U.S. Public Rejects “Go It Alone” Foreign Policy

Fall 2002, Volume 24, Number 1

Ben Page

Despite a post-Sept. 11 consensus that terrorism threatens the country, a freshly engaged American public is concerned with foreign issues above and beyond the fate of Osama bin Laden, according to a survey published by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in October.

The Worldviews 2002 report, co-edited by IPR Faculty Associate Benjamin Page, reveals a public widely supportive of military action against terrorists, but also concerned with world hunger, environmental issues, regional conflicts, and job protection. The public diverges sharply from White House and congressional “go it alone” attitudes, offering instead overwhelming support for joint action (especially with European allies).

“To me, the most remarkable findings of the study involve Americans’ strong favorability toward the United Nations, their approval for using force only with the support of the UN and allies, and the large majorities that favor participating in international treaties like the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto agreement on global warming that the Bush administration has opposed,” Professor Page said. “The public’s reluctance to ‘go it alone’ in Iraq or elsewhere is quite striking.”

The study was based on the Council’s most extensive round of interviews ever, involving 3,200 people personally and on the telephone in June. Partial results were released to coincide with the anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

The report says Sept. 11 jolted Americans into an appreciation of the world stage unprecedented in the last decades of the Cold War. While domestic issues are still paramount, more Americans are interested in foreign news than at any other time in the last 28 years. Terrorism — seen as a “critical threat” by 91% — is the first international issue to top the list of the public’s worries since the quadrennial survey of prevailing opinion was inaugurated in 1974.

In response, the public expects the United States to maintain, indeed, expand, its superpower role. Support for an active foreign policy is up ten points to 71%. Support for increased foreign intelligence spending is at 66%, up from 27% in 1998 and support for an increased defense budget, though still short of a majority, is at an all-time high.

But this “refocused internationalism” falls short of a desire for world hegemony. While 83% consider strong U.S. leadership desirable, fully 62% reject the task of “world’s policeman.” Despite support for Saddam Hussein’s ouster, only 20% of the public would back an invasion without UN approval and allied support. The use of troops to defend Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and South Korea in various “invasion scenarios” is similarly contingent upon international support.

Attitudes toward NATO and the UN are cited as further evidence of the public’s multilateralism. The Cold War over, 68% of Americans would welcome Russia into the alliance. More than three-quarters of the public backs a continued or expanded presence in NATO, an eight point jump since 1998. A similar fraction wants a stronger UN. The majority favors paying US dues and letting the organization tax international oil and arms sales.

Internationalism carries into economic issues, where, despite some reservations, only 9% express opposition to “free trade.” Support for trade is highly conditional, however: 73% of the public wants the government to help workers who lose their jobs to international competition.

The public also sees a need for engagement with unfriendly nations. Majorities favor diplomatic relations with two of the nations in the president’s “axis of evil,” North Korea and Iran. Majorities favor diplomatic contact with Cuba and China, and a slight plurality (49% versus 47% opposed) would have diplomatic relations with Iraq.

The survey also found the public at odds with the president on several policy issues, despite a positive perception of the war on terrorism. The president’s foreign policy in general receives a 53% “good” or “excellent” rating; however, majorities or pluralities gave “fair” or “poor” ratings to the administration’s handling of Iraq, China, trade policy, global warming, the Middle East peace process, immigration, nuclear proliferation and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The complete report is available on the Internet at www.worldviews.org.