By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Oct 12 1997 (IPS)

A wide gap exists between the beliefs of U.S. elitists, now more more confident with Washington’s role in the world, and the general public which opposes a more assertive U.S. posture in dealing with foreign nations, according to a major new survey.

The two groups differ sharply on a range of foreign policy issues and priorities, from trade and the importance of protecting U.S. jobs to the use of U.S. force abroad and the degree to which China’s ascendancy may pose a “serious problem” for Washington, according to a study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

“This is a dangerous gap, and it is growing,” said Richard Haass, head of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think tank.

The survey, a repeat of a similar effort in 1993, included interviews with 2000 members of the general public and almost 600 “influentials” – men and women who hold top positions in business and finance, state and local government, Congress, academia, religion, the media, labour, and foreign affairs.

The most striking difference of opinion between the two groups was reflected in its view of the world today, compared with four years ago.

In 1993, the public and the influentials were in general agreement that the global outlook was bleak, with only about a quarter of each group describing themselves as “satisfied” with world conditions. Today, the elite group is far more confident – 58 percent expressing satisfaction with the world as a whole. The general public, on the other hand, remains as glum about the world situation as it was in 1993.

Moreover, elite opinion sees the United States as more influential in world affairs than it was four years ago, while the general public perceives no change, according to the report.

And while the influentials are less fearful about the possibility of an attack on the U.S. itself with a weapon of mass destruction, the public’s perception is that the country is, if anything, more vulnerable today than four years ago.

The survey’s director, Andrew Kohout, suggested the difference may be related to media coverage of world affairs. “It would seem that international news in the media, being heavily weighted toward conflict and confrontation, may be frightening the casual consumer of world news,” he said.

Ignorance may also be a factor. The survey notes that the more highly educated and well-informed members of the general public tend to be closer to the elite’s views. Whatever the case, the greater confidence of the elite appears to translate into support for a more interventionist role in the world.

Some 15 percent of “influentials” favour the notion that Washington should become “the world’s single leader” – double the percentage who took that position in 1993. In addition, a narrow majority say the United States should be the most assertive power among the group of nations that share the responsibility of global leadership.

By contrast, the general public supports a “significantly more passive role” for the United States, according to the survey. Half of the respondents wanted responsibility to be spread “equally” among the leading nations.

All elite groups, for example, overwhelmingly support the use of U.S. military forces if Iraq should invade Saudi Arabia, if North Korea invades the South, or if Israel is invaded by Arab states. The general public, on the other hand, is much less enthusiastic, as they were in 1993. Barely half would support military intervention in Saudi Arabia and Korea, and only 47 percent would support it for Israel.

Significantly greater majorities among the elite supports extending NATO eastwards and maintaining U.S. troops in Bosnia than the public as a whole.

“The public does not want the United States to take a more active role than others,” Kohout said, noting that nonwhites and less educated people were the most reserved about U.S. leadership.

At the same time, the United Nations, which was favoured by both groups as a key instrument in preserving world order in 1993, has slipped in their estimation. More than four in ten respondents named strengthening the world body as a top priority in 1993; less than a third take that position today, according to the report.

In another reflection of the gap between the two groups, the survey found a major difference in their view of foreign policy priorities. Every sector of the elite group ranked “preventing the spread of nuclear weapons” as the top U.S. foreign policy priority. By contrast, the general public ranked “protecting the jobs of American workers” as the number one priority, unchanged from four years ago.

That could reflect continuing anxiety about job security in an era of globalisation. Indeed, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other trade initiatives are cited by most influentials, with the exception of labour leaders, as the greatest accomplishments of President Bill Clinton’s administration. In fact, the administration receives its highest ratings from the elite for its work in assisting U.S. U.S. business abroad.

While a plurality of the public believes NAFTA is a “good thing” from a U.S. point of view, the elite’s enthusiasm for free trade does not appear to be widely shared at the grassroots, according to the report.

The isolationist attitude of much of the citizenry remains largely unchanged since 1993 (about one third agree that the United States should “go its own way in international matters”), and most citizens appear unconvinced that they live in an interdependent world.

Large majorities said events in Europe, Asia, and even in Mexico and Canada, have very little or no impact on their lives. At the same time, similar majorities said they support different kinds of foreign aid, ranging from food and medical assistance to needy peoples (86 percent) to family planning and birth control in the Third World (68 percent).

Within elite opinion, a notable development in the past four years has been the emergence of China as a potential “serious problem” for the United States.

The “influentials” appear to have embraced the theory by Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington that the major lines of world conflict in the future will be between civilisations with different cultures and religions, rather than nation-states, the report said.

Excerpt: