[Peace-discuss] US public anti-war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The Chicago Council of Foreign Relations has been doing polls on US
attitudes since Vietnam.  They're in-depth and discursive -- and seem to
give a better account of the national mood than the snap polls.  --CGE]
 
	September 29, 2004
	Poll Finds a Nation Chastened by War
	by Jim Lobe

Three years of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism" appears to
have reduced the appetite of the U.S. public and its leaders for
unilateral military engagements, according to a major survey released
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 Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon are
opposed by strong majorities of both the 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 9/11 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 percent of the public and 10 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 U.S. 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 percent called it a "very important" goal),
followed by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (73 percent), and
combating international terrorism (71 percent).

For the elite respondents, on the other hand, nuclear non-proliferation
and terrorism topped the list, while protecting U.S. 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 percent of the public in 2002, was cited by only 38 percent this
year, while the "development of China as a world power," cited by 51
percent in 2002, claimed only 33 percent 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 percent of the elite now consider "strengthening the
United Nations" as a "very important goal" of U.S. foreign policy, up 12
percent from 2002. Conversely, the percentage of leaders who cited
"maintaining superior power worldwide" as a very important goal, fell from
52 percent in 2002 to only 37 percent 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 like 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 percent
of the public said yes, but only 35 percent 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 retaining traditional
constraints on the use of force by individual states, including the United
States, and oppose new ideas for making them looser, as 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 U.S. participation in a wide
range of international treaties and agreements, some of which have been
rejected or renounced by the Bush administration.

Thus 87 percent of the public and 85 percent of the elite said they would
favor the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; 80 percent
of both groups said they favored the landmine ban; 76 percent of the
public and 70 percent of the elite said they support U.S. participation in
the International Criminal Court; and 71 percent of both groups said they
back U.S. 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 leaders said the UN
should have a standing peacekeeping force.

A majority of 57 percent of the public and a plurality of 48 percent 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.

(Inter Press Service)
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3668