Do you trust the United States of America in handling global affairs?
Yes
No
Unsure
Yes
5
No
5
Unsure
1
World Publics Reject U.S. Role as the World Leader; Majorities Still Want United States to Do its Share in Multilateral EffortsCHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS
Contact, International Findings:
Christopher Whitney, 312-451-1040
Steven Kull, 202-232-7500
A multinational poll finds that publics around the world reject the idea that the United States should continue to play the role of preeminent world leader. Most publics say the United States plays the role of world policeman more than it should and cannot be trusted to act responsibly.
But the survey also finds that majorities in most countries want the United States to do its share in multilateral efforts to address world problems and do not want it to withdraw from world affairs. Views are divided on whether the United States should reduce the number of military bases it has overseas and in some countries publics perceive an improvement in their bilateral relations with the United States.
Americans largely agree with the rest of the world: most do not think the United States should remain the world’s preeminent leader and prefer that it play a more cooperative role. They also believe United States plays the role of world policeman more than it should.
This is the fourth in a series of reports based on a worldwide poll conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, in cooperation with polling organizations around the world. The larger study includes polls in China , India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia—plus the Palestinian territories. The publics polled represent about 56 percent of the world’s population. Not all questions were asked in all countries.
Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org notes that this poll reinforces the conclusions of other recent global surveys, which have found that the United States’ image abroad is bad and growing worse. But he added that this survey also explores what kind of role the international community would like the United States to play in the world.
“This survey shows that despite the negative views of US foreign policy, publics around the world do not want the United States to disengage from international affairs, but rather to participate in a more cooperative and multilateral fashion,” Kull said.
Majorities in all 15 of the publics polled reject the idea that “the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems.” However in only two of them (Argentina and the Palestinian territories), do majorities say that the United States “should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems.”
Publics in all of the countries surveyed tend to prefer that the United States pursue a cooperative, multilateral approach by doing “its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries.” This is true in South Korea (79%), the United States (75%), France (75%), China (68%), Israel (62%), Peru (61%), Mexico (59%), Armenia (58%), Philippines (55%), Ukraine (52%), Thailand (47%), India (42%) and Russia (42%).
Just as they reject the idea that the United States should continue to be the world’s preeminent leader, most believe the United States is “playing the role of world policeman more than it should.” Majorities in 13 out of 15 publics express this view, including large majorities in France (89%), Australia (80%), China (77%), Russia (76%), Peru (76%), the Palestinian territories (74%) and South Korea (73%). More than three out of four Americans (76%) also agree. The only exceptions are the Filipinos, a majority of whom (57%) disagree that the United States is playing world policeman more than it should, and the Israelis, who are divided on the issue.
This desire for a reduced American role may flow in part from a lack of confidence that the United States can be trusted to “act responsibly in the world.” This lack of confidence was the most common view in 10 out of 15 countries. Two Latin American countries show the highest numbers expressing this mistrust—Argentina (84%) and Peru (80%)—followed by Russians (73%), the French (72%), and Indonesians (64%). But in four countries, majorities or pluralities say the United States can be at least “somewhat” trusted to act responsibly, led by the Filipinos (85%), Israelis (81%), Poles (51%) and Ukrainians (49%).
Despite the widespread belief that the United States should be more cooperative and less dominant, countries express mixed views about whether the United States should reduce its military presence around the world. In only five out of 12 publics polled does a majority favor decreasing the number of overseas US military bases: Argentines (75%), Palestinians (70%), the French (69%), Chinese (63%), and Ukrainians (62%). In four, majorities favor either maintaining the current number or increasing it: Philippines (78%), Americans (68%), Israelis (59%), and Poles (54%). Armenians and Thais lean in favor of maintaining or reducing, while Indians are divided. No country favors increases.
Also contrary to their negative views of the United States’ role in the world is the perception in some publics that relations between their country and the United States are getting better. Majorities in India (58%) and China (53%) say relations with the United States are improving. Pluralities think so in Australia (50%), Armenia (48%), Indonesia (46%) and Thailand (37%). In the other countries polled, majorities or pluralities say relations with the US are staying about the same: 60 percent in Poland, 56 percent in South Korea, 52 percent in Israel, 52 percent in the Ukraine, and 45 percent in Russia. In no country does a majority or plurality say relations with the US are getting worse.
“The publics in many countries differentiate between their negative views of the U.S. international role and their perceptions of bilateral relations, which are seen as improving in a significant number of countries, even some that are highly critical of the United States,” said Christopher Whitney, executive director for studies at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Attachment: ViewsUS_quaire.pdf
Attachment: overview07_final.pdf
Attachment: DS156_Complete.pdf
Attachment: ViewsUS_report.pdf
Attachment: overview07_final.pdf
Attachment: DS156_Complete.pdf
Attachment: ViewsUS_report.pdf
Yey! Heheh. I voted Yes! Vive Le Etats Unis d'Amerique! lol.
ReplyDeleteLOL, i think the real question is "Do you trust George Bush?".
ReplyDeleteI trust America, just not the man in charge
Hmmm... but it was the American public who voted him into office, not once but twice to the dismay of the international community. :)
ReplyDeletecall me a right winger, but hell yes, i trust America, i'd rather see America playing the role of world policeman and keep Communist China and North Korea on a leash than see those two countries spreading their influence globally. What I don't trust now are the Democrats in Congress ( Pelosi et al )
ReplyDeleteMarty, hmm.. spoken like my Dad. But the repercussions of American foreign policy overseas is just devastating. Dont forget it was the US who propped up Saddam's regime to counter the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran- after the US backed corrupt Shah-regime crumbled under the religious revolution. You also have Manuel Noriega another US puppet and major drug trafficker who transformed his country into a virtual narco-state. Closer to home, US backed the oppressive Marcos dictatorship for 20 years because it needs the US bases in Subic and Clark to counter the increasingly militarized advances and influence of the Chinese esp in the Taiwan Strait, and Indochina. American Foreign Policy also brought us to this unjust war in Iraq (yep, sorry bro, I call myself center leftwinger), where scores of American soldiers (like yourself) and Iraqi civilians have died every single day. It is disturbing that every day I turn on my TV, the almost daily attacks have deadened my senses- these are all statistics to me now.And the gravity of the situation could not be fathomed by people who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They are not the ones being bombed everyday. The face of UN Secy. Gen .Ban-ki Moon during his visit speech in Iraq (where there was a bomb who exploded nearby) underscored the fact that the international leaders have a lot to learn from the daily carnage in Iraq, far from the decision makers in their airconditioned offices in Washington DC, NY or London.
ReplyDeleteHi Ry! Heheh. So apparently you don't trust the United States due to the above-mentioned deficiencies in their foreign policy. Hmm... So now my question is, who (that is to say, which country) would you rather have in their place then?
ReplyDeleteI am always a multilaterist. There should be a balance of power- a consensus among nations to avoid conflict at all costs. There are so many unnecessary and unjust wars and confrontations that could have been resolved diplomatically. You see, wars doesnt affect the leaders and the decision makers or the ruling political elites in these countries- it is the middle class and the poor that are severely impacted by these thoughtless decisions.You might say that the prevailing American involvements in the Middle East, Afghanistan and other war theater are based on American realpolitik, a complete unilateral disregard of morals, ideologies, an expansionist policymaking with the sole objective only of pursuing national interests abroad. With that in mind, American interests comes first, the rest of the world comes second. That is an America that cannot be trusted.
ReplyDeletei voted yes but not 100% yes. they do tend to abuse the fact that they have that kind of power over other countries but they should always put in mind that they can affect a lot of lives with their actions. i agree with with ryan that there should be a balance of power between nations. the YES would be for the help they give other countries, we do have to commend them for dealing with global affairs that has brought positive impact.
ReplyDeleteNicely said, but what country doesn't think of it's own interest first? The Philippines was just doing that when it pulled out of the Coalition of the Willing after the release of the kidnapped filipino driver. Sad to say, but that's the way the ball rolls and that's the way it would stay.
ReplyDeleteAs to your'e statement that says , " these are all statistics to me now. And the gravity of the situation could not be fathomed by people who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They are not the ones being bombed everyday. " <<<=== so, are you telling me that you are in a better position to understand the gravity of the situation in Iraq / Afghanistan? I don't want to be rude, but I think you're not, yes, this is a free world and you can say what you want, rant about this and all, but this I tell you, I would only entertain your idea if you could honestly say that you've been in the sandbox and experienced how it was being there. Majority of the population ( as you ) base there arguements on what they have seen on the media, ( media hungry for ratings ). Who is bombing whom and who is killing whom? Do you have an idea that 90-95% of the deaths of the iraqis are to blame on the iraqis themselves? Have you seen a kid die after being hitted by an IED? Have you seen a kid grasping for air and die after being sickened by chlorine gas ( yes, the insurgents are using this now ), so now, WHEN WOULD I HEAR PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS INHUMANE WAYS? Don't give me the reason that the Iraqis are not signatories of the Geneva Convention hence not bound by it.
Next, am expecting you to say, " well, this wouldn't have happened if the US didn't invade Iraq " , yes, that's true, I agree with you on that. I would even go as far as saying that, some foreign policies of the US sucks, I have seen the deaths & sufferings this MADNESS ( war ) has caused. That this is a matter of national interest, YES it is, both in terms of the economy ( oil ) and security, but hey, when the shit hits the fan, the interest of my men go first, and when it gets to a situation w/c calls for a " kill or be killed " decision, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. This one I wouldn't expect you to understand.
My apologies, your reaction on the day to day situation in the sandbox really ticked me off. To quote George Orwell " We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who do us harm "
Here's an earlier rant of mine : http://javier146th.multiply.com/journal?&page_start=20
Back from Lunch. Hehehe.
ReplyDeleteYes, I might not fully understand and empathize with the suffering of the Iraqis right now and I dont and never intend to pretend that I do, but I am not calling the shots in invading another sovereign country, am I? I am not the one waking up in the morning thinking what country I am gonna invade next. These people who runs a war by remote control should understand the consequences of their actions. Yes, the great Shia/Sunni/Kurds divide was there all along even before the invasion of Iraq has started - but where was the United States when Saddam dropped chemical weapons in the north that killed thousands of Kurds? Nowhere.The invasion of Iraq has created a vacuum- on the political, social and economic front. Iraq was more stable when someone was at least incharge. This war has just precipitated this social unrest that brings the country if not already to being a failed state. That Iraqi kid would have had a better chance of living when there was no war in his own country.
The Philippines' pull out of Iraq was triggered not by the kidnapping but by the extreme pressure from all interest groups in the country who thought that the President, acting upon the whims of the American foreign policies, has dragged us into a war where the public dont felt justified. The Philippines enjoys good relations with Islamic countries (even Libya) and in fact there are Filipinos living and working in Baghdad before the war broke out (we used to maintain an embassy there).
Im not saying that you need not defend yourself when you are attacked, but hey, you shouldnt be in someone's backyard in the first place. If someone barged into your own home and attack you, dont you think it is but natural to defend yourself and your properties too? Iraq was not in any way accomplice to the 911 attacks (my Dad's former officemate died at the WTC). The war was a major lie. American soldiers (and people) should not die in a war based on lies, lies and more lies.
This war has affected the world- the price of oil has surged because of it (and now threatening to go up again because of the Iran-West saber-rattling). These realities, the people in countries like mine who are totally dependent on oil affects us a lot. It affects our fragile economies, and in general the national well-being considering that there are hundreds of thousands of Filipinos living in the Middle East. The life of an American or a Filipino or an Iraqi should never be less than important than everyone else.
What am I trying to say is that the US has bungled this war and unless that there would be some drastic actions taken, this could go on like a protracted battle that could last for years at the expense of the whole international community. Every time an American flag is burned anywhere in the world, it begs the question, why would the peoples of the world hate the US so much that they would go to such extent in attacking the very embodiment of that country and everything it represents. I think that's a question that everyone already knows the answer.
*btw, I have great respect for soldiers and at one point I considered a military career. It's the policymakers and politicians that I have trouble with- and the fact that Id rather get laid than fight someone. ;)
As I ranted earlier, some policies of our govenment sucks, I never said, the US was right in doing what it did, I even went as far as calling this war pure madness, what ticked me was you reacting on the daily incidents in the sandbox, like now, " That Iraqi kid would have had a better chance of living when there was no war in his own country." <<<== how could you say this? do you have an actual idea how great the sunni-shiite divide before the war was? Or are you basing this again on what you've read and seen in the media? What i'm trying to point out here is, It's hard to judge something when you don't have a realistic grasp of the actual situation.
ReplyDeleteYes, the US has bungled this war, that am not denying, they never expected it to go on this long, the best thing I could do, is support my guys and do my best to survive.
As for you saying that the pullout of the Philippine troops out of the Coalition of the Willing had nothing to do with the kidnapping, wake up, part of the conditions given by the hadjis for the release of the driver was for the pull out of the Philippine troops, days after the release, the troops were pulled out, no government is stupid enough to admit that they gave in to the whims of kidnappers. No matter what the actual reason was, the Philippine government was acting based on it's best interest, that was what i was trying to point out earlier, and I proved that.
Of course, the Baath was Shia-dominated. But like I said, don't you think that we accelerated the murders more instead of abating it? The war drove a deeper wedge instead of unifying them. I think you cant have a military solution to a political problem.
ReplyDeleteYeah, of course, the abduction of Pinoy accelerated the pullout (but the Philippines was scheduled to pullout anyway a few months away before the kidnapping happened.)
I hope you and your men be safe. When the Green Zone is no longer Green after the recent bombing of the Parliament Building, I think you guys should be exxxxxxxtra more careful.
Of course, the Baath was Shia-dominated. <=== nope, it was Sunni dominated, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni filled the top ranks of the Baath Party with other Sunnis, even being the minority in Iraq, the Sunnis gained the upper hand over the Shia's w/c composed more than 60% of the population, in fact, since the 1980's, the Baath Government made numerous attempts to eliminate the senior Shi'a religious leadership.
ReplyDeleteAs for this ==>>> " hope you and your men be safe. "===>>>thanks, we always do.
he only won once... by popular vote. The first time he only won on a technicality... if he would have lost, then he would have NEVER been voted in the 2nd time...
ReplyDeleteWhat makes matters worse, is that his approval rating is shit now, and no one cares what he does here. We have collected decided we are just going to ride it out until someone better takes over.
Marty- I stand corrected. :) Sunni is it then. :)
ReplyDeleteRes- I agree, the main problem when Bush ran for the 2nd time, there was no clear alternative from the Democrat's side anyway. Kerry was too wishy washy on many issues. I can understand though why Americans voted him the second time- its better to have a leader who is strong in his convictions (no matter how flawed it can sometimes be) rather than a leader that doesnt know where to go. But still, the rest of the world was just appalled why Bush has to return to the White House- for the rest of us, it means more warmongering and other combative stances that hurts America's position in the international community. Bush have serious lapses in appointing the wrong people- John Bolton- the undiplomatic former US Rep to the UN, you have the sleazy and corrupt Wolfowitz who heads World Bank, and you have Rumsfeld (seriously), and to make matters worse you have a VP who is a Dick who shoots people in their faces. ;-)