iraq if a clear majority of Iraqi people want it to do
so. As to whether Washington should remove its military
presence from the Middle East if a majority of people
there desire it, 59% of the public said yes, but only
35% of the elite agreed.
A majority of the
public said Washington should not press Arab states to
become more democratic; two-thirds said they opposed a
Marshall-type plan of economic aid and development for
the region.
Large majorities of the public and
the elite favor regaining traditional constraints on the
use of force by individual states, including the United
States, and oppose new ideas for making them looser, as
is often proposed by the Bush administration. At the
same time, they favor giving wide-ranging powers to
states acting collectively through the United Nations.
Thus majorities of both the public and leaders
oppose states taking unilateral action to prevent other
states from acquiring WMD, but support such action if
the UN Security Council approves. In the specific case
of North Korea, for example, two-thirds of respondents
said it should be necessary for Washington to get the
council's approval before taking military action.
A majority of the public opposes the United
States or any other nation having veto power on the
Security Council.
The survey also found strong
support for US participation in a wide range of
international treaties and agreements, some of which
have been rejected or renounced by the Bush
administration.
Thus 87% of the public and 85%
of the elite said they would favor the terms of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; 80% of both
groups said they favored the land-mine ban; 76% of the
public and 70% of the elite said they support US
participation in the International Criminal Court; and
71% of both groups said they back US participation in
the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming.
Two-thirds of the public and three-quarters of
the elite agreed that, in dealing with international
problems, Washington should be more willing to make
decisions within the UN, even if this means that its
views will not prevail.
Asked what specific
steps should be taken for strengthening the world body,
three-quarters of the public and two-thirds of the
leaders said the UN should have a standing peacekeeping
force.
A majority of 57% of the public and a
plurality of 48% of the elite said the United States
should make a general commitment to abide by World Court
decisions rather than decide on a case-by-case basis.
The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
(http://www.ccfr.org/)
