Chapter 4 > International Cooperation > The Use of Diplomatic Tools

U.S. Report - pdf version Leaders Questionnaire - pdf version Public Questionnaire - pdf version

The Use of Diplomatic Tools

Accompanying the support for international institutions, treaties, and agreements is strong support for the use of diplomatic tools in foreign policy. Despite the extraordinary military preeminence of the United States, most Americans do not want the United States to rely exclusively on military means to achieve its international objectives. Most look to nonmilitary foreign policy tools, or forms of “soft power.” These include diplomatic measures, economic sanctions, foreign aid, and the promotion of democracy abroad. Support for these diplomatic tools is often as high as or higher than support for military methods, even in the context of the war on terrorism.

Combating Terrorism

Some options for addressing the problem of terrorism that receive the highest levels of public support do not involve military force but are entirely diplomatic (see Figure 4-7). Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor diplomatic efforts to apprehend suspects and dismantle terrorist training camps, compared to 84% who support the use of U.S. ground troops for the same purpose and the 87% who favor the use of air strikes. Eighty percent favor diplomatic efforts to improve U.S. relations with potential adversary countries. Making a major effort to be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a means of combating terrorism is favored by 66%.

Americans also show strong support for working through international institutions to fight terrorism. The trial of suspected terrorists in an International Criminal Court is supported by an overwhelming 83%. Eighty-eight percent favor working through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism and to make sure UN members enforce them. Setting up an international system to cut off funding for terrorism is favored by 89%.

Finally, and perhaps surprisingly, most Americans support development assistance for fighting terrorism. A strong 78% say that they favor helping poor countries develop their economies as a way of combating terrorism, with only 19% opposed. Apparently, most Americans see poverty as a breeding ground for terrorism and development assistance as a way to ameliorate it (see Chapter 5 for more on the public’s attitudes about world poverty).

Dealing With "Countries of Concern"

In dealing with “countries of concern” to the United States, including those dubbed the “axis of evil” by President Bush (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), a majority of the public tends to support a mix of nonmilitary tools, including diplomatic relations, economic sanctions, and trade relations.

Despite the cold feelings Americans have toward North Korea, Iran, and Iraq (see Chapter 6), pluralities to majorities of the public still favor having diplomatic relations with these countries. Sixty-five percent favor diplomatic relations with North Korea (32% oppose) and 58% favor relations with Iran (38% oppose). A bare plurality of 49% even favors diplomatic relations with Iraq (47% oppose). As surveys taken during the Cold War confirm, Americans tend to want to talk and negotiate even with their bitterest enemies.

At the same time, however, a majority of Americans favor the use of economic sanctions against all three of these countries (see Figure 4-8). Iraq receives the largest percentage favoring sanctions, with 66% in favor and 27% opposed. Iran comes next, with 63% in favor and 29% opposed. Fifty-eight percent of Americans favor sanctions against North Korea, with 31% opposed.

A majority or plurality also opposes trading with these countries. Seventy-two percent oppose trade with Iraq, 60% oppose trade with Iran, and 50% oppose trade with North Korea.

Attitudes about Cuba - whose leader, Fidel Castro, receives a cold, 22-degree average thermometer reading —are significantly different from attitudes about the “axis.” There may be something of a thaw among the public. A solid 65% favor diplomatic relations with Cuba, and a small majority of 52% favor trade, with just 46% opposed. Only a bare majority of 51% favor economic sanctions, down 7 points from 1998.

While China is not officially considered a country of concern, a slight majority of 51% favor economic sanctions against it, while just 38% oppose them. However, a strong 71% favor U.S. trade with China, and 80% favor having diplomatic relations. These somewhat conflicting responses highlight the complicated U.S. relationship with China, in which disagreements over issues like human rights as well as wariness of its growing power coexist with a desire to engage China in the international community.

Using Foreign Aid Strategically

Foreign aid as a diplomatic tool of foreign policy generates little enthusiasm from the public. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, Americans feel positive about aid for clearly humanitarian purposes, but most do not place a high priority on giving foreign aid to fulfill strategic purposes, such as building up allies militarily. Few want to increase economic aid to most of the traditional recipient countries, and substantial minorities want to decrease it, even to countries where terrorism is a threat (see Figure 4-9).

Even for Israel, for example, 41% want to cut aid (26%) or stop it altogether (15%), while 37% want to keep it the same, and only 18% want to increase it. Similarly, for Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid, 38% want to cut (23%) or stop (15%) aid, while 46% want to maintain it at the same level, and 7% want to increase it.

Russia fares a bit better. Only 32% say they want to cut (17%) or stop (15%) aid, down 6 points from 1998. Forty-six percent want to keep it the same, and 16% want to increase it.

The most popular place for giving aid is African countries, which offer the clearest humanitarian rationale. Thirty-five percent of Americans favor increasing aid to African countries, up 11 percentage points since 1998. Thirty-seven percent prefer keeping aid to Africa at the present level, and only 22% want to cut it (13%) or stop it (9%). While India is also arguably a humanitarian case, public support for aid to India is lower, perhaps because of India’s nuclear weapons program or perceptions of its economic progress. Only 11% favor increasing economic aid to India, 39% favor cutting (22%) or stopping it (17%), and 44% favor keeping it the same.

Despite the large majority of Americans that favor helping poor countries develop their economies as a way of combating terrorism (78%), specific countries and populations closely associated with terrorism receive low levels of support for U.S. economic aid. For Pakistan, 51% of Americans want to cut (28%) or stop (23%) aid, while 32% want to keep it the same and just 12% want to increase it. Even Afghanistan has 45% wanting to cut (22%) or stop (23%) aid, while 29% want to keep it the same and 22% want to increase it. The least popular recipients of all are the Palestinians, with 54% of Americans wanting to cut (25%) or stop (29%) aid, 28% wanting to keep it the same, and just 12% wanting to increase it.

Promoting Democracy Abroad

Another nonmilitary strategy for pursuing U.S. interests (and humanitarian aims as well) is to promote democracy and human rights, with the hope of producing more friendly and peaceful as well as happier populations abroad. As compared with other goals for U.S. foreign policy, such aims score low on the “very important” rankings. But only very small percentages of Americans say that such goals are not important at all.

The goal of promoting and defending human rights is rated as very important by 47% of Americans (putting it just fifteenth among 20 goals ranked), but an additional 43% rate it as somewhat important; only 10% say not important. While few Americans give promoting and defending human rights a high priority compared to other goals of U.S. foreign policy, they clearly do not have a negative view of such efforts, giving international human rights groups a quite warm mean thermometer rating of 63 degrees.

The foreign policy goal of helping to bring a democratic form of government to other nations is rated as very important by only 34%, placing it nineteenth of 20 goals. But 49% say that spreading democracy should be somewhat important and only 15% rate it as not important. When asked about promoting democracy in the context of various types of foreign aid for humanitarian causes and not in the context of competing foreign policy goals, 64% say they favor assistance to promote democracy abroad.