March 18, 1999	atimes.com

The Koreas U.S. foreign policy gap between leaders and public By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON - The gap between the general public inthe United States and the foreign policy elite appears to begrowing on a range of different issues, according to a major newsurvey. The survey, the latest in a series conducted during the past 30years by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, finds thatforeign policy leaders favor a much more interventionist U.S. rolein the world than does the public at large. About three out of every four citizens, for example, believethe United States should not take action alone in internationalcrises if it does not have support from its allies - while theforeign policy elite is roughly evenly divided. Similarly, the general public is much more skeptical about theuse of U.S. troops abroad, with a majority favoring such actiononly in the event of a hypothetical Iraqi invasion of SaudiArabia. A majority of leaders, on the other hand, support military actionin half a dozen hypothetical scenarios involving South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kosovo,Poland and Saudi Arabia, according to thereport, published in the latest edition of Foreign Policyquarterly. The survey is taken seriously by policy-makers here primarilybecause it has used a consistent methodology over almost 30 years. Its conclusions this year also tend to confirm the conclusions ofa similar study on elite/public attitudes two years ago by the PewResearch Center for the People and the Press. The findings are based on detailed interviews of some 1,500members of the general public between October and November and ofanother 379 ''leaders'' between November and mid-December of lastyear. The leaders included people in the administration of PresidentBill Clinton, Congress, international business, media, labor,academic and religious institutions, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that deal with foreign policy issues. The gap between the elite and the public has existed for sometime, but has become increasingly worrisome to many leadersconcerned about sustaining Washington's engagement with its alliesand trading partners. The latest report, by council president John Rielly,characterises the current public mood as one of ''guardedengagement by a largely satisfied superpower." Compared with the last survey four years ago, the public now isless concerned about economic competition from Japan or Europe andabout rising levels of immigration. On the other hand, concern about violence both at home andabroad has risen over the same period and is reflected inincreased support for more defense spending. Overall, the public is more confident about the role of theUnited States in the world than four years ago. A majority of 53 percent, however, believes there will be morebloodshed and violence in the 21st century than in the 20thcentury, which contrasts with a much more optimistic outlook bythe country's foreign policy leaders. The public is much more concerned about international terrorismand weapons of mass destruction than it was four years ago,according to the study. It found that 84 percent and 76 percentof respondents, respectively, named these as the most ''criticalthreats'' faced by the United States. In contrast to a reticence in taking military action againstother countries, three out of four respondents said they favoredusing significant force against terrorists, although both thepublic and leaders prefer diplomatic measures in the fight againstterrorism. Some significant gaps between the public and the elite arefound, however, with respect to determining U.S. foreign policygoals. For the public, preventing nuclear proliferation, stopping theflow of drugs into the United States, protecting U.S. jobs, andfighting international terrorism constitute by far the mostimportant priorities. The elite accords top priority to nuclear non-proliferation andfighting terrorism but sees protecting U.S. jobs, and keeping drugsout of the country as much less important. The leaders also ratereducing the U.S. trade deficit and strengthening the United Nationsas lesser priorities. On the other hand, the public sees emerging diseases;immigration; economic competition from Japan and low-wagecountries, and global warning as significantly greater threats toU.S. interests than does the elite. The public is also far more distrustful of globalization. While a slightmajority believes the process of global economic integration is''mostly good for the United States,'' 87 percent of elite sectorstake that position. Asked whether the United States should contribute money to theInternational Monetary Fund to deal with world financial crises,51 percent of the public say no, while 82 percent of leaders sayyes. There are also wide differences between the elite and thegeneral public in their perceptions of the relative importance to U.S. interests of keydeveloping countries, including Mexico, South Korea and Brazil.The public rates these countries as substantially less importantthan do the leaders. China is cited most frequently by the elite as the country inwhich the United States had the most vital interest, followed byJapan, Russia and Mexico. The public rated the top four as Japan,Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. (Inter Press Service)

Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive

back to the top ©1999 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Korea Asian Sex News | Asian Sex Gazette