Visit the AfricaFocus
Country Pages

Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
C�te 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
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Print this page

Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived document may not work.

Africa: US Foreign Policy Poll
Date Distributed (ymd): 960811

Summary of Findings (excerpts)

An Emerging Consensus: A Study of American Public Attitudes on
America's Role in the World

Conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies
at the University of Maryland and its Program on International
Policy Attitudes

Principal Investigators: Steven Kull, I.M. Destler

July 10, 1996

FOr more information, including a copy of the full summary of
findings, please contact: Program on International Policy
Attitudes (PIPA), 11 Dupont Circle, NW, #785, Washington, DC
20036.  Tel: (202) 232-7500; Fax: (202) 232-1159; E-mail:
[email protected].

Overview

Since the end of the Cold War, Americans have been groping to
define America's role in this new world. How the public feels
about this question is explored in a new study ...

The principal findings suggest that:

* Among the American public there is an emerging consensus
that rejects both isolationism and the idea that the US should
be the dominant world leader.  Most Americans feel that the US
should stay engaged in international efforts to maintain peace
and promote human welfare, but that the US role should be
limited to its 'fair share' and should primarily be in
cooperation with other countries, and where possible, through
the UN.

* Americans feel a modest portion of US resources should be
devoted to international efforts (the UN, State Department,
foreign aid), both for moral reasons and because it serves
long term US interests.

* The consensus in support of such engagement is obscured by
widespread misperceptions that the US is doing much more
internationally than it is in fact, which then creates
resistance.  But when Americans are asked their preferred
levels for US commitments, they usually set them higher than
the actual levels.

...

This study included:

* a nationwide poll of 1,227 randomly selected adult Americans
conducted June 21-27, 1996 (margin of error plus or minus
3-4%);
* focus groups conducted in Nashville, Tennessee; Columbus,
Ohio; Fort Lee, New Jersey; and Boise, Idaho;
* a review of existing polling data.

It is part of a larger study, Foreign Policy and the Public,
aimed at exploring the links between public opinion and
American foreign policy.

(1) A new public consensus is emerging on the role of the
United States in the post Cold War world. Most Americans are
tired of playing the role of dominant world leader, while at
the same time they reject isolationism. Instead, they are
moving toward a consensus that the US should stay engaged in
international efforts to maintain peace and promote human
welfare, but that the US role should be limited to its 'fair
share' and should primarily be in cooperation with other
countries.

This emerging consensus was reflected in the nationwide poll.
When respondents were presented three options for America's
role in the world, only 13% embraced the idea that "as the
sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the
preeminent world leader in solving international problems."
Similarly, just 12% chose the option that "the US should
withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems."
However, an over-whelming 74% endorsed the view that "the US
should do its fair share in efforts to solve international
problems together with other countries."

From focus groups conducted around the country over the past
six months, though, it is clear that for many Americans, this
consensus is not fully crystallized. When participants
complained that the US is playing the role of dominant world
leader or that the US is doing too much, they often made
statements that sounded isolationist. But then the same
individuals would also strongly reject the idea that the US
should withdraw from the world. When they, or somebody else in
the group, tried to balance these concerns by articulating a
role for the US in which it would participate together with
other countries in efforts to promote peace and progress, but
with the US role limited to its 'fair share' or 'doing its
part,' a strong sense of closure and consensus usually
emerged.

Rejection of World Leader Role

Other polls confirm public resistance to the role of world
hegemon for the US. In a Times Mirror poll of June 1995, only
13% favored the United States being "the single world leader,"
9% said the US "shouldn't play any leadership role," while 74%
favored "a shared leadership role."

Americans also overwhelmingly reject the idea that the US
should be the world policeman. In the November 1995 PIPA poll,
71% said "the US is playing the role of world policeman more
than it should be." In the current poll, 80% rejected the view
that "as the sole remaining superpower...the US [should] spend
a larger percentage of its...GNP on defense than its allies"
in favor of the notion that "all of the industrialized
countries should spend about the same percentage."

In focus groups participants rejected the role of US world
policeman not only because of the costs involved, but because
they saw it as illegitimate for the US to act in a
self-interested and unilateral fashion. As a Nashville man
said, "I definitely rule out the United States just making up
its mind to go do something. Period." A Nashville woman said,
"If we're going to get involved in the rest of the world I
think we should do it as part of the rest of the world, not
just watching our own interests."

Rejection of Isolationism

The majority also rejects isolationism in response to more
general questions. By a 59% to 35% margin, respondents said
that the US should "take an active part" rather than "stay
out" of world affairs." (There was no significant difference
between Republicans and Democrats.) Fifty-nine percent
rejected the argument that with the end of the Cold War "it is
no longer necessary to have such a large diplomatic
establishment...it is better to spend these resources at
home," and instead embraced the argument that it is still
"important for the US to maintain vigorous diplomatic
efforts." ...

Support for Cooperative Engagement

Americans are embracing the idea that the US should be engaged
in cooperative efforts to address international problems,
especially through the United Nations. Sixty-two percent
rejected the idea that the US should "go its own way in
international matters." Sixty percent said that the US should
cooperate fully with the United Nations. In an April 1995 PIPA
poll, an overwhelming 89% agreed that:

"When there is a problem in the world that requires the use of
military force, it is generally best for the US to address the
problem together with other nations working through the UN,
rather than going it alone."

In contrast, only 29% embraced the argument that when military
force is needed: "It is better for the US to act on its own
rather than working through the UN, because the US can move
more quickly and probably more successfully." ...

While poll respondents showed concerns that the UN may be
wasteful, this concern does not appear to be specific to the
UN and is actually a bit less than for the US government.
Asked to estimate how much of their budgets are lost to waste,
fraud and abuse, the median respondent estimated 30% for the
UN (mean 37%) but 40% (mean 40%) for the US government.

Support for US engagement also extends to foreign aid. When
asked to allocate federal budget funds, all but 8% of
respondents provided some money for humanitarian and economic
aid, and 54% said they would maintain (16%) or increase (38%)
the present funding level. In a January 1995 PIPA poll, 80%
said the US should give some foreign aid.

(2) Support for US international engagement is dampened by a
widespread feeling that the US is doing more than its 'fair
share.' However, this attitude seems to reflect substantial
overestimations of how much the US is actually contributing
relative to other countries. When Americans are asked to set
their own preferred levels for US contributions, they usually
set them higher than the actual level.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they support paying UN
dues in full. Fifty-seven percent favor the US contributing US
troops to UN peacekeeping operations. While these are solid
majorities, they are somewhat less than one might expect from
the stronger majorities that favor the US contributing its
'fair share' to international efforts.

This more modest level of support for specific acts of
engagement seems to derive from a widely held attitude that
the US is doing more than its fair share. Fifty percent said
that the US is paying more than its fair share for UN dues. In
an April 1995 PIPA poll, 60% said the US contributes more than
its fair share of troops to UN peacekeeping. In the January
1995 PIPA poll, 84% said that the US gives more than it should
relative to other industrialized countries.

But these judgments of unfairness seem to rest on major
misperceptions. The median respondent estimated that the US
contributes 40% of all the aid given by the wealthy countries
to developing countries (in fact, the US gives 12% of
development aid according to the OECD). In the April 1995
poll, the median respondent estimated that the US was
contributing 40% of all the troops for UN peacekeeping (the
actual number at the time was 4%). In the January 1995 PIPA
poll, 81% estimated that the US contributes more of its GNP to
development aid than most other industrialized countries (in
fact, the US gives the lowest percentage of all).

Particularly interesting is the fact that when Americans are
asked to set an appropriate US share, they often set a level
much higher than the actual level. For aid to developing
countries, the median respondent said the US should give about
a 20% share--nearly twice the actual amount. ...

(3) Many Americans feel conflict about committing resources to
solving international problems when there are pressing
problems at home. For many, this problem is resolved by
seeking a balance between moral considerations and
self-interest and assigning a modest and delimited portion of
US resources to help those in other countries. Most Americans
also believe that the world is so interconnected that efforts
to solve global problems ultimately serve US interests. ...

This conflict is also reflected in polls. When poll questions
pose a priority choice between directing resources to solving
problems at home and some other international option, the
majority will nearly always opt for solving problems at home.
For example, in the January 1995 PIPA poll, 80% agreed that
"Solving problems at home is more important than giving
foreign aid." But then most of these same respondents
expressed some support for foreign aid on other questions.
Only 8% overall said they did not want to give any foreign
aid. And in a July 1994 PIPA poll 84% agreed that "Sometimes
the US should be willing to make sacrifices if this will help
the world as a whole." ...

The second way that individuals resolve this problem is by
making a bridge between national values and global values,
especially in a long-term framework. Americans are very
responsive to poll questions that make such a link. In the
current poll, an overwhelming 79% agreed with the argument
that:

Because the world is so interconnected today, the US should
participate in UN efforts to maintain peace, protect human
rights and promote economic development. Such efforts serve US
interests because they help create a more stable world that is
more conducive to trade and other US interests.

Only 29% agreed with a counter argument that: "the world is so
big and complex that such [UN] efforts only make a minimal
difference with little benefit to the US. Therefore it is not
in the US interest to participate in them."

Seventy-eight percent agreed (50% strongly) that the US should
contribute to UN peacekeeping because: "if we allow things
like genocide or the mass killings of civilians to go
unaddressed, it is more apt to spread and create more
instability in the world so that eventually our interests
would be affected."

In the January 1995 poll, 63% agreed that the US should give
some foreign aid because "in the long run, helping Third World
countries develop is in the economic interest of the US."

In focus groups, participants often made such links
spontaneously. A Nashville woman said, "We have a selfish
reason for wanting to help the world, that when there is
trouble in the world it invariably spreads." Sometimes
respondents were quite emphatic and even apocalyptic. For
example, a man in Fort Lee, New Jersey said:

I say invest foreign aid to help people get an education, give
them tools to work... and then they begin to build and then
they develop, and they end up buying goods from us, we buy
goods from them, they defend us; we defend them. Maybe not
short term, maybe not in my lifetime, maybe not in my
grandkids' lifetime, but down the road long term. So my
biggest concern with America is that if we don't do anything
globally, long term, to help out, then we're just going to
die. And forget about jobs--I won't have a job, my kid won't
have a job, no one will have a job. There'll be no charity to
give anybody anything. There'll be nothing.

(4) Many Americans feel that a disproportionate share of US
resources are going to international efforts. But, here again,
this feeling seems to be driven significantly by extreme
overestimations of how much goes to international efforts.
When Americans are asked to set their preferred level of
investment in international efforts, the majority usually sets
a level the same as or higher than actual levels, even when
they are required to make trade-offs against domestic spending
priorities.

Polls show that most Americans feel that too much is going to
international efforts--but apparently, this attitude is based
on misperceptions. In the current poll, when respondents were
asked how much of every $1,000 of the US economy, or GNP, goes
to humanitarian and economic aid for developing countries, the
median estimate was $100--while the actual amount has been
between $1.00 and $1.50 over the last few years according to
the OECD. Asked what would be an appropriate amount, a strong
majority wanted to reduce it well below the level they
perceived--the median preferred level was $25--still far above
the actual amount. When respondents were asked how they would
feel if they heard the actual amount was $1.50, only 18%
thought that this amount would be too much. ...

(5) The one area of international activity in which the
majority does seem to want to cut spending is defense. In this
case, as Americans get more information about the actual level
of defense spending, the majority shifts from wanting modest
cuts to wanting deep cuts. Philosophically, there is also
majority support for shifting some resources from military to
diplomatic and other nonmilitary approaches to security. ...

(6) A substantial number of Americans feel ambivalence about
contributing US troops to UN peacekeeping because they feel
uncomfortable requiring American soldiers to risk their lives.
The majority would like individual soldiers to be given the
choice of whether to participate. With this condition
fulfilled, an overwhelming majority then favors contributing
troops to UN peacekeeping. However, a strong majority feels
that the US military has the right to require such
participation by US troops, an issue dramatized by the recent
case of army medic Michael New. ...

(7) Concerns that the US is contributing more than its fair
share have obscured majority support for US participation in
the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia. When respondents can
specify the US portion relative to other countries, a solid
majority supports contributing some US troops (though a
smaller portion than the current level). A solid majority also
supports some US involvement should the Bosnian peacekeeping
operation be extended beyond December. A very strong majority
supports arresting the Bosnian Serb leaders charged with war
crimes, even if this puts US troops at risk. ...

(8) A solid majority also supports contributing US troops to
a possible UN peacekeeping operation in Burundi, especially
when respondents can specify the US portion relative to other
countries. However, support may erode if Congress opposes
involvement.

A fairly strong majority expressed support for the US
contributing troops should the UN establish a peacekeeping
operation in Burundi to intervene if forces there start
carrying out genocide. As in the Bosnia questions, half the
sample was asked a standard question, and 57% said they would
favor contributing US troops, while 38% opposed. When the
other half was given the option of setting the level of US
troops (with zero explicitly offered), 66% said the US should
contribute some troops while just 31% said that the US should
not contribute any. Among those who favored contributing some,
the median preferred level was 20%. ...

************************************************************
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC), the educational
affiliate of the Washington Office on Africa. APIC's primary
objective is to widen the policy debate in the United States
around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa, by
concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant
information and analysis usable by a wide range of groups and
individuals.

************************************************************