April 11, 2019 | 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.

The American public lacks consensus on the best way to deal with Russia, with many respondents viewing the issue along partisan lines. Self-described Republicans support the United States leaving the INF Treaty (72%). However, when asked whether the United States should undertake friendly cooperation and engagement with Russia or actively work to limit Russian power, Republicans are split—49 percent saying the United States should cooperate while 46 percent prefer working to limit Russia’s power. Democrats, on the other hand, oppose the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty (74%) but are more in favor of containment (66%, 31% cooperate). Independents also oppose INF Treaty withdrawal (56%) but are split between cooperation (47%) and limiting Russian power (50%).

IR scholars, however, oppose the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. The TRIP survey breaks down results by economic ideology, in lieu of party affiliation, and finds strong opposition among moderates (82%) and liberals (90%) though there is less consensus among conservatives (51% oppose)[1]. Moreover, TRIP also asked scholars who opposed withdrawal from the treaty if they would support or oppose withdrawal from the INF if they were to see definitive evidence that Russia is in violation of its terms (conservative = 61%, moderate = 64%, liberal = 74%).

Despite the divisions among the public, the results also show that across the political spectrum, there is strong support for the United States and Russia to come to an agreement to limit nuclear weapons (Republicans = 90%, Democrats = 89%, Independent = 94%). This suggests that Republican backing for leaving the INF Treaty was the result of support for a Republican president. Whether the ruin of the INF Treaty will substantially affect US-Russian relations remains to be seen. Nonetheless, these developments will contribute to the global concerns about great power conflict and could further portray the United States as a unilateralist power.

 

[1] Susan Peterson, Ryan Powers, and Michael J. Tierney, 2018, TRIP Snap Poll XI: What Experts Make of Trump's Foreign Policy, Global Research Institute, Do you support the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty? Totals broken down by ideology. Liberals (Support = 4%, Oppose = 90%, Neither = 7%), Middle of the road (Support = 8%, Oppose = 82%, Neither = 10%), Conservatives (Support = 35%, Oppose = 51%, Neither = 14%).

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 Dina Smeltz

Popping the Question

Throughout these posts I've tried to highlight the critical impact of question wording on polling results, and how specific wording can influence responses.  


| By Dina Smeltz

Splitting Atoms

Rather than abandoning our dated technology (à la Dr. Frankenstein), should we  "love our monsters," and modernize them for current conditions?





| By Dina Smeltz

It's Not Easy Being Green

The Obama Administration’s energy strategy has evolved over time, viewing the production of natural gas and nuclear energy as a transitional stage in shifting away from dependence on fossil fuels to reliance on cleaner energy sources. 




| By Dina Smeltz

Best Picture (of all time)

In honor of the 85th annual Academy awards (now officially rebranded as The Oscars) being presented on Sunday, this week I am sharing  the results of a 2012 survey of international film critics and directors conducted by Sight and Sound, a British monthly film magazine published by the British Film Institute.


| By Dina Smeltz

Like Father, Like Son

Last summer the New York Times reported that some North Korea watchers wondered whether rising hem lines and heels among women on the streets of downtown Pyongyang signaled that Kim Jong-un would lead the country in a different style than his father, Kim Jong-il.



| By Dina Smeltz

Home Deport

Last week several papers reported that President Obama will seek a comprehensive, not incremental, immigration reform package in his second term and he doesn't want to carry the legacy of Deporter in Chief.