The American Political Science Association's Task Force on U.S. Standing in World Affairs published a report yesterday revealing that overall favorability about the U.S. has improved in some regions but that opinions about U.S. policy still tended to be negative throughout the world.
The report made a distinction between "favorability," which it defined as the image that people in other countries have of the U.S., and foreigners' actual opinions of U.S. foreign policy. The Task Force found differing views of the U.S. in other countries, in international organizations and within its own borders.
The improvement in favorability of the U.S. in some regions is partly because of Barack Obama's election as president, the report stated. The inherent complexity of international issues and pressure from American politicians, however, could prevent Obama from enacting changes in U.S. foreign policy to help improve people's overall opinions of U.S. policy.
"This is a big fault line for the Obama presidency," said Jeffrey Legro, Task Force chair and University Politics department chair. "The first tectonic plate is high expectations [for Obama to effect change] ... and the other is the inherent constraints of domestic policies ... There's going to be a groundswell of negative reaction and opposition to the U.S. if these two plates crash."
The Task Force collected information about the U.S.' standing abroad from a combination of sources, including Non-Government Organization reports, mass media analysis and information from experts on a particular geographic area, Legro said.
Task Force Members found that favorability has rebounded somewhat in Europe, but that opinions on policy itself differ based throughout the world.
"What accounts for this variation in opinion?" Legro said. "One is the inherent interest of the country. What is the U.S. doing about it?"
For example, Europe has tended to favor multi-lateralism, so Europeans' opinion of U.S. policies have generally declined, especially during the Bush administration, Legro said. Opinions of policy are stronger, and more positive in Africa, however, both because of aid provided to the continent during the Bush presidency and Obama's election, Legro noted.
In Asia, meanwhile, policy opinions have been more mixed. In South Asia, for example, the Bush administration's nuclear deal with India was viewed favorably there but was rejected by Pakistan, Legro said.
In East Asia, however, overall opinions of policy may be more favorable, except in China because it is a potential competitor with the U.S. in political and economic power.
Both favorability and opinion of U.S. policy seem to be the lowest in the Middle East out of all the world's regions, Legro said. He noted that some decisions, such as the bombing of Hezbollah and Hamas, may have been more popular with political elites who were concerned with their narrow interests. The public, meanwhile, may have had a larger tendency to view such decisions as anti-Muslim, Legro said. Additionally, the Middle Eastern public generally believe U.S. policy to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict has failed, he said.
When studying the U.S.'s standing in international organizations, meanwhile, the task force members focused on the United Nations, especially on the frequency with which other nations voted with the U.S.
Countries voted slightly more in agreement with the U.S. around the end of the Cold War, during the presidency of George H. W. Bush and the early years of Bill Clinton's administration, Legro said. From 1995-96, however, the U.S. was being perceived as a unilateral actor, and agreement with the country started to decline again.
The section of the report that focused on U.S. domestic standing, meanwhile, found that Americans now view the U.S.' position in the world more favorably than they did in 2002, Legro said. Despite this overall shift, the report found that people tended to view the U.S. position abroad based on their own political alignment. For example, Republicans tended to value the U.S.' credibility and power abroad, whereas Democrats tended to value its moral stature, Legro said. As a result, Republican opinion of U.S. foreign standing tends to be stronger when a Republican occupies the White House, and vice versa for Democrats.
The study has several implications and can be seen as a tool that can help frame the public debate on these complex issue. Overall, the Task Force believes U.S. standing is important because it affects American efforts in a number of areas, Legro said.
"The higher standing you have the more bang you get for your inherent resources capabilities, [which can be seen as] your power," Legro said. "Standing is also different from power. For example, since 2000, standing has been trending downwards while power has remained relatively constant."
The report, however, is not meant to be a definitive statement about the U.S.' standing, Task Force member Peter Trubowitz said.
"It's not intended to be the last word on this important debate, but really to help frame the discussion going forward," he said.
Read More
Graduating student leaders reflect on how they impacted the University community
By Jackie Bond and Brandon Kile | 6 hours agoAccording to Lilian Rojas, Board of Visitors student representative and fourth-year Batten student, the Class of 2024 is defined by its resilience.
D.C. baseball legend Ryan Zimmerman to deliver keynote Valedictory address
By Xander Tilock | YesterdayFamously nicknamed “Mr. National” for his many contributions to the Washington, D.C. franchise, Zimmerman is considered one of the most successful alumni in Virginia baseball history.
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould and Finn Trainer | 5 days agoThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
