April 11, 2018 | By Karl Friedhoff

Diplomacy in the Air on Korean Peninsula

Diplomacy is in the air on the Korean Peninsula. On April 27, South Korea’s Moon Jae-in will meet North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and then roughly one month later Donald Trump is slated to meet Kim at a location to be determined. These summits have largely been welcomed as either the beginning of more serious negotiations or at least a brief reprieve from the tensions that defined late 2017. But there are concerns that a failure in diplomacy could leave military conflict as the last option. That is an outcome that would be disastrous for South Koreans and is opposed by a majority of Americans in most polls.   

In South Korea, there is high approval of the upcoming summits. A Hankook Research poll conducted from March 26-27, 2018 finds that 86 percent favor the upcoming Moon-Kim summit and 86 percent also favor the Trump-Kim summit.

Despite this support, doubts persist about North Korea’s true intentions. Seven in ten (70%) South Koreans say that North Korea is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons and missiles. Perhaps because of this, there is little appetite in South Korea for a unilateral rollback of sanctions placed on North Korea. Nearly two-thirds (64%) want to maintain sanctions until progress is made. Just 30 percent think that easing sanctions should take place as an inducement.

These numbers help to frame President Moon’s pragmatic approach to North Korea. While pushing for engagement with North Korea, he has not called for concessions. Instead, he seems to be reading the public mood—a public that wants talks but not at the cost of another round of giveaways to North Korea. In taking this approach, his approval rates continue to hover around 70 percent.

In the unlikely event that North Korea gives up its weapons, what would become of US forces currently stationed in South Korea is an open question. But the South Korean public is clear on its preference—69 percent say that US forces should remain on the Korean Peninsula with just 27 percent saying US forces should leave.

Meanwhile, opinion in the United States on North Korea remains mostly opposed to military strikes against North Korea, but at least one poll has found support. In a Quinnipaic poll in January 2018, a majority (53%) say it is more important to avoid war with North Korea as opposed to 38 percent who say it is more important to take away North Korea’s nuclear weapons. In a poll by the same firm in October 2017, just 26 percent supported a preemptive strike against North Korea, with 62 percent opposed. An ABC poll from September 2017 found 67 percent said the US should only attack North Korea if it attacks American or its allies versus 23 percent that said the US should strike first. But from that same month, a CBS poll found a majority (58%) approve of military action against North Korea if diplomacy does not work.

The upcoming summits will be critical in determining how the situation on the Korean Peninsula develops moving forward. But in both South Korea and the United States there is hope that military confrontation can be avoided.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy. 

The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion. 

The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.

Archive

#TBT: That Time We All Feared Chemical and Biological Weapons

In the spirit of Throw Back Thursday, Running Numbers is digging out its archived polls to look back at America’s foreign policy feelings of old. This week, we’re looking at Council data on Americans' perceptions of the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons in the late 90s and early 00s.



| By Dina Smeltz

​Polls Measure So Much More than Voting Intentions

The polling community took a lot heat following the failure of forecasters and data journalists to predict Trump's triumph in the 2016 election. But polls measure so much more than voting intentions says Council senior fellow Dina Smeltz.


| By Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura

Public Opinion in the US and China

There is perhaps no more important bilateral relationship in the world today than the one between the United States and China—the world’s two most important players in terms of economics and security. Where do the Chinese and American publics stand on key issues in the relationship, and what policies do they want to see their respective nations pursue worldwide? 



| By Diana C. Mutz

How Trade Attitudes Changed from 2012-2016

Trade was an important issue in the recent presidential election, but not in the way the media and many prominent observers have led us to believe.  The dominant narrative in the media was that disgruntled manufacturing workers whose jobs had been sent overseas emerged, understandably, as trade’s strong opponents, thus making Trump with his strong anti-trade rhetoric their natural ally.


Who Run the World? Foreign Policy Attitudes on Women and Girls

In partnership with the New America Foundation, the 2016 Chicago Council Survey included two questions developed to provide better insight about the importance of promoting women's rights and women's participation in societies around the world. 




| By Dina Smeltz

The US-Russian Relationship

The 2016 Chicago Council Survey partnered with the Levada Analytical Center in Moscow to ask Americans and Russians how they feel about each other and—more importantly—each other’s government. 


| By Richard C. Eichenberg

Gender Difference in Foreign Policy Opinions: Implications for 2016

There are three patterns in American politics that take on special significance in 2016: the gender divide in Presidential elections; the low support for Donald Trump among women; and the growing discussion in the foreign policy community about the inclusion of women in the policy process. Nonresident fellow Richard Eichenberg explores the extent of gender difference in the 2016 Chicago Council Survey data and assesses the relevance of any differences to this year’s presidential election.