POLITICS-U.S: Foreign Policy Gap Between Leaders and Public

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Mar 15 1999 (IPS) - The gap between the general public in the United States and the foreign-policy elite appears to be growing on a range of different issues, according to a major new survey released Monday.

The survey, the latest a series conducted during the past 30 years by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, finds that foreign-policy leaders favour a much more interventionist US role in the world than does the public at large.

About three out of every four citizens, for example, believe the United States should not take action alone in international crises if it does not have support from its allies, while the foreign-policy elite is roughly evenly divided.

Similarly, the general public is much more sceptical about the use of US troops abroad, with a majority favouring such action only in the event of a hypothetical Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia.

A majority of leaders, on the other hand, support military action in half-a-dozen hypothetical scenarios involving Israel, Kosovo, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Taiwan, according to the report, published in the latest edition of ‘Foreign Policy’ quarterly.

The survey is taken seriously by policy-makers here primarily because it has used a consistent methodology over almost 30 years.

Its conclusions this year also tend to confirm the conclusions of a similar study on elite/public attitudes two years ago by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

The findings are based on detailed interviews of some 1,500 members of the general public between October and November and another 379 “leaders” between November and mid-December of last year.

The leaders included members of the administration of President Bill Clinton, Congress, international business, media, labour, academic and religious institutions, think tanks, and members of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that deal with foreign- policy issues.

The gap between the elite and the public has existed for some time, but has become increasingly worrisome to many leaders concerned about sustaining Washington’s engagement with its allies and trading partners.

The latest report, by Council president John Rielly, characterises the current public mood as one of “guarded engagement by a largely satisfied superpower.”

Compared to the last survey four years ago, the public now is less concerned about economic competition from Japan or Europe and about rising levels of immigration.

On the other hand, concern about violence both at home and abroad has risen over the same period and is reflected in increased support for more defence spending.

Overall, the public is more confident about the role of the United States in the world than four years ago.

A majority of 53 percent, however, believes there will be more bloodshed and violence in the 21st century than in the 20th century, which contrasts with a much more optimistic outlook by the country’s foreign-policy leaders.

The public is much more concerned about international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction than it was four years ago, according to the study. It found that 84 percent and 76 percent of respondents, respectively, named these as the most “critical threats” faced by the United States.

In contrast to a reticence in taking military action against countries abroad, three out of four respondents said they favoured using significant force against terrorists, although both the public and leaders prefer diplomatic measures in the fight against terrorism.

Some significant gaps between the public and the elite are found, however, with respect to determining US foreign policy goals.

For the public, preventing nuclear proliferation, stopping the flow of drugs into the United States, protecting US jobs, and fighting international terrorism constitute by far the most important priorities.

The elite accords top priority to nuclear non-proliferation and fighting terrorism but sees protecting US jobs, and keeping drugs out of the country as much less important. The leaders also rate reducing the US trade deficit and strengthening the United Nations as lesser priorities.

On the other hand, the public sees emerging diseases, immigration, economic competition from Japan and low-wage countries, and global warning as significantly greater threats to US interests than does the elite.

The public is also distrustful of globalisation. While a slight majority believes the process of global economic integration is “mostly good for the United States,” 87 percent of elite sectors take that position.

Asked whether the United States should contribute money to the International Monetary Fund to deal with world financial crises, 51 percent of the public say no, while 82 percent of leaders say yes.

There are also wide differences between the elite and the general public in the relative importance to US interests of key developing countries, including Mexico, South Korea and Brazil. The public rates these countries as substantially less important than do the leaders.

China is cited most frequently by the elite as the country in which the United States had the most vital interest, followed by Japan, Russia and Mexico. The public rated the top four as Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China.