Introduction > A Wider Atlantic?

Comparative Report - pdf version Questionnaire - pdf version

Introduction - A Wider Atlantic?

The Atlantic alliance is going through its greatest test since taking shape after World War II. The U.S. government and its putative allies in Europe find themselves at odds on a gamut of issues, from familiar flashpoints like trade and culture to fundamental considerations of war, peace, and global leadership. Analysts say the two sides of the Atlantic have been drifting apart for decades, but the common cause of containing the Soviet Union obscured that drift. Now that the Cold War is won, they say, Americans and Europeans find themselves living at different moments in history, with little to say to each other and no common language to say it.

Over the past decade, the European Union (EU) has emerged as an increasingly unified player on the world stage, with a gross domestic product as large as that of the United States and aspirations to be a superpower. Repeatedly, the United States and the EU have clashed publicly on such seemingly trivial trade issues as beef and bananas, but also on larger questions of global governance, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court. While the attacks of September 11, 2001, reminded Americans and Europeans of the fundamental values that bind them together—“Nous sommes tous Américains”—the subsequent war on terrorism has raised fears of American unilateralism for many Europeans once again. Newspaper reports of widespread anti-Americanism in Europe are mirrored by sharp criticism of Europe from some policy elites in the United States.

A controversial article released in the summer of 2002 by an American academic named Robert Kagan crystallized the growing concerns that Americans have about Europe and vice versa. Kagan argues that the United States and Europe no longer “share a common view of the world, or even ... occupy the same world.” He says they have totally different views of power, multilateral institutions, and international compromise. To America, a threat is something to be removed, by force if necessary, and America often has the force to do it. To Europe, a threat is a problem to be contained, preferably by diplomacy or nonmilitary means, partly because Europe does not have the force to do otherwise.

The key question raised by the prophets of drift is this: Have the United States and Europe retreated so far into their own worldviews that they cannot meet the challenges of the future? This report, the result of a new partnership between The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States, seeks answers to that question.

Every four years for nearly three decades, The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) has sponsored one of the preeminent surveys of American public opinion on U.S. foreign policy. This year the CCFR has joined with the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) to undertake an even more ambitious study that includes not only an expanded U.S. survey, but, for the first time, a parallel survey conducted in six European countries. In an attempt to capture American and European moods in the new millennium after the shocking terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, the surveys posed largely identical questions on a broad range of international issues to the American and European publics. The result is the most in-depth picture ever painted of the foreign policy attitudes of the world’s strongest and most important alliance.

What emerges is at least partly a refutation of the theory of drift at the public level. Similarities in attitudes and perceptions of the world upstage the differences in a wide range of areas, including their perceptions of threats and the distribution of power and influence in the world. But this broad agreement stops short of unanimity and is not the same as vigorous alliance. Some important differences are apparent and could place strains upon U.S.-European relations over the long term.

The CCFR/GMF study adds complexity to the debate on drift, providing new and valuable insights, but does not settle the argument. It shows two peoples with a shared history and value system and a habit of viewing the world with the same eyes, but with some deep differences that often make understanding more difficult. It shows Europeans and Americans still speaking the same moral and strategic language, but often with different accents. It suggests that despite warnings of a fatal drift, there is abundant common ground that continues to bind Europeans and Americans closely together.

Acknowledgments
The survey design and the analysis of the data presented in this report reflect the joint efforts of the “Worldviews 2002” GMF and CCFR teams. Steve Grand, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, and Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and part of the CCFR team, served as co-editors of this report.

The “Worldviews 2002” GMF team was comprised of Steve Grand, Natalie La Balme, Julianne Smith, Pierangelo Isernia, and Philip Everts. The German Marshall Fund would like to express its sincere gratitude to Pierangelo Isernia, professor of political science at the University of Siena, and Philip Everts, director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of Leiden, who served as outside advisors and without whose expertise and support this project would not have been possible.

The survey team would like to acknowledge as well the assistance of a number of GMF colleagues. Special thanks to Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund, for his unwavering support and guidance throughout the project. Thanks as well to Karen Donfried, Phillip Henderson, Bill Drozdiak, Heike MacKerron, Alessandra Nervi, John Harris, Ron Asmus, Amaya Bloch-Laine, Ellen Pope, and Arnout Brouwers for their invaluable advice and assistance. Adam Hunter, Myles Nienstadt, Claudia Chantal Zackariya, Bridget Bodane, Abigail Golden-Vazquez, Ryan van Wijk, Pat Griffin, Susan Corke, and Anna Matussek all played important roles in the dissemination of the report. We would also like to recognize Lomangino Studios and Hug Communications for their contributions to the design and production of the final report.

Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to the survey research firm MORI (Market & Opinion Research International), and especially Andy Martin and Lisa Grace, for their cooperation while working under a tight schedule. Funding for the Chicago Council’s work on the U.S. and comparative studies in collaboration with the German Marshall Fund came from several sources. The Chicago Council is deeply grateful to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for its lead support. The MacArthur Foundation has been the principal funder of the Council’s study over a number of years. Despite changes in the foundation’s guidelines, its president, Jonathan F. Fanton, and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, senior vice president for global security and sustainability,were open to continuing this crucial assistance.

The Chicago Council also wishes to thank the McCormick Tribune Foundation and its president, Richard A. Behrenhausen, for their early and vital support. The German Marshall Fund of the United States contributed much needed funds to the Council to help make possible the extraordinary collaboration between the organizations. The United States–Japan Foundation also provided valuable funding. The Chicago Council is grateful to the foundation’s president, George R.Packard, for his interest in this study.

The 'Worldviews 2002' project was a team effort from the beginning. Marshall M. Bouton, president of The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and Benjamin I. Page, Gordon Scott Fulcher professor of decision making in the department of political science at Northwestern University, were the overall co-editors for the Chicago Council. Other members of the team were Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Larry Jacobs, professor in the department of political science at the University of Minnesota; Richard Longworth, senior writer for the Chicago Tribune; Catherine Hug, president of Hug Communications; Christopher Whitney, program officer at The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and Dukhong Kim, graduate student in the department of political science at Northwestern University. Martin Kifer, Laura MacDonald, and Jane Kim also played important roles in the data analysis for the study.

The Chicago Council also wishes to express its appreciation to Harris Interactive for all the assistance they have provided with the study. In particular, we want to recognize Hal Quinley, Beverly Romanowski, David Krane, and Shawn Wade for all their hard work throughout the various stages of the project. The data from this survey will be placed on deposit with the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, the Roper Center for Public Opinion in Storrs, Connecticut, and NORC (National Opinion Research Center) at the University of Chicago. It will be available to scholars and other interested professionals. This report will also be available on the Internet at www.worldviews.org.