Headlines, North America

POLITICS-US: War-Weary Public Leery of New Overseas Adventures

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 2005 (IPS) - President George W. Bush faces a difficult challenge in rallying U.S. public opinion behind his clarion call for spreading freedom and democracy abroad, according to a number of surveys published over the last two years.

Those polls show that the general public is, if anything, less inclined than it was two years ago to engage in a global crusade on behalf of democracy, particularly if it is undertaken unilaterally and militarily as in Iraq.

Indeed, one poll taken last month found that only seven percent of U.S. citizens believe that the primary focus of U.S. foreign and security policy should be on "building democracies in other regions".

Most placed a much greater emphasis on priorities like "defending U.S. borders and homeland security", and strengthening alliances with other nations against a common threat.

"The Iraq experience clearly has been a sobering one for Americans," said Pam Solo, president of the Massachusetts-based Civil Society Institute (CSI), which commissioned the poll of some 2,100 voters.

"Voters are embracing a new realism in foreign policy and security matters that puts more emphasis on safer U.S. borders, intelligence gathering, diplomatic initiatives, multi-national interventions when necessary, and greater energy efficiency in order to decrease America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil."

In his inaugural speech Thursday, Bush stressed in no uncertain terms that the major policy priority of his second term in office would be to "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

He also made clear that he saw the export and promotion of democracy and freedom abroad as integral to the country’s defence and security.

Recalling what he termed "a day of fire" – the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon by radical Islamists – he insisted that it led "to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," he declared, adding later that, "America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause."

He also stressed that ending tyranny will not be "primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

Indeed, polls taken over the past three years suggest that public support for exporting democracy overseas, particularly through military means – never particularly high in the U.S. – has actually diminished, probably as a result of setbacks in Iraq.

Last July, for example, a poll carried out by the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press asked respondents to choose their top priorities among 19 foreign policy issues.

"Promot(ing) democracy abroad" was rated number 18, just ahead of "improving living standards in poor nations", and far behind the leaders, such as guarding against terrorist attacks, protecting U.S. jobs and reducing the spread of AIDS.

The democracy option actually rated somewhat higher when Pew asked the same question just before the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks. But while 29 percent of respondents rated it as a "top priority" then, only 24 percent rated it the same way in 2004.

By contrast, the percentage of people who rated stopping AIDS as a "top priority" fell only one percentage point, from 73 percent to 72 percent, over the same period.

Respondents in more comprehensive foreign policy survey taken at the same time – the latest in a series by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) that dates back to the 1970s – reached a similar finding.

"Helping to bring a democratic form of government to other nations" rated dead last out of 14 "foreign policy goals" offered to respondents – far below even middle-ranking goals like "improving the global environment" or "strengthening the United Nations".

In fact, the importance of democracy promotion, according to the CCFR survey’s analysts, had fallen to its lowest relative level in almost three decades when the poll was taken in May and June 2004.

Interestingly, "leaders" – a sample of republican and democratic lawmakers and staff people, journalists, business and university leaders, and other prominent opinion shapers – identified democracy promotion abroad as "very important", rather than the "somewhat important" rating given by the public at large.

The "leaders" were generally in accord with the public on the question of whether or not a country has the right to intervene militarily without U.N. approval to restore a democracy, with 58 percent saying "no", compared to 32 percent who said "yes".

Among the general public, most people did not favour even rather mild democratisation efforts in the Middle East.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said the U.S. should not put "greater pressure" on countries in the Middle East to become more democratic, and more than two-thirds of respondents opposed spending billions of dollars "to reconstruct and democratise" the Middle East, as Washington did in Europe after World War II.

On the question of a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, however, leaders were the opposite camp, supporting such a plan by a 64-30 margin.

In yet another poll, by the University of Maryland’s Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), taken in Nov. 2003 – eight months after the Iraq invasion – respondents were asked whether they agreed that "the U.S. has the right and even the responsibility to overthrow dictatorships and help their people build a democracy".

The results were remarkably consistent with the later CCFR findings: Thirty-four percent said Washington should indeed do so, while a solid 59 percent majority said it had no such right or responsibility.

Within Bush’s core constituency, however, PIPA has identified a shift over the past decade. Republicans tended to be less interventionist with respect to democracy promotion until Sep. 11, 2001, when they became more interventionist than Democrats.