GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
For fifty years, the majority of U.S. adults have said it is best for the future of the country that the United States take an active part in world affairs. Pure isolationists have generally been limited to just a quarter of the American public.
The latest update of this post-World War II trend was obtained last fall in a Chicago Council on Foreign Relations survey conducted by The Gallup Organization. Sixty-one percent of Americans in the poll, compared to 68% in a 1947 Gallup poll, said the U.S. should take an active role internationally. The Council has sponsored the current foreign policy survey every four years since 1974, tracking U.S. attitudes on this and a variety of other international issues.
The 1998 survey provides an interesting backdrop to the tepid public support being recorded today for American military involvement in the Balkans. (The most recent Gallup poll finds barely half of Americans in favor of U.S. participation in NATO air strikes on Serbian targets in Yugoslavia, and other polling indicates slim support for the presence of U.S. troops in Bosnia.)
Americans Define "Critical Threats" in Conventional Terms
While Americans indicate in the Chicago Council survey that they support an active international role, it is clear, when their responses to other questions are analyzed, that they define U.S. vital interests somewhat narrowly around military and biological threats. Specifically, three quarters or more of Americans consider international terrorism, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear proliferation to be critical threats to the vital interests of the United States. By contrast, less than half consider economic competition, Islamic fundamentalism, or regional ethnic conflicts to represent critical threats.
Americans' brand of active foreign involvement is also exemplified by their support for the NATO military alliance: 59% would maintain the United States' commitment and an additional 9% would increase it. Only one in five respondents said the U.S. should decrease or end its commitment to NATO. A majority of Americans, 57%, also thinks the U.S. should participate in peacekeeping operations in troubled parts of the world, rather than leave the job to other countries.
At the same time Americans favor NATO and support a peacekeeping role for the United States, they tell Gallup in the Chicago Council survey that they would oppose sending U.S. troops in response to Russia invading Poland, China invading Taiwan, a coup attempt in Cuba, and several other hypothetical situations where American soil is not directly threatened.
It should be noted that the Chicago Council survey was conducted several months before the arguments in favor of NATO intervention in Yugoslavia were publicly articulated by the Clinton Administration and other NATO leaders. However, the fall 1998 study did include a question about sending in U.S. troops if Serbian forces killed large numbers of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, showing only 36% in favor. That percentage is consistent with recent Gallup Poll results showing only 31% of Americans would favor Clinton sending U.S. ground troops to Kosovo if the air and missile attacks are not effective in achieving the United States' objectives.
Foreign Policy Goals Put America First
Americans were also asked to rate a variety of possible foreign policy goals in the Council survey. The ranking appears to be more in step with the political philosophy of isolationists such as Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan than with the grounds President Clinton outlined for U.S. involvement in Kosovo. At the top of Americans' list of foreign policy goals is preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, followed by stemming the flow of drugs into the U.S. and protecting American jobs. Combating terrorism and securing energy supplies also rank highly, with more than 60% rating these as very important goals. Defending our allies' security, defending human rights, and protecting weaker nations from aggression rank in the bottom half of the list of seventeen items tested.
There are two exceptions to the general pattern of self-interest outranking altruism on the list of foreign policy goals: combating world hunger-coming in ahead of maintaining superior military power worldwide-and improving the global environment, ranking ahead of reducing the U.S. trade deficit.
The 1998 Chicago Council on Foreign Relations survey was conducted by The Gallup Organization October 15-November 10, 1998 through in-person interviews with 1,507 national adults aged 18 and older, and has an associated margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points.
Do you 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?
|
Active part |
Stay out |
Don't know |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | |||
| 1998 |
61% |
28% |
11% |
| 1994 |
65 |
29 |
6 |
| 1990 |
62 |
28 |
10 |
| 1986 |
64 |
27 |
9 |
| 1982 |
54 |
35 |
11 |
| 1978 |
59 |
29 |
12 |
| 1974 |
66 |
24 |
10 |
| 1973 |
66 |
31 |
3 |
| 1956 |
71 |
25 |
4 |
| 1955 |
72 |
21 |
7 |
| 1954 |
69 |
25 |
6 |
| 1953 |
71 |
21 |
8 |
| 1952 |
68 |
23 |
9 |
| 1950 |
66 |
25 |
9 |
| 1949 |
68 |
25 |
7 |
| 1948 |
70 |
24 |
6 |
| 1947 |
68 |
25 |
7 |
I am going to read you a list of possible threats to the vital interest of the United States in the next 10 years. For each one, please tell me if you see this as a critical threat, an important but not critical threat, or not an important threat at all.
|
Critical Threat |
|
|---|---|
| Threats to U.S. Vital Interest | |
| International terrorism |
84% |
| Chemical and biological weapons |
76 |
| The possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers |
75 |
| AIDS, the Ebola virus, and other potential epidemics |
72 |
| The development of China as a world power |
57 |
| Large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the U.S. |
55 |
| Economic competition from Japan |
45 |
| Global warming |
43 |
| Economic competition from low-wage countries |
40 |
| Islamic fundamentalism |
38 |
| The military power of Russia |
34 |
| Regional ethnic conflicts |
34 |
| Economic competition from Europe |
24 |
Some people feel that NATO, the military organization of Western Europe and the United States, has outlived its usefulness, and that the United States should withdraw militarily from NATO. Others say that NATO still has a function in preserving peace in Europe. Do you feel we should increase our commitment to NATO, keep our commitment what it is now, decrease our commitment but still remain in NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?
|
Increase |
Keep |
Decrease |
Withdraw |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | ||||
| 1998 |
9 |
59 |
16 |
5 |
| 1994 |
5 |
56 |
20 |
6 |
| 1990 |
4 |
56 |
22 |
5 |
| 1986 |
8 |
62 |
11 |
5 |
| 1982 |
9 |
58 |
11 |
4 |
| 1978 |
9 |
58 |
9 |
4 |
| 1974 |
4 |
50 |
13 |
7 |
In general, when the United States is asked to be part of a United Nations international peacekeeping force in a troubled part of the world, do you think we should take part, or should we leave this job to other countries?
|
Should take part |
Should not take part |
Depends on circumstances |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 |
57% |
20% |
16% |
| 1994 |
51 |
19 |
23 |
There has been some discussion about the circumstances that might justify using U.S. troops in other parts of the world. I'd like to ask your opinion about some situations. First, would you favor or oppose the use of U.S. troops...
|
Favor |
Oppose |
Not sure |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Circumstances | |||
| If Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia |
46% |
43% |
11% |
| If Arab forces invaded Israel |
38 |
49 |
13 |
| If people in Cuba attempted to overthrow the Castro dictatorship |
38 |
51 |
11 |
| If Serbian forces killed large numbers of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo |
36 |
47 |
17 |
| If North Korea invaded South Korea |
30 |
58 |
12 |
| If Russia invaded Poland |
28 |
55 |
17 |
| If China invaded Taiwan |
27 |
58 |
15 |
I am going to read a list of possible foreign policy goals that the United States might have. For each one please say whether you think that it should be a very important foreign policy goal of the United States, a somewhat important foreign policy goal, or not an important goal at all.
|
Very Important |
|
|---|---|
| Foreign Policy Goal | |
| Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons |
82% |
| Stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States |
81 |
| Protecting the jobs of American workers |
80 |
| Combating international terrorism |
79 |
| Securing adequate supplies of energy |
64 |
| Combating world hunger |
62 |
| Maintaining superior military power worldwide |
59 |
| Controlling and reducing illegal immigration |
55 |
| Improving the global environment |
53 |
| Reducing our trade deficit with foreign countries |
50 |
| Strengthening the United Nations |
45 |
| Defending our allies' security |
44 |
| Promoting and defending human rights in other countries |
39 |
| Promoting market economies abroad |
34 |
| Protecting weaker nations against aggression |
32 |
| Helping to bring a democratic form of government to other nations |
29 |
| Helping to improve the standard of living of less developed nations |
29 |
