Georgia's Minister of Defence Tinatin Khidasheli (L) and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (R) address a NATO-Georgia Commission defense ministers meeting at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels February 11, 2016. REUTERS/Yves Herman
As the Republican primary wears on, Donald Trump has made a habit of accusing US allies of free riding on American coat tails when it comes to their national security. These allies should pay more, he says, or perhaps the US commitment simply needs to be scaled back. NATO is one of his most prominent targets, although he has also singled out Japan and South Korea. His arguments are not particularly new, and they are not particularly hard to understand. They have also been widely dismissed. But with NATO back in the news, now is a good time to take a look at how the US public views the alliance.
Polling on NATO goes back a long way. In fact, there was polling about NATO before there was even a NATO. In a 1948 Gallup poll—NATO was founded in 1949—65 percent supported a military alliance between the “United States and all the Western European countries participating in the Marshall Plan.” But almost 65 years later, perhaps because NATO is now largely taken for granted, the public is rarely even asked.
Pew appears to ask about the favorability of NATO every other year, and the results in the United States since 2009 have been stable, if somewhat worrying. While 53 percent held NATO in a favorable view in 2009, 49 percent stated the same in 2015. That is hardly a ringing endorsement from the American public. Perhaps Americans, like Mr. Trump, fail to see the utility of the organization. But this should not be taken to mean that Americans want to pull out of NATO—a move threatened by Mr. Trump if costs are not reallocated.
In the 2014 Chicago Council Survey, 66 percent of American preferred to keep the same commitment to NATO versus only 12 percent who wanted that commitment to decrease. (Twelve percent also wanted to see the commitment increased.) While the question did not specify what that commitment entailed—money, troop levels, etc.—it is clear that the American public is comfortable with the US relationship to NATO. In fact, support for the current commitment has grown since 1974 when the question was first asked. At that time, 50 percent wanted to keep the US commitment to NATO unchanged.
These numbers largely conform with a 2013 survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund. In its Transatlantic Trends, 55 percent of Americans stated that NATO was “still essential” while 50 percent of Europeans stated the same. However, the belief in NATO as still essential on both sides of the Atlantic was not because of its burden sharing or its role in deterring military threats. Instead, as the GMF report states, “its importance stemmed from its character as a community of democracies.”
If that latter point remains correct, the public and Mr. Trump hold divergent views on the role of NATO. The public’s view may stem from an overall lack of understanding based on years of NATO simply not being part of the security conversation. If that is indeed the case, criticism of NATO could very well be warranted. But that should not mean that the United States will simply pull out of the alliance. Instead, the organization as a whole should begin to look at reforms and new ways to explain its relevance to a new audience.
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.
NATO Leaders meet in Wales this week for what will be the most important Summit meeting since the end of the Cold War.
With the conflict in Syria well into its fourth year, Chicago Council Survey results from May 2014 show that a majority of the American public does not see the conflict in Syria as a critical threat to the United States.
Chicago Council Survey results from May, before the recent outbreak of fighting in Gaza, show that Americans did not see the lack of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to be a critical threat to the vital interests of the United States.
US-Russia relations appear to be at an all-time low ever since the establishment of the Russian Federation in the fall of 1991.
The New York Times and other news outlets reported today on President Obama's remarks about the delays surrounding the international investigation into the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter probably didn't watch the US play Belgium on Tuesday afternoon. But that didn't stop her from tweeting: “Doing the job Americans just won’t do: Immigrants fill up roster of ‘U.S.’ soccer team.”
Scholars overwhelmingly agree that NAFTA has been good for both the U.S. and Mexican economies.
Get ready for some new public opinion data from the 2014 Chicago Council Survey in the coming weeks. We will publicly release the full results in September, but will be offering previews on hot topics over the summer.
In today's post, we would like to highlight two surveys that were conducted in late March that have not been amplified as much as Pew, Gallup, and other polls about American attitudes on the situation in Ukraine.
Earlier in the Syria crisis, there was some American support for action beyond humanitarian efforts.
Today’s post is based on qualitative in-depth interviews among Syrians that were conducted by Charney Research in partnership with the The Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC), a Syrian-led and multilaterally-supported nonprofit.
While Russian President Vladimir V. Putin stated today that he saw no reason for a Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine right now, he left the option on the table, saying that Russia “reserves the right to use all means at our disposal to protect” Russian speakers in the country’s south and east if necessary.
As the crisis in Crimea evolves, both Ukranian and Russian military forces are on the move.
A post to help shed light on public perceptions of the US-Mexico relationship in advance of North American Summit tomorrow in Toluca, Mexico.