May 2, 2018 | By Karl Friedhoff

Consequences of Success on the Korean Peninsula

South Korea’s Moon Jae-in should take a moment to bask in the glow of the successful summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. His approval rates have spiked to 86 percent from the already lofty mid-70s, making him the most supported South Korean president at this point in his term. His meeting at the DMZ created momentum going into the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and the North’s Kim. And along the way he has outmaneuvered Korea’s long-time frenemy, Japan.

But recent polling data suggests that the pageantry of the summit may have been a little too successful. (These results do have a couple caveats; more on that later.) That success may lead the South Korean public to ask hard questions about the alliance with the United States.

Before the South-North summit began, just 15 percent of the South Korean public trusted that North Korea actually intended to denuclearize and pursue peace. That was true for conservatives (14%), moderates (12%), and even progressives (21%). It was also true across all age groups, and was lowest among those 19-29 years old (10%).

But as the summit played out, those numbers changed dramatically.

Even among conservatives—a group generally not supportive of President Moon—there was a 26 percent surge in trust in North Korea, reaching 40 percent. Among moderates, that number reached 63 percent (a 51 point gain), and among progressives it hit 84 percent (a 63 point gain). Moreover, a majority of all age groups now report trust in North Korea’s willingness to denuclearize and pursue peace.

Now, a couple caveats. First, the numbers above are not from before and after polls. Instead, they were taken from a single poll—fielded on the day of the summit—which asked respondents about their attitudes before the summit and current attitudes while seeing the summit play out. The initial positive stagecraft of the meeting may have influenced some respondents—most likely making the trust numbers higher than they would be otherwise. Second, the question wording itself is double barreled. The question asks about trust in North Korea’s will to pursue “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a peace settlement” in one go. That makes it impossible to identify to which issue respondents are reacting.

Subsequent polls may reveal that this positive shift was temporary. But if those numbers erode only slightly, and trust in North Korea’s commitment to this process remains relatively high, it may lead the South Korean public to question who is responsible for holding up the nascent peace process on the Korean Peninsula. The most obvious answer will be the United States—especially with 67 percent holding negative views of Donald Trump. That will be especially true if the summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un yields little.

President Moon has already said that he wants US forces to stay in South Korea even if a peace agreement is reached, contradicting one of his closest advisors. (It should be noted a large majority of the South Korean public continues to cite the US alliance as necessary.) But should the United States appear to be the party holding up the process, those numbers could shift quickly. And if North Korea really is intent on pursuing peace, just how necessary will the alliance continue to be to the South Korean public?

Joohyun Kwon contributed to this piece.


Dina Smeltz joined The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February 2012 as a senior fellow in public opinion and foreign policy, and directed the Council’s 2012 survey of American public opinion (see Foreign Policy in the New Millennium).  She has nearly 20 years of experience in designing and fielding international social, political and foreign policy surveys.

As the director of research in the Middle East and South Asia division (2001-2007) and analyst/director of the European division (1992-2004) in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the US State Department’s Office of Research, Dina conducted over a hundred surveys in these regions and regularly briefed senior government officials on key research findings. Her experience includes mass public and elite surveys as well as qualitative research.  She has written numerous policy-relevant reports on Arab, Muslim and South Asian regional attitudes toward political, economic, social and foreign policy issues.  Her writing also includes policy briefs and reports on the post-1989 political transitions in Central and Eastern Europe, and European attitudes toward a wide range foreign policy issues including globalization, European integration, immigration, NATO, and European security.

With a special emphasis research in post-conflict situations (informally referred to as a “combat pollster”), Dina has worked with research teams in Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel-Palestinian Territories and in Iraq (2003-2005), where she was one of the few people on the ground who could accurately report average Iraqis impressions of the postwar situation.  In the past three years, Dina has consulted for several NGOs and research organizations on projects spanning women’s development in Afghanistan, civil society in Egypt and evaluating voter education efforts in Iraq.

Dina has an MA from the University of Michigan and a BS from Pennsylvania State University.

Feel free to email Dina with comments or questions at


| By Dina Smeltz

Opinion Landscape Not Ideal for New Mideast Peace Plan

At a Middle East conference this month in Warsaw, Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and Mideast adviser, said that the administration will unveil its much-vaunted Middle East peace plan after the April 9 Israeli elections.

| By Karl Friedhoff

America the Dangerous

The Trump administration has taken a hard line on China, but has failed to convince the American public or many allies to follow suit. Instead, publics around the world now see the United States as a major threat.

| By Craig Kafura

2018: Year in Chicago Council Surveys

It's been a busy, eventful year around the world. Throughout 2018, the Council's polling team has captured public and opinion leader attitudes on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, including US-Russia relations, American views of China, public support for internationalism and trade, and how the rising generation of Millennials think about American foreign policy.

| By Karl Friedhoff

Confidence in Congress Low

As the House becomes majority Democrat, there is low confidence among the American public for Congress--and several other institutions--to shape policies that benefit the United States.

| By Craig Kafura

Public Support for Foreign Aid Programs

Past surveys have found that Americans want to cut US spending on foreign assistance and dramatically overestimate how much the US spends on those programs. When asked to construct their own US budget in the 2018 Chicago Council Survey, Americans allocate far more than the US actually spends. 

| By James Drimalla

Bleak Outlook on US-Russia Relations

A new joint report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center finds experts have little hope for US-Russia relations in the near future.

| By James Drimalla

Millennials' Divergent Views on Global Affairs

Attitudes and beliefs frequently change from generation to generation and a new joint study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, CATO Institute, and Charles Koch Institute explores generational differences between the American public on foreign policy issues.