Press Release
Key Findings
September 16 Release
Final Report
Questionnaire
Project Background
Contact Us
Site Map

A WORLD TRANSFORMED: FOREIGN POLICY ATTITUDES
OF THE U.S. PUBLIC AFTER SEPTEMBER 11

Americans' perceptions of the world and their role in it have undergone a seismic shift since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A comprehensive new poll by The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States shows a pattern of increased international awareness, concern, and activism among Americans. The findings suggest that Americans feel a greater sense of vulnerability than they have at any time in the past three decades of Chicago Council surveys and are supporting with new vigor an active, multilateral foreign policy.

Among the key findings detailed in this report:

TERRORISM TROUBLES AMERICANS MORE THAN ANY OTHER NATIONAL PROBLEM OR THREAT, BUT IS NOT A PREOCCUPATION.

The attacks of September 11 propelled terrorism to the forefront of the public agenda. A year after the attacks, terrorism is the number one perceived threat to U.S. vital interests in the next 10 years. An overwhelming 91% of Americans call international terrorism a "critical" threat, up 7 percentage points since 1998.

Nearly as many people say the same thing about three related dangers: chemical and biological weapons (86% critical threat), Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction (86%), and the possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers (85%). The percentage that views Islamic fundamentalism as a critical threat (61%) has jumped 23 points since 1998.

Terrorism tops the list of the most commonly cited foreign policy problems facing the United States, jumping 21 percentage points from 1998 to 33%. It ranks far higher than any other foreign policy problem mentioned by the public in this or any previous Chicago Council surveys since the question was first asked in 1978.

Terrorism also leapt to first place among the most commonly cited general problems facing the country (36%), the first time a foreign policy-related problem has been the most cited response on this question.

Foreign policy-related problems now make up 41% of the total number of responses, a dramatic 34 point increase from 1998. They rank higher than any other type of problem, including economic, government, and social problems, for the first time in these surveys.

These findings suggest that Americans feel a greater sense of vulnerability and greater need for alertness than they have at any time in the past three decades. Responses to an open-ended question about the most important lesson of September 11 reflect this feeling of personal vulnerability and the desire of Americans to protect themselves from these perceived dangers.

 

The concern about terrorism has affected a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, from increased attention to foreign affairs to the desire for government action. At the same time, Americans' concern about terrorism is not a preoccupation. It is not an exclusive concern, it has faded somewhat since the autumn of 2001, and in historical context it does not match the intensity with which Americans focused on such major events as World War II or the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Bread-and-butter economic concerns remain very high on the public agenda.
   

PUBLIC INTEREST IN WORLD NEWS IS THE STRONGEST IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST THREE DECADES OF COUNCIL SURVEYS.

The events of September 11 have made Americans more interested in, attentive to, and aware of what is happening outside their borders. Following a steady decline in Americans' attentiveness to the news over the 1990s to near-record lows, the proportions "very interested" in news about other countries (42%), about U.S. relations with other countries (62%), and even about national news (62%) have jumped to the highest levels ever recorded in Council surveys since they began in 1974, jumping 13, 17, and 15 percentage points respectively between 1998 and 2002. Although surveys during the past year by Pew and others have shown that the enormous surge of news attention that occurred immediately after 9/11 has gradually eased off, strong interest in the news continues a year after the September 11 attacks.

   

MORE AMERICANS SUPPORT AN ACTIVE FOREIGN POLICY TO DEAL WITH A WIDE RANGE OF INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS.

One of the most important long-term gauges of American internationalism is the question of whether people think it will be best for the future of the country if we take an "active part" in world affairs or if we "stay out" of world affairs. By this measure, internationalism has risen to the high levels that others found in the mid-1950s, with 71% of the public favoring an active part.

This suggests that much, though not all, of the surge in internationalism that occurred immediately after September 11, 2001, documented in a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), has endured a year later. A large majority of Americans (83%) also say that it is very desirable (41%) or somewhat desirable (42%) that the United States exert "strong leadership in world affairs." Only 14% say it is somewhat undesirable (9%) or very undesirable (5%).Americans express strong support for a multifaceted internationalism. Support for an active foreign policy extends to a wide range of foreign policy goals.

High proportions of the public see as "very important" not only the goal of combating international terrorism (91%), but also such diverse aims as preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (90%), protecting the jobs of American workers (85%), stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States (81%), securing adequate supplies of energy (75%), controlling and reducing illegal immigration (70%), maintaining superior military power worldwide (68%), and improving the global environment (66%).


AMERICANS SHOW HIGH SUPPORT FOR MULTILATERAL, RATHER THAN UNILATERAL, APPROACHES TO FOREIGN POLICY.

Long-standing American support for multilateral approaches to dealing with international problems has been reaffirmed and in some cases strengthened in the aftermath of September 11. Asked, "What do you think is the more important lesson of September 11-that the United States needs to work more closely with other countries to fight terrorism or that the United States needs to act on its own more to fight terrorism," 61% of Americans said that the United States should work more closely with other countries, while 34% said it should act on its own more. In addition, large majorities favor participating in a variety of treaties and agreements. When given three alternatives about the role of the United States in solving international problems, most Americans (71%) say the United States should do its share in solving international problems "together with other countries."

Only 17% say that "as the sole remaining superpower the United States should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems." Nine percent say the United States "should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems." On two separate questions, 62% percent reject the role of the United States as "world policeman," defined as fighting violations of international law and aggression wherever they occur, and 65% say the United States is playing the role of world policeman more than it should.

In at least one respect, unilateralist sentiment has risen. Asked whether, in responding to international crises, the United States should or should not take action alone if it does not have the support of its allies, the proportion saying "should not" act alone has dropped 11 percentage points since 1998 from 72% to 61%. However, this still represents a strong majority opposing unilateral action, with only 31% saying the United States should act alone.

   

AMERICANS SHOW A READINESS TO USE MILITARY FORCE, ESPECIALLY TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND WHEN DONE MULTILATERALLY.
AN INCREASED MAJORITY FAVORS ASSASSINATION OF TERRORIST LEADERS.

Americans express a willingness to use military force, including ground troops, in a variety of situations. This is especially true of military action aimed directly at combating terrorism and of multilateral rather than unilateral action. If a multilateral approach is not specified, however, the survey found no majority in favor of using force in several key scenarios that might involve extensive casualties.

In order to combat terrorism, an overwhelming majority of Americans (87%), favor U.S. air strikes against terrorist training camps (up 13 percentage points since 1998.) A hefty 84% favor similar attacks by U.S. ground troops, up a remarkable 27 percentage points, perhaps because of the nearly casualty-free success of the war in Afghanistan.

The use of military troops to "destroy a terrorist camp" is approved by fully 92% of the public. Smaller but still substantial majorities of the public also favor using U.S. troops to assist the Philippine government in fighting terrorism, to topple unfriendly regimes that support terrorist groups, and to help the government of Pakistan against a radical Islamic revolution. A solid 66% of Americans (up 12 points since 1998) favor the assassination of individual terrorist leaders.

Multilateralism plays a key role in attitudes about the use of U.S. troops in response to hypothetical invasions of other countries. Seventy-seven percent of Americans favor the United States contributing military forces "together with other countries" to a UN-sponsored effort to reverse the aggression if Iraq were to invade Saudi Arabia. But when no such collective action is suggested, only 48% favor using U.S. troops. Indeed, in not one of the four invasion scenarios we posed (North Korea invading South Korea, Iraq invading Saudi Arabia, Arab forces invading Israel, China invading Taiwan) did a majority of Americans favor using U.S. troops when no multilateral context was specified.
   

AMERICANS BACK AN INVASION OF IRAQ, BUT ONLY WITH UN AND ALLIES' SUPPORT.

A large majority (76%) of Americans believe that the United States has a vital interest in Iraq. Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction is called a critical threat to vital U.S. interests by an overwhelming 86% of the public. No other country produces more hostile feelings: Americans reserve their coldest thermometer ratings for Iraq (an average of 23 degrees on a scale of 0-100) and its leader, Saddam Hussein (a frigid 8 degrees).

When asked in general terms, a strong majority of 75% favor using U.S. troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government, with only 21% opposed. But in responses to another question that differentiates among alternative approaches, it becomes clear that multilateralism is essential to this support. Only 20% say that the United States should invade Iraq "even if we have to go it alone." Fully 65% say the United States should only invade Iraq "with UN approval and the support of its allies," while 13% say that the United States should not invade Iraq in any case.

It is also noteworthy that not much concern about Iraq emerges spontaneously when people are asked about big problems facing the country. Only 3% mention Iraq or Saddam Hussein as one of the two or three biggest foreign policy problems facing the United States, and fewer than 1% mention Iraq among the two or three biggest general problems facing the country today.

   

AMERICANS SUPPORT GREATER SPENDING ON INTELLIGENCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY; INCREASED NUMBERS, THOUGH STILL ONLY A MINORITY, SUPPORT GREATER SPENDING ON DEFENSE.

Public support for increased spending on gathering intelligence information about other countries has jumped a remarkable 39 percentage points since 1998, with 66% now saying that such spending should be expanded and only 6% saying cut back. A similar 65% want to expand spending on homeland security, a topic not asked about before.

The proportion of the public wanting to expand defense spending has risen by 14 points to 44%, the highest level in any Chicago Council survey-other surveys reveal a spike during1979-81.

Only 15% want to cut back and 38% say keep it about the same. Though still not a majority, the higher percentage wanting to expand than wanting to cut back represents a shift from Council findings over most of the past 30 years, when the percentages for cutting back were generally higher than for expanding defense spending. At the same time, the level of support for expanding defense spending falls well below the proportions wanting to expand spending on health (77%), education (75%), programs to combat violence and crime (70%), and Social Security (64%).
   

AMERICANS SHOW STRONG SUPPORT FOR BASING U.S. TROOPS OVERSEAS.

A majority of Americans (57%) are satisfied, in general terms, with the number of bases the United States currently has overseas, saying they favor keeping that number the same. One-quarter (25%) say the United States should have more bases, and 14% say fewer. When asked about 10 actual or potential locations for bases, a majority favors having bases in all but one of those countries. Support is highest for bases with longtime allies or in well-established locations: in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been frequently in the news for housing detainees from the Afghan war (70% say we should have bases there); in Germany (69% "should"), South Korea (67%), the Philippines (66%), Saudi Arabia (65%), and Japan (63%). Somewhat smaller proportions of the public say we should have bases in Turkey (58%), Afghanistan (57% "should," 40% "should not"), and Pakistan (52% "should," 41% "should not"). The public is evenly split (41% "should" to 42% "should not") regarding bases in Uzbekistan, a very recent partner in the war against terrorism.
   

NONMILITARY APPROACHES TO COMBATING TERRORISM, SUCH AS WORKING THROUGH AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, GARNER VERY HIGH SUPPORT.

In addition to support for military approaches to combating terrorism, the U.S. public shows very high support for nonmilitary, diplomatic, and multilateral approaches. In order to combat terrorism, an overwhelming 88% of Americans favor "working through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism and to make sure UN members enforce them."

About the same number favor diplomatic efforts to apprehend suspects and dismantle terrorist training camps (89%) and setting up an international system to cut off funding for terrorism (89%). Nearly as many favor the trial of suspected terrorists in an International Criminal Court (83%) and diplomatic efforts to improve U.S. relations with potential adversary countries (80%.)

In the same context, smaller but still substantial majorities favor making a major effort to be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (66%) and sharing intelligence information with other countries (58%). Even foreign aid is seen as an important means of combating terrorism. "Helping poor countries develop their economies" is endorsed by 78% in order to combat terrorism.

   

THE GEOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE IS SHIFTING IN THE MINDS OF AMERICANS.

The perceptions of U.S. vital interests in long-time allies and friends have strengthened. France, Great Britain, Israel, Germany, and Canada are now all rated more highly in perceived vital interest than in 1998. Feelings toward these partner nations have not changed significantly; however, they continue to range from barely above neutral (Israel and France) to very positive (Britain and Canada.) In addition, the countries of the European Union are seen by the highest proportion of respondents-77%-as either very or somewhat reliable partners in the war on terrorism. It is striking, too, that a dozen years after the end of the Cold War, 74% of Americans see Russia as a reliable partner in the war on terrorism.

Countries connected to the war on terrorism have risen in perceived importance even as they fall in terms of favorability on the thermometer scale. Not surprisingly, judgments that Afghanistan is a vital U.S. interest have jumped up markedly, from 45% to 73%, but the average rating of Afghanistan on the feeling thermometer is a chilly 29 degrees. Similarly, Pakistan is seen by 76% of the public as a vital interest. But feelings about Pakistan have grown cooler since 1998, dropping to 31 degrees. Fifty percent consider Pakistan either somewhat or very unreliable as a partner in the war on terrorism.

Saudi Arabia remains one of the top-ranked countries of the world in terms of vital interests (tying with Japan and China for first out of 30 countries), but it has fallen by 13 degrees-the largest decrease in the survey-to an average rating of just 33 degrees on the feeling thermometer. Saudi Arabia is also seen by a substantial majority (61%) a somewhat or very unreliable partner in the war on terrorism. The proportion of respondents rating Iran as a country of vital interest has gone up, but feelings toward Iran remain very cool, at 28 degrees on the thermometer.

AMERICANS FEAR ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND DEMONSTRATE AMBIVALENCE ABOUT MUSLIMS, BUT REJECT THE INEVITABILITY OF A "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS."

There has been a sharp shift toward increased wariness of Islam in post-9/11 America. The proportion of the public calling Islamic fundamentalism a critical threat to vital U.S. interests has jumped 23 points to 61%, putting it in seventh position out of 20 threats ranked. In addition, four out of ten Americans say that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon "represent the true teachings of Islam" to a great degree (21%) or "to some degree" (18%). Seventeen percent say "not very much" and 40% "not at all."

Suspicion and concern extends to Arab and Muslim people. By more than a three-to-one margin (76% to 22%), Americans say that based on the events of 9/11, U.S. immigration laws should be tightened to restrict the number of immigrants from Arab or Muslim countries into the United States, and 77% say that in order to combat terrorism they favor restricting immigration into the United States. Outside the terrorism context, opinion also tilts toward decreasing immigration in general, suggesting that the 9/11 attacks may have fueled a broad reaction against "outsiders." A small majority of 54% to 43% also favor using racial profiling in airport security checks in order to combat international terrorism.

At the same time, a large majority of Americans reject the "clash of civilizations" notion. Only 27% endorse the idea that because Muslim religious, social, and political traditions are incompatible with Western ways, violent conflict between the two civilizations is inevitable. Instead, 66% believe that because most Muslims are like people everywhere, we can find common ground and violent conflict between the civilizations is not inevitable. Supporting this point, "the Muslim people" receive a neutral 49 degree average rating on the feeling thermometer, about the same as the ratings of several prominent institutions (e.g., multinational corporations and the World Court), several friendly countries (e.g., Taiwan, Poland, South Africa), and former President Bill Clinton.
   

DESPITE A HIGH OVERALL JOB PERFORMANCE RATING FOR PRESIDENT BUSH, A MODEST MAJORITY GIVES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION POSITIVE RATINGS ON ITS HANDLING OF TERRORISM, AND ONLY A THIRD DO SO ON IRAQ.

The administration's handling of terrorism and the war in Afghanistan are also rated moderately, at 55% excellent or good for each of them. But the 43% and 41%, respectively, saying "fair" or "poor," indicates that the public's endorsement of the Bush's administration's handling of terrorism and the Afghan war is not a resounding one.

President Bush's overall standing in the polls remains quite positive. In the Chicago Council survey, the public gives President Bush a very warm average thermometer rating of 72 degrees, matched among heads of governments only by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. A Harris Interactive poll conducted at about the same time found a total of 70% of Americans rate the Bush administration's overall job performance as "excellent" (28%) or "pretty good" (42%). Yet the public rates Bush administration's handling of overall foreign policy only moderately positively, with a total of 53% calling it "excellent" or "good," and 44% saying "fair" or "poor."


SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Harris Interactive conducted 2,862 telephone interviews in the United States among men and women,18 years of age and older, using a random digit dialing technique with a national probability sample. In addition, personal in-home interviews with a national probability sample of 400 men and women aged 18 years of age and older were conducted using an abridged version of the telephone questionnaire. All interviewing of the general public was conducted between June 1 and June 30, 2002. Data for the telephone and in-person interviews were weighted separately according to known demographic characteristics of the population and merged to form a combined sample (n=3,262). The margin of error, at the .05 probability level, varies between 1.7 and 4 percentage points, depending upon whether the entire sample or a random sub-sample was asked a given question. Data prior to 2002, except for 1974, were collected by the Gallup Organization; Harris collected the 1974 data. The CCFR surveys have been conducted every four years since 1974.

Ongoing analysis of the 2002 data has revealed some systematic differences between telephone and in-person responses, including a higher level of "not sure" responses in person. The combined data set mitigates these differences. In addition, in interpreting changes from the 1998 CCFR survey, conducted entirely in person, we have adopted the conservative strategy of underscoring only those changes that are apparent in both the telephone and the in-person 2002 data.