September 16, 2014 | By Dina Smeltz

Foreign Policy in the Age of Retrenchment

Yesterday, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs released Foreign Policy in the Age of Retrenchment, the first of several reports on the 2014 Chicago Council Survey. Below are a selection of key findings from the report, which you can find in full at www.thechicagocouncil.org. Be sure to follow @ChicagoCouncil@IvoHDaalder, @RoguePollster, and @ckafura for continuing discussion of the 2014 Survey results. 

Among much of the political elite today, a specter is haunting America—the specter of isolationism. Since the last Chicago Council Survey in 2012, many policymakers, politicians, and pundits have come to question the continued willingness of Americans to engage in world affairs. As global troubles brew in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine, some claim that the public is turning inward and resistant to any sort of US military intervention. And they have used public opinion polling to argue their points.

Public continues to support an active role for the United States in world affairs.

But a new survey by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, conducted from May 6 to 29, 2014, demonstrates that isolationism is not the appropriate term to describe current public opinion. Public support for international engagement remains solid, with six in ten Americans in favor of an active role in world affairs. At the same time, four in ten Americans now say the US should stay out of world affairs—a proportion that has grown to its highest point since the first Chicago Council Survey in 1974.



The new survey data show that this growing desire among Americans to “stay out” of world affairs is linked to increased criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a decreased sense of threat, a long-standing desire to focus on domestic problems, and an increased divide among Republicans on this question. But the data do not show a desire to disengage from the world. Instead, results of the 2014 Chicago Council Survey confirm continued, and in some cases even growing support for US international involvement, especially when it comes to nonmilitary forms of engagement.

Indeed, the most striking finding of the 2014 Chicago Council Survey is the essential stability of American attitudes toward international engagement, which have not changed all that much since the Council conducted its first public opinion survey 40 years ago. As they have for four decades, Americans support strong US international leadership, place primacy on protecting American jobs over other foreign policy goals, favor diplomacy with countries that are hostile toward the United States, support participation in many international treaties and agreements, and endorse trade despite economic setbacks. Americans remain selective about when they will support putting US troops in harm’s way, but are most likely to do so in response to top threats or humanitarian crises.

Public aversion to the use of force is long-standing.

Much of the discussion around Americans’ current foreign policy mood is centered upon war weariness and public opposition to military intervention in places like Syria and Ukraine. Indeed, with seven in ten Americans now viewing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as not worth the cost, public hesitancy about military intervention is real. But it is not new. In fact, since the first Chicago Council Survey in 1974, Americans have consistently expressed reluctance to use military force to solve international problems, especially when doing so involves putting “boots on the ground.” That skepticism persists today, with little public support for military intervention in Ukraine in the event of Russian invasion (30%), sending troops into Syria (17%), or leaving US forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to support counterterrorism and anti-insurgency operations (33%). And though arming the rebels in Syria may not pose a direct risk to Americans, only one in four support doing so (25%), consistent with past public opposition to arming rebel groups.

Americans will support force if they sense a direct threat.

At the same time, the 2014 Chicago Council Survey shows that Americans will support the use of force when they feel directly threatened, if they expect the response to be relatively low cost and low risk, or in case of a humanitarian disaster. Thus, a majority of Americans is prepared to use US troops to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon (69%). And as they have for more than a decade, majorities are willing to put US troops in harm’s way in order to combat terrorism (56% support sending ground troops to attack terrorist training camps) and to ensure the oil supply (54%). Support for military action goes up when such actions pose little to no hazard to American soldiers, including air strikes to carry out bombing attacks against terrorist camps and facilities (71%), assassinations of individual terrorist leaders (70%), and drone strikes against suspected terrorists (63%).

Moreover, at least in principle, Americans support sending US troops to prevent a government-sponsored genocide (71%) and to help with humanitarian crises (71%). Importantly, support for using force in all these cases is not confined to those Americans who want the US to play an active role in world affairs. Even among those who say the United States should stay out of world affairs, majorities would support the use of force in most of these cases.

Majorities support alliances, treaties, and keeping a military edge.

The discussion on American views of the US role in the world has tended to emphasize public caution about the use of force. But this ignores the fact that Americans today generally support many other forms of global engagement, including strong alliances, trade agreements, international treaties, strategic uses of sanctions, and diplomacy. This is true even for those who prefer that the United States “stay out” of world affairs, though they are less supportive of providing economic and military assistance to other countries. Even while reluctant to use forces, Americans nevertheless consider maintaining US military superiority one of the most effective ways to achieve US foreign policy goals. They also continue to support maintaining a long-term US military presence overseas. And while Americans have grown even more critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2012, they are not calling for large-scale cutbacks in defense spending.

                      

Globalization receives the highest endorsement ever; majorities support new trade agreements.

As much as they value US military superiority, Americans believe economic power is more important to a nation’s power and influence in the world. As the US economy continues to recover from the largest global economic collapse since the 1930s, Americans continue to express broad support for globalization and free trade. Two out of three Americans say that globalization is mostly a good thing (65%), the highest recorded percentage to feel this way since the question was first asked in 1998. Six in ten also support the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe (62%) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being negotiated with a dozen Pacific Rim countries (63%).

Americans continue to support diplomacy and sanctions.

Americans prefer a diplomacy-first strategy before—if at all—resorting to force. For example, six in ten (62%) support the interim agreement between Iran and the United States, and nearly eight in ten (77%) support diplomatic efforts to stop Iranian enrichment. A large majority of Americans also supports continuing diplomatic efforts to get North Korea to suspend its nuclear weapons program (85%). In addition, in several surveys conducted since 2008, consistent majorities think that US leaders should be ready to meet and talk with leaders of Cuba (73% in 2014), Iran (67%), and North Korea (61%). Half continue to favor talking with the Taliban (49%), Hezbollah (50%), and Hamas (50%).

Americans also support sanctions as a means of achieving US foreign policy goals. Two in three Americans support the United States and its allies increasing economic and diplomatic sanctions on the Assad regime in Syria (67%). A large majority of Americans support the UN Security Council placing sanctions on Iran if Iran commits a major violation of the interim treaty (83%, slightly higher than the 77 percent who favor continuing diplomatic efforts).

Americans draw distinctions between spying on friends and foes.

Despite the international resentment created in the wake of revelations about US surveillance programs, only one in three (34%) supports placing greater restrictions on the National Security Agency (NSA). A plurality thinks the budget for general information-gathering activities of the CIA and NSA should remain the same as it is now (41%).

Americans tend to support spying on countries for which they have unfavorable views and oppose spying on those governments they view favorably. Seven in ten or more think the United States should be listening in on the governments of China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Russia. Compared to 20 years ago, even more Americans now favor spying on China, Mexico, North Korea, and Russia. Majorities—to varying degrees—oppose spying on Brazil, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

More Republicans than Democrats now support “staying out” of world affairs.

For the first time in the 40-year history of the Chicago Council Survey, more self-described Democrats (64%) than Republicans (60%) support an active international role for the United States. Conversely, Republicans (40%) are now more likely than Democrats (35%) to say that the United States should “stay out” of world affairs. In fact, since 2006, the proportion of Republicans who say they want the United States to “stay out” of world affairs has nearly doubled (from 20% to 40% today). Independents have also grown substantially more likely to say they want the United States to “stay out” of world affairs, increasing from 30 percent in 2006 to 48 percent today.

Other results seem to confirm the traditional leanings of partisans, with Republicans expressing highest support for the use of force, Democrats most likely to support peacekeeping and multilateralism, and Independents lying somewhere in between. Yet the shift on the proper role of the United States in world affairs may hint at emerging differences among supporters of the Republican Party, perhaps reflecting the political debate among Republican political leaders on the future of American foreign policy.

Conclusion

A review of Chicago Council Surveys conducted over the past 40 years—covering Vietnam, the Cold War, the 9/11 attacks, the rise of China, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 2008 financial collapse—shows that American attitudes on foreign engagement have been remarkably stable. Throughout, Americans have expressed a preference for a foreign policy that relies on multiple means of engagement, avoiding military entanglements overseas, while ensuring we remain strong militarily and economically. That was true 40 years ago. It is equally true today.

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








| By Bettina Hammer

Americans Aren't Fans of Arms Sales

The United States has long been the tops arms supplier in the world. Yet public opinion data shows that Americans aren’t fans of U.S. arms sales.


| By Bettina Hammer

Little Admiration for the United States among MENA Publics

Most Americans believe that respect and admiration for the United States are instrumental in achieving US foreign policy goals. But a new poll finds publics in the Middle East and North Africa continue to view the United States unfavorably. 


| By Bettina Hammer

Peace to Prosperity Misses the Mark with Palestinians

At the June 25-26 Bahrain Peace to Prosperity Workshop, Jared Kushner presented the first component of a U.S. peace plan for the Middle East. But how does this plan sit with the Palestinian public?



| By Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm

Scholars vs the Public: Collapse of the INF Treaty

In early February 2019, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty following President Trump’s October 2018 (and the Obama administration’s July 2014) accusations that Russia was failing to comply with the treaty. Russia withdrew from the treaty the next day.

Findings from a February 2019 Chicago Council on Global Affairs general public survey and a December 2018 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of International Relations (IR) scholars around the world illustrate how these different populations perceive the collapse of the INF Treaty.



| By Craig Kafura

Expert Panel Survey: US Focus on the Denuclearization of North Korea

Despite expectations for the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, their recent summit in Hanoi ended with no agreement toward denuclearization. With that in mind, we asked our panel of foreign policy experts whether the United States should continue to focus primarily on denuclearization, or shift to arms control and non-proliferation.