|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Read more on
|Africa Peace & Security||Africa Economy & Development| URL for this file: http://www.africafocus.org/docs05/poll0507.php
Print this page
Africa: Polls and Policy
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Jul 1, 2005 (050701)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
The Program on International Policy Attitudes
has released new poll data, from the United States and from eight
African countries, showing wide public support for stronger
international action to confront African problems, including United
Nations intervention to stop "severe human rights violations such
as genocide" and fulfillment of the pledge by rich countries to
spend 0.7% of national income to combat world poverty.
In itself such poll data seems to have little effect on policy, but
it does point to public receptivity if political leaders were to
take more ambitious steps. Indications are that the approaching G-8
Summit will at best chalk up only marginal moves to meet the needs.
Nevertheless, the pressure to 'do something' will likely continue
to grow, boosted in part by media campaigns such as "Make Poverty
History" and Live 8 but more fundamentally by the inadequacy of
existing policies and resources.
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains two press releases from PIPA,
one on the African and U.S. polls relating to multilateral
intervention in African conflicts, and the other on the U.S. poll
on willingness to support additional funds to combat poverty.
For earlier AfricaFocus Bulletins on peace and security issues,
visit http://www.africafocus.org/peaceexp.php
For earlier AfricaFocus Bulletins on development and economic
issues, visit http://www.africafocus.org/econexp.php
For a report on President Bush's latest pledge to 'do more' to
fight poverty in Africa, visit
http://allafrica.com/stories/200507010001.html
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
AfricaFocus Update: "Aid" Reality Checks
AfricaFocus Bulletin on June 28 featured excerpts from two reports
raising questions about the quantity and quality of "aid" (see
http://www.africafocus.org/docs05/aid0506.php). Two stories from
today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com), both
highlighted on the front page, show that mainstream media are also
raising questions.
One story reports President George Bush's announcement of a new
U.S. pledge of $1.2 billion over five years to fight malaria. But
another reports on U.S. claims earlier this year that 32,839 AIDS
patients in Botswana were on antiretroviral treatment as a result
of U.S. support. In "Botswana's Gains against AIDS put U.S. Claims
to Test," journalist Craig Tinberg noted that "The total outlay of
U.S. government funds for 'treatment' in Botswana last year was
$2.5 million, about one-twentieth of the amount paid by the
Botswana government. And even that money was delayed by many
months." Additional U.S. funds are still reported to be coming,
but to date, Botswana officials told the Post, the number of
patients on treatment due primarily to the Bush AIDS program is
exactly zero.
African Public Says UN Has Right to Intervene to Stop Genocide
US Public Favors UN Intervention in Darfur
7 in 10 Favor More Support to African Union Operation
The Pipa/Knowledge Networks Poll.
The American Public on International Issues
http://www.pipa.org
Media Release
29 June 2005
Contact: Lloyd Hetherington 416-969-3085; Steven Kull, 202-232-7500
College Park, MD: While the leaders of African countries have shown
strong resistance to non-African forces intervening in the crisis
in Darfur, a GlobeScan poll finds that in eight African countries
surveyed a majority (7 countries) or a plurality (1 country)
believe the UN should have the right to intervene to stop human
rights abuses such as genocide, and that the UN is the most popular
force to intervene in situations like Darfur. Likewise, a
PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds 61% [of the U.S. public] favor
the UN intervening in the crisis in Darfur, with 54% willing to
contribute US troops. Seven in ten favor NATO, including the US,
providing support to the African Union peacekeeping operation in
Darfur.
Africa Poll
The eight-nation GlobeScan poll of 10,809 Africans (margin of error
+/-2-3%) found that overall, 65% of Africans interviewed believe
the UN Security Council should have the right to authorize the use
of military force to prevent severe human rights violations such as
genocide, while just 19% are opposed. Support was strongest among
those in Ghana (80%), Kenya (75%), Nigeria (66%), Tanzania (66%),
Zimbabwe (65%), and Cameroon (64%), while milder support was found
among Angolans (55%) and South Africans (47%). Opposition to UN
intervention was the highest among Angolans (37%), but in most
other countries less than one in five were opposed. Africans show
widespread openness to the idea of multilateral military
intervention in their own country in the event of a conflict "like
Darfur." When asked who they would prefer to intervene in the event
of such a conflict, UN military troops received the widest
endorsement (30%), followed by the African Union (22%). The idea of
intervention by rich countries acting alone was endorsed by just
5%.
Countries endorsing the UN for this role most strongly were Ghana
(48%), Kenya and Zimbabwe (both 35%). The lowest level of support
for the UN was in South Africa (21%), but this was still more than
the number of South Africans who preferred the African Union (12%).
In three countries, the proportion of people preferring the AU and
the UN were about the same Tanzania (28% and 25% respectively),
Angola and Nigeria (22% and 25% in both cases). The greatest number
of people rejecting any foreign military intervention was in
Cameroon (20%); the smallest number was in Ghana (6%).
Awareness of the situation in Darfur is fairly low. Just over
one-third of Africans interviewed (36%) say they have heard or read
a great deal or a fair amount about "the conflict in the Sudan
region called Darfur." Attitudes about whether the UN should have
the right to intervene are not significantly different between
those with higher or lower levels of awareness. While African
support for intervention is much higher with UN authorization when
it comes to severe human rights abuses such as genocide, Africans
do not reject the idea of a country being able to intervene even
when it does not have UN approval. In such cases, half (51%) say a
country should have the right to intervene even without UN
authorization, while three in ten (28%) disagree.
Lloyd Hetherington comments, "Clearly Africans are looking outside
their own countries and especially to the United Nations to help
deal with some of their problems. Contrary to their leaders, it
appears that they would like to see the UN intervene in dealing
with problems such as the crisis in Darfur, with a growing
confidence in the African Union to also take on this role." These
findings are from a larger annual survey of African public opinion
called "Africa in the New Century," tracking attitudes of Africans
on key issues, with the support of the Commission for Africa and
syndicated subscribers. The survey of 10,809 Africans from eight
countries (Angola, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa,
Tanzania, and Zimbabwe) was conducted between October and December
2004.
US Poll
A new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll of 812 Americans finds majority
support for several forms of intervention in the crisis in Darfur.
The poll was conducted June 22-26 and has a margin of error of
3.5%.
Asked whether UN members should "step in with military force to
stop the violence in Darfur," 61% said that it should, while 32%
said that it should not. This support was bipartisan: 67% of
Republicans and 62% of Democrats favored it. Independents were a
bit lower at 52%. A majority, albeit a slightly smaller one, also
favored contributing US troops to a multilateral operation in
Darfur. Asked "If other members of the UN are willing to contribute
troops to a military operation in Darfur, do you think the US
should or should not be willing to contribute some troops as well?"
54% said that it should, while 39% were opposed. Here again support
was quite bipartisan. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans and 56% of
Democrats favored contributing US troops.
Support is even higher for providing equipment and logistical
support to the African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur.
Respondents were told, "At present there is a peacekeeping force in
Darfur made up of soldiers from African countries. But this force
is quite weak and its presence has not stopped the violence. The
African Union has asked NATO for equipment and logistical support."
They were then asked, "Do you think that NATO, including the US,
should or should not provide such help?" Seventy-one percent said
the US should, while 21% said it should not. Here again support was
highly bipartisan, with 73% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats
favoring providing such assistance.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "What is quite striking
here is that even as the US is tied down in Iraq and suffering
daily casualties, a majority of Americans would support
contributing troops to a multilateral operation in Darfur. This
suggests that what is occurring there goes against strongly held
values in the American public. Indeed, multiple polls have found
that many Americans believe that if severe human rights abuses are
occurring, especially genocide, the UN should have the right to
intervene and the US should be willing to contribute troops."
When the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 2004 asked whether
the UN should have the right to intervene in the event of human
right abuses such as genocide the same question asked in the
eight-nation African poll 85% of Americans and 94% of American
leaders agreed that the UN should have the right to intervene.
Also, in the same CCFR poll, 75% favored using US troops "To stop
a government from committing genocide and killing large numbers of
its own people."
US public support for intervention in Darfur may vary, depending on
whether Americans assume that what is occurring in Darfur falls in
the category of genocide. In December 2004, when the Bush
administration was stating that genocide was occurring in Darfur,
PIPA/KN asked whether the UN should intervene with military force
"to stop the genocide in Darfur." Seventy-four percent said it
should and 60% said that the US should contribute troops. In light
of the UN report that determined that war crimes and genocidal
intent were occurring in Darfur, but refrained from labeling it
genocide, the present poll presented the situation more
equivocally, referring to "large-scale violence in Darfur, Sudan,
that some, including the Bush administration, have called
genocide." In this case support for UN intervention was 13 points
lower and support for the US contributing troops was 6 points
lower.
The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide
panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population
and subsequently provided internet access. For more information
about this methodology, go to http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/ganp.
Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund and the Ford Foundation. A full report and the questionnaire
can be found at http://www.pipa.org.
Americans Support US and G8 Countries Committing to Spend 0.7% GDP
on World Poverty
Willing to Spend Up to $50 Year Per Household on Millennium
Development Goals
Oppose Most Farm Subsidies
The Pipa/Knowledge Networks Poll.
The American Public on International Issues
Media Release
29 June 2005
Contact: Steven Kull 202-232-7500
College Park, MD: A major focus of the upcoming G-8 Summit of the
major industrial powers will be several ideas for addressing world
poverty, especially in Africa. A new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll
of 812 Americans finds that a majority of Americans are supportive
of these ideas. One of these ideas is that wealthy countries should
commit to spend seven-tenths of one percent of their GDP to address
world poverty, especially in Africa. Sixty-five percent of
Americans favored the US making such a commitment, provided that
the other wealthy countries do so as well. Support was higher among
Democrats (77%), but was still a majority among Republicans (57%).
Another idea that received strong support was for the wealthy
countries to commit to a set of goals called the Millennium
Development Goals. Respondents were told, "As you may know, the US
and other wealthy countries have set for themselves a series of
goals, called the Millennium Development Goals. These call for
reducing hunger by half, providing basic sanitation in poor
countries, and other goals by the year 2015." They were then asked
to assume that the costs would either be an average of $15, $30 or
$50 "a year per taxpaying household in the wealthy countries" and
that "other countries were willing to give this much." [See note
below explaining these cost estimates.]
Overall 71% said that the US should be willing to give the $15, $30
or $50. There was no significant difference in the level of support
depending on the amount assumed. Democrats were only slightly more
likely to approve than Republicans.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, "Americans sometimes resist
major efforts to address world poverty because they tend to
incorrectly assume that people in other countries are not giving as
much as they are. When it is assumed that all of the wealthy
countries will be doing a comparable amount, Americans show a
readiness to spend substantial amounts to address world poverty;
amounts that, if committed, would produce a marked reduction in
world poverty."
Another key topic related to world poverty to be discussed at the
G-8 Summit is farm subsidies. Farmers in developing countries have
had a difficult time competing with farmers in developed countries
in part because the latter receive major subsidies from their
governments. Advocates for reducing world poverty have called for
cutting back or eliminating such subsidies.
A large majority of Americans oppose most of the subsidies that go
to American farmers. More than eighty percent of US farm subsidies
go to large farming businesses. A large majority of Americans 74%
favor subsidies to small farmers, who, in fact receive less than
one fifth of farm subsidies. However 70% of Americans oppose the
lion's share of subsidies that go to large farming companies.
Americans also want subsidies to be given in a more restricted
fashion than they are presently. While most subsidies are given on
a regular annual basis not just in bad years only 28% of Americans
favor giving subsidies to small farmers on a regular annual basis
and only 9% favor giving such regular subsidies to large farming
companies.
The motive for opposing most of the subsidies given by the US
government is not, however, derived from concerns about their
impact on poor farmers abroad. Most Americans do not appear to
understand the effects of farm subsidies on agriculture in other
countries. Only 19% said that they thought that US farm subsidies
"hurt farmers in poor countries," while 71% assumed that they "have
no significant effect on farmers in poor countries."
Steven Kull comments, "While most Americans do not seem to
understand how US farm subsidies can hurt farmers in poor
countries, nonetheless, an overwhelming majority oppose most of the
subsidies the US gives to farmers, i.e. regular annual subsidies to
large farming companies. Thus the public would probably support the
US agreeing to cut most US farm subsidies at the G- 8 Summit,
though not out of a desire to help poor farmers."
The poll was conducted June 22-26 with a nationwide sample of 812
American adults. The margin of error was 3.5-4%, depending on
whether the question went to the full sample or part of the sample.
The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, using its nationwide
panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population
and subsequently provided internet access. For more information
about this methodology, go to http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. Funding for this research
was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation
and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. A full report and the
questionnaire can be found at http://www.pipa.org.
Note: Cost estimates for meeting Millennium Development Goals
The figures of $15, $30, and $50 per year were varied because there
are varying ways to estimate the costs of meeting the Millennium
Development Goals. If only one goal is pursued cutting in half the
number of people living on one dollar a day--the World Bank
estimates a cost of $39-54 billion a year in additional aid. If all
twenty of the OECD countries that give aid paid their share on a
per capita basis, this would result in a cost of approximately $15
per household. If all the Millennium Development Goals are pursued
and are pursued interdependently (the most economical approach) by
both donor and recipient countries, the World Bank estimates that
the cost would be $40-60 billion a year or roughly $30 per
household. Allowing for large errors in these estimates, or a lack
of coordination in execution, the figure of $50 per household is a
very high-end estimate. (See
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf for the World
Bank summary paper, "The Costs of Attaining the Millennium
Development Goals.")
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at [email protected]. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org
|
