By a 45% to 31% margin, more Americans favor than oppose the U.S. and its allies taking military action against Syria, if it is confirmed that Syria used chemical weapons against anti-government groups.

Public interest in the Syrian conflict remains low, and nearly a quarter of Americans (23%) have no opinion about the use of military force in Syria.

Nonetheless, the new survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted April 25-28 among 1,003 adults, finds more public willingness to consider the use of force in Syria than did previous surveys that made no mention of the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. In December, just 27% then said the U.S. had a responsibility to do something about fighting between the Syrian government and anti-government groups.

The survey finds that just 18% followed news about the charges that Syria used chemical weapons against anti-government groups very closely, which is little changed from interest in the Syrian conflict over the past two years.

Those who tracked news about the chemical weapons charges very closely favor the U.S. and its allies taking military action against Syria by nearly two-to-one (55% to 28%). Among those who followed Syrian news less closely, 44% favor the use of military force while 32% are opposed.

By 56% to 24%, Republicans favor the use of military force against Syria if the charges that it used chemical weapons are proven. There is less support among Democrats (46% favor vs. 34% oppose) and independents (41% favor vs. 36% oppose).

Little Interest in Syria News

Since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has never drawn much attention from the U.S. public. At most, only about one-in-five have tracked developments in Syria very closely.

The new survey, which asked specifically about allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against anti-government groups, finds that 18% say they followed this news very closely while 25% followed it fairly closely. A majority followed the chemical weapons charges not too closely (24%) or not at all closely (33%).

Other recent news stories have drawn far more public interest. A week ago, 63% say they followed news about the bombings at the Boston Marathon very closely; this week, 49% paid very close attention to the investigation into the bombings. Other domestic news stories over the past two months, including the debate over gun control (39% followed very closely), news about the economy (35%) and the budget sequester (31%) also attracted more interest than news about Syria.

Among recent foreign news stories, North Korea’s recent nuclear threats against the U.S. drew twice as much interest as charges that Syria used chemical weapons (36% vs. 18%). However, the percentage paying very close attention to news about Syria is on par with interest in news about the situation in Afghanistan (16% very closely).

A majority of Americans say that the United States should take North Korea’s nuclear threats very seriously. At the same time, the public is divided over whether North Korea’s leadership is willing and capable of following through on its threats against the United States.

The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted April 4-7 among 1,003 adults, finds that 56% say the government should take North Korea’s threats to use nuclear missiles against the U.S. very seriously. Another 27% say the government should take North Korea’s threats somewhat seriously.

About half of Americans (47%) think that North Korea’s leadership is really willing to follow through on its threats against the United States; 41% think North Korea is not really willing to follow through.

Opinion also is divided about North Korea’s ability to make good on its threats: 47% say it is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the U.S. while 43% say it is not capable.

About a third of the public (36%) says they are paying very close attention to news about North Korea’s military threats and plans to restart its nuclear reactor, making this the most closely followed foreign news story of the year. Those who are following news about North Korea’s threats very closely are far more likely than those following it less closely to say that the government should take the threats very seriously (73% vs. 46%).

In addition, far more of those who are tracking North Korean news very closely say the country’s leaders are really willing to follow through on its threats (59% vs. 40% those following less closely).

However, assessments of whether North Korea is capable of reaching the U.S. with a nuclear missile are identical among those who are tracking news about North Korea’s threats very closely and those following the threats less closely (47% each).

Republicans and Democrats have comparable levels of interest in news from North Korea. But Republicans are more likely to say the government should take the threats very seriously (64% vs. 52% of Democrats). More Republicans than Democrats also think that North Korea is really willing to carry through on its nuclear threats (58% vs. 37%).

But partisans express similar views of North Korea’s military capabilities. About half of Republicans (52%) and Democrats (47%) say that North Korea is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the United States.

Few See North Korea as Both ‘Willing’ and ‘Capable’

About a quarter of Americans (28%) see the maximum potential danger from North Korea: They say that North Korea is really willing to follow through on its threat to use nuclear weapons and that North Korea is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the United States.

Roughly the same percentage (25%) expressed the opposite views. They say that North Korea is not really willing to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. and that its nuclear missiles would not be able to reach the United States.

Between those two viewpoints, comparable percentages say that North Korea is willing – but not capable – of attacking the U.S. with nuclear missiles (15%) or that while North Korea is unwilling to follow through on its military threats, it does have the capability to carry them out (13%).

Opinions about how seriously the United States government should take the threat from North Korea differ according to people’s views of its intentions and capability. Fully 83% of those who say North Korea has the will and capability to attack the U.S. think the government should take the threat very seriously. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of those who view North Korea as willing but not capable of attacking the U.S. agree.

Only about half (45%) of those who say North Korea is not really willing to follow through on its nuclear threats – but is capable of launching a missile that could reach the U.S. – view the threats as very serious. And just 29% of those who think that North Korea neither has the will not the capability to attack the U.S. says the government should take North Korea’s threats seriously.

As Barack Obama arrives in the Middle East this week, the sympathies of the American public remain firmly with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians. And when it comes to Iran, the public continues to say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons than to avoid a military conflict.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17 among 1,501 adults, finds that 49% say they sympathize more with Israel, while just 12% sympathize more with the Palestinians and the same percentage (12%) volunteers that they sympathize with neither side.

Dating back to 1978, just prior to the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, the public has consistently sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians. But the partisan differences in sympathies are much wider today than they were 35 years ago.

In the current survey, 66% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with 49% of independents and 39% of Democrats. In the 1978 survey, conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 49% of Republicans, 45% of independents and 44% of Democrats sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians.

The survey finds that 21% of Americans say that Obama favors the Palestinians too much while 9% say he favors Israel too much; 41% say he is striking the right balance in the situation in the Middle East. The percentage saying Obama favors the Palestinians too much has changed little over the past four years.

About four-in-ten Republicans (39%) say Obama favors the Palestinians too much. That compares with 22% of independents and just 7% of Democrats.

Public Willing to Consider Force to Thwart Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Opinions about the use of military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons also have not changed much in recent years. Currently, 64% say it is more important to

prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action; 25% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons.

Majorities across nearly all demographic groups say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Still, Republicans (80%) are more likely to express this view than either Democrats (62%) or independents (59%).

Middle East Sympathies

As in the past, there are sizable religious as well as partisan differences in Middle East sympathies. Fully 72% of white evangelical Protestants sympathize more with Israel, while just 8% say either that they sympathize more with the Palestinians (4%) or say they sympathize with neither Israel nor the Palestinians (4%). Most white Catholics (59%) also sympathize more with Israel. But just 37% of white mainline Protestants and 35% of the religiously unaffiliated sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians.

Two-thirds of Republicans (66%) sympathize more with Israel, compared with 49% of independents and 39% of Democrats.

Age also is a factor in Middle East sympathies: Just 36% of those younger than 30 sympathize more with Israel, while 19% sympathize more with the Palestinians. A relatively large share of young people (37%) either offer no opinion (34%) or say they sympathize with both sides (3%). Among older age groups, there is more support for Israel: 47% of those 30 to 49 sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, as do majorities of those 50 to 64 (59%) and 65 and older (54%).

The public approves of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, although most Americans are not hopeful the talks will succeed. And a strong majority – 61% – says that it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Far fewer (24%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means that the country may develop nuclear weapons.

There is broad willingness across the political spectrum to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) and two-thirds of independents (66%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action. Fewer Democrats (51%) express this view; still, only about three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means Tehran may develop nuclear weapons.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds substantial public support for non-military strategies aimed at persuading Iran from going ahead with its nuclear program. Yet there is considerable skepticism that these efforts – tougher international sanctions as well as direct talks with Iran – would succeed in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.

More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) approve of the United States negotiating directly with Iran over the issue of its nuclear program while 28% oppose such talks. In September 2006, 54% said they would favor such negotiations while 32% were opposed. At the time, the Bush administration opposed direct negotiations with Iran.

Yet while the public supports nuclear talks with Iran, a clear majority (64%) says they will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program, compared with just 22% who say they will work.

The public also overwhelmingly approves of tougher economic sanctions against Iran; fully 78% approve while just 12% disapprove. But again, most Americans (56%) say that tougher economic sanctions would not work in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.

The survey finds that slightly more than half of Americans (51%) say they have a great deal (17%) or a fair amount (34%) of confidence in President Obama to do the right thing in dealing with Iran; 44% say they have not too much confidence (24%) or no confidence at all (20%) in Obama on this issue.

Seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) have confidence in Obama on Iran while 19% express little or no confidence in the president. Just 30% of Republicans say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in Obama to do the right thing in dealing with Iran while 66% are not too confident or not at all confident. Independents are evenly split, with 49% expressing at least a fair amount of confidence in Obama on Iran and 48% expressing little or no confidence.

Bipartisan Support for Direct Talks

There are no partisan differences in opinions about whether the United States should directly negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program: 64% of Democrats approve of these negotiations, as do 64% of independents and 63% of Republicans.

However, Democrats are more likely than either independents or Republicans to say that direct talks will work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. About a third of Democrats (34%) say the talks will succeed in persuading Iran to drop its nuclear program, though nearly half (47%) say they will not. By comparison, just 19% of independents and 11% of Republicans say the talks will work, with large majorities of each group (70% of independents, 81% of Republicans) saying they will not.

Fully 84% of independents, 81% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats approve of tougher economic sanctions on Iran. Unlike opinions about direct talks with Iran, there are only modest partisan differences over the effectiveness of sanctions: 35% of Democrats, 31% of Republicans and 30% of independents say tougher international economic sanctions would work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Modest Attentiveness to Iran Dispute

Overall, 41% say they have heard a lot about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, while 41% have heard a little and 18% have heard nothing at all. That is comparable to interest in the Iran nuclear issue in September 2006 (41% a lot, 44% a little, 14% nothing at all).

People who have heard a lot about the issue are more supportive of direct negotiations with Iran than are those who have heard less about the issue (71% approve vs. 58%). There is a similar gap in views of tougher international sanctions; nearly nine-in-ten (89%) of those who have heard a lot about the issue approve of tougher sanctions, compared with 72% who have heard less.

There are smaller differences between the highly attentive and less attentive over whether those approaches will succeed in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. In addition, comparable majorities of those who have heard a lot about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program (64%), and those have heard little or nothing about this (59%), say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means using military force.

In the wake of the Iraq war, North Korea has taken center stage as a threat to peace and stability in the minds of many people around the world according to results from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey conducted in May.

More than three-in-four (77%) Americans see the current government in North Korea as a great or moderate danger to Asia. U.S. public concern has risen by 12 percentage points since November 2002. Americans are not alone in worrying about Pyongyang. Eight-in-ten (79%) Australians and 77% of Germans think North Korean actions threaten Asia. But fewer South Koreans agree – 69%.

The Bush administration’s efforts to use the current multilateral negotiations to end the North Korean nuclear program are complicated by rising antipathy toward the United States and U.S. policies in South Korea.

Half of South Koreans surveyed in May 2003 by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey held an unfavorable view of the United States, up six percentage points from July 2002. Anti-Americanism has risen particularly sharply among the young. A year ago, half (51%) of the 18-29 year olds surveyed had a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States. This year, seven-in-ten (71%) young South Koreans expressed such views.

In most nations, critics of the United States say their sentiments reflect opposition to President George W. Bush, more than a general problem with America. But in South Korea, 72% of those who hold unfavorable views of the United States express general hostility toward America that goes beyond criticisms of the president.

U.S. efforts in the six-party negotiations on North Korea may be further complicated by widespread sentiment in South Korea that Washington acts unilaterally in foreign policy. Three-in-four South Koreans (76%) believe that the United States does not take into account South Korean interests when making international policy decisions. Such criticism of U.S. unilateralism is shared by publics in Russia (71%) and Japan (59% in 2002) – two other nations that are parties to the Beijing talks.

South Korean disapproval of the conduct of U.S. foreign policy reflects public opposition to particular American international initiatives, including the war on terrorism and the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive military strikes against U.S. foes. Seven-in-ten South Koreans (71%) oppose U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism. More than half (55%) of South Koreans also say that it is rarely or never justified to use military force against countries that may seriously threaten South Korea, but have not attacked it.

These results are drawn from polls conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a series of worldwide public opinion surveys conducted over the past 18 months. The project has issued two major reports, “What the World Thinks in 2002″ – based upon 38,000 interviews in 44 nations – and “Views of a Changing World, June 2003″ – based on 16,000 interviews in 20 nations and the Palestinian Authority. Sample sizes for the 2003 poll were as follows: U.S. 1,201; South Korea 525. Full details about the surveys, and the project more generally, are available at www.people-press.org.

Global Gloom and Growing Anti-Americanism

Despite an initial outpouring of public sympathy for America following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, discontent with the United States has grown around the world over the past two years. Images of the U.S. have been tarnished in all types of nations: among longtime NATO allies, in developing countries, in Eastern Europe and, most dramatically, in Muslim societies.

Since 2000, favorability ratings for the U.S. have fallen in 19 of the 27 countries where trend benchmarks are available. While criticism of America is on the rise, however, a reserve of goodwill toward the United States still remains. The Pew Global Attitudes survey finds that the U.S. and its citizens continue to be rated positively by majorities in 35 of the 42 countries in which the question was asked. True dislike, if not hatred, of America is concentrated in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and in Central Asia, today’s areas of greatest conflict.

Opinions about the U.S., however, are complicated and contradictory. People around the world embrace things American and, at the same time, decry U.S. influence on their societies. Similarly, pluralities in most of the nations surveyed complain about American unilateralism. But the war on terrorism, the centerpiece of current U.S. foreign policy, continues to enjoy global support outside the Muslim world.

While attitudes toward the United States are most negative in the Middle East/Conflict Area, ironically, criticisms of U.S. policies and ideals such as American-style democracy and business practices are also highly prevalent among the publics of traditional allies. In fact, critical assessments of the U.S. in countries such as Canada, Germany and France are much more widespread than in the developing nations of Africa and Asia.

A follow-up six-nation survey finds a wide gap in opinion about a potential war with Iraq. This threatens to further fuel anti-American sentiment and divide the United States from the publics of its traditional allies and new strategic friends. But even on this highly charged issue, opinions are nuanced. Iraq is seen as a threat to regional stability and world peace by overwhelming numbers of people in allied nations, yet American motives for using force against Iraq are still suspect.

Souring attitudes toward America are more than matched by the discontent that people of the planet feel concerning the world at large. As 2002 draws to a close, the world is not a happy place. At a time when trade and technology have linked the world more closely together than ever before, almost all national publics view the fortunes of the world as drifting downward. A smaller world, our surveys indicate, is not a happier one.

The spread of disease is judged the top global problem in more countries than any other international threat, in part because worry about AIDS and other illnesses is so overwhelming in developing nations, especially in Africa. Fear of religious and ethnic violence ranks second, owing to strong worries about global and societal divisions in both the West and in several Muslim countries. Nuclear weapons run a close third in public concern. The publics of China, South Korea and many in the former Soviet Bloc put more emphasis on global environmental threats than do people elsewhere.

Dissatisfaction with the state of one’s country is another common global point of view. In all but a handful of societies, the public is unhappy with national conditions. The economy is the number one national concern volunteered by the more than 38,000 respondents interviewed. Crime and political corruption also emerge as top problems in most of the nations surveyed. Both issues even rival the importance of the spread of disease to the publics of AIDS-ravaged African countries.

These are among the principal findings of the Pew Global Attitudes survey, conducted in 44 nations to assess how the publics of the world view their lives, their nation, the world and the United States. This is the first major report on this survey. The second will detail attitudes toward globalization, modernization, social attitudes and democratization. The International Herald Tribune is our global newspaper partner and conducted in-depth interviews with citizens in five nations, some of which are quoted in this report.

The primary survey was conducted over a four-month period (July-October 2002) among over 38,000 respondents. It was augmented with a separate, six-nation survey in early November, which examined opinion concerning a possible U.S. war with Iraq.

Follow-Up Survey on Iraq

Huge majorities in France, Germany and Russia oppose the use of military force to end the rule of Saddam Hussein. The British public is evenly split on the issue. More than six-in-ten Americans say they would back such an action. But the six-nation poll finds a significant degree of agreement in Europe that Iraq is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and to world peace. More people in all countries polled say the current Iraqi regime poses a danger to peace than say the same about either North Korea or Iran.

Majorities in Great Britain, Germany and France also agree with Americans that the best way to deal with Saddam is to remove him from power rather than to just disarm him. However, the French, Germans and Russians see the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians as a greater threat to stability in the Middle East than Saddam’s continued rule. The American and British publics both worry more about Iraq than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Turkish respondents differ from Europeans about the danger posed by Iraq. They are divided on whether the regime in Baghdad is a threat to the stability of the region, and just a narrow 44% plurality thinks Saddam Hussein should be removed from power.

Fully 83% of Turks oppose allowing U.S. forces to use bases in their country, a NATO ally, to wage war on Iraq. Further, a 53% majority of Turkish respondents believe the U.S. wants to get rid of Saddam as part of a war against unfriendly Muslim countries, rather than because the Iraqi leader is a threat to peace.

While Europeans view Saddam as a threat, they also are suspicious of U.S. intentions in Iraq. Large percentages in each country polled think that the U.S. desire to control Iraqi oil is the principal reason that Washington is considering a war against Iraq. In Russia 76% subscribe to a war-for-oil view; so too do 75% of the French, 54% of Germans, and 44% of the British. In sharp contrast, just 22% of Americans see U.S. policy toward Iraq driven by oil interests. Two-thirds think the
United States is motivated by a concern about the security threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

In addition, respondents in the five nations surveyed (aside from the U.S.) express a high degree of concern that war with Iraq will increase the risk of terrorism in Europe. Two-thirds of those in Turkey say this, as do majorities in Russia, France, Great Britain and Germany. By comparison, 45% of Americans are worried that war will raise the risk of terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Suspicions about U.S. motives in Iraq are consistent with criticisms of America apparent throughout the Global Attitudes survey. The most serious problem facing the U.S. abroad is its very poor public image in the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East/Conflict Area. Favorable ratings are down sharply in two of America’s most important allies in this region, Turkey and Pakistan. The number of people giving the United States a positive rating has dropped by 22 points in Turkey and 13 points in Pakistan in the last three years. And in Egypt, a country for which no comparative data is available, just 6% of the public holds a favorable view of the U.S.

The war on terrorism is opposed by majorities in nearly every predominantly Muslim country surveyed. This includes countries outside the Middle East/Conflict Area, such as Indonesia and Senegal. The principal exception is the overwhelming support for America’s anti-terrorist campaign found in Uzbekistan, where the United States currently has 1,500 troops stationed.

Sizable percentages of Muslims in many countries with significant Muslim populations also believe that suicide bombings can be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. While majorities see suicide bombing as justified in only two nations polled, more than a quarter of Muslims in another nine nations subscribe to this view.

U.S. image problems are not confined to Muslim countries. The worldwide polling conducted throughout the summer and fall finds few people, even in friendly nations, expressing a very favorable opinion of America, and sizable minorities in Western Europe and Canada having an unfavorable view. Many people around the world, especially in Europe and the Middle East/Conflict Area, believe the U.S. does not take into account the interests of their country when making international policies. Majorities in most countries also see U.S. policies as contributing to the growing gap between rich and poor nations and believe the United States does not do the right amount to solve global problems.

U.S. global influence is simultaneously embraced and rejected by world publics. America is nearly universally admired for its technological achievements and people in most countries say they enjoy U.S. movies, music and television programs. Yet in general, the spread of U.S. ideas and customs is disliked by majorities in almost every country included in this survey. This sentiment is prevalent in friendly nations such as Canada (54%) and Britain (50%), and even more so in countries where America is broadly disliked, such as Argentina (73%) and Pakistan (81%).

Similarly, despite widespread resentment toward U.S. international policies, majorities in nearly every country believe that the emergence of another superpower would make the world a more dangerous place. This view is shared even in Egypt and Pakistan, where no more than one-in-ten have a favorable view of the U.S. And in Russia, a 53% majority believes the world is a safer place with a single superpower.

The American public is strikingly at odds with publics around the world in its views about the U.S. role in the world and the global impact of American actions. In contrast to people in most other countries, a solid majority of Americans surveyed think the U.S. takes into account the interests of other countries when making international policy. Eight-in-ten Americans believe it is a good thing that U.S. ideas and customs are spreading around the world. The criticism that the U.S. contributes to the gap between rich and poor nations is the only negative sentiment that resonates with a significant percentage of Americans (39%).

Global Discontents

In most countries surveyed, people rate the quality of their own life much higher than the state of their nation; similarly, their rating of national conditions is more positive than their assessment of the state of the world. Even so, the survey finds yawning gaps in perceptions dividing North America and Western Europe from the rest of the world.

Americans and Canadians judge their lives better than do people in the major nations of Western Europe. But that gap is minimal when the publics of the West are contrasted with people in other parts of the world.

Asians, South Koreans excepted, are less satisfied with their lives than are Western publics. Personal contentment is especially low among Chinese and Indian respondents, and relatively few feel they have made personal progress over the past five years. Nevertheless, the Chinese and Indians are extremely optimistic about their futures. In fact, many people in Asia expect their lives to get better. This is the case in the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea and Indonesia. The Chinese and the Vietnamese, in particular, have great confidence that their children will lead better lives than they have. By contrast, the Japanese are among the gloomiest people in Asia, whether reflecting on the past, present or the future.

Latin Americans present a very mixed picture of their lives. Mexicans, Hondurans and Guatemalans express a much higher degree of satisfaction than do people in South America. These positive assessments are notable given the large percentage of people in Mexico and the two Central American countries who say there have been times in the past year when they have been unable to afford food, health care or clothing.

Argentines are at the opposite end of the attitude spectrum. Most feel their lives have gotten worse in recent years and few express optimism about a better future. Brazilians rate their lives at present in about the same way as Argentines, but more expect progress in the future.

By nearly all measures, the Turks are among the unhappiest people surveyed. More generally, the publics of the six countries in the Middle East/Conflict Area are dissatisfied with the state of their lives, and a relatively high proportion of respondents in this region also report they have been unable to afford basic necessities in the past year. But not having enough money for essentials is a common experience for many people outside of the advanced economies. Overwhelming majorities of African respondents say there have been times in the past year when they did not have enough money for food, clothing or health care. In much of Latin America, as well as Russia and Ukraine, majorities say there have been times in the past year when they had too little money to afford food. Only in the industrialized nations are reports of doing without the basics of life limited to a distinct minority of the population.

Yet the range of problems confronting the world’s people goes well beyond personal deprivation. Health care is high on the list of people’s concerns, as are crime and political corruption. In most countries, majorities cite crime as a major national issue.

The Global Attitudes survey finds that people living in the most globalized countries express more satisfaction with their lives and a greater sense of personal progress than do people living in less globalized nations. However, the most globalized nations are also the richest. Among poorer countries, a nation’s degree of globalization has no bearing on its citizens’ satisfaction with life, feelings of personal progress or optimism.

Personal Progress In Eastern Europe

The publics of the former Soviet Bloc nations continue to lag behind Western Europeans in life satisfaction, but express more contentment than they did in the early 1990s. However, in the past five years Eastern Europeans report less personal progress than do Western Europeans.

Czechs have clearly made the smoothest adjustment from the communist era. They rate their lives and the state of their country better than other countries in the region. But there are still two Germanys when it comes to personal satisfaction — the citizens of the former East Germany are much happier than they were in 1991, but they have yet to catch up with their West German counterparts.

Global Esteem for Military and Media

People around the world are generally more satisfied with their national governments than they are with national conditions. Generally, views of the economy have a much greater bearing on public satisfaction with the national government than do people’s concern for other top problems such as corruption. Many heads of state are rated better than the governments they lead. In particular, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush are much better regarded by their constituents than are the Russian and U.S. governments, respectively. On the other hand, Canada’s Jean Chretien, and Great Britain’s Tony Blair get lower grades from their citizens than do their nation’s governments.

Perhaps reflecting international worries, the military emerges as a highly rated institution in most countries of the world. The notable exceptions are Latin American countries, notably Guatemala, Argentina and Peru. The military not only gets a better rating than the national governments in most countries, it also is more highly regarded than religious leaders in most of Europe, Asia and many countries in the Middle East/Conflict Area. This is not the case, however, in most African and Latin American nations.

Despite displeasure with national and international conditions around the globe, there is no evidence of an international shoot-the-messenger syndrome. Lopsided majorities in just about every country surveyed say that news organizations have a beneficial impact on their societies. In almost every country, the media rates higher than the national government. There is also global unanimity as to where people go for news. In the 44 nations surveyed, nearly everyone cited television news as their predominant source of information about national and international affairs.

Other notable findings:

• Unlike many publics, the Russians have a much better opinion of the United States than they had in 2000. Six-in-ten Russian respondents have a favorable view of the U.S. now, compared with 37% two years ago.
• For all of the French criticism of U.S. policies, America’s image in France has not declined over the past two years. Still, French ratings of the United States continue to be among the lowest in Europe.
• There remains a substantial gap in personal satisfaction in Germany, with respondents in former West Germany more positive about their lives than their counterparts in the East. But former West Germans are the sole European public that showed no increase in personal satisfaction since the early 1990s.
• The post-communist generation in Eastern Europe is much more upbeat about their lives than those age 35 and older.
• Despite deep dissatisfaction and pessimism about their lives and country, an unusually high proportion of Japanese say they have no major personal concerns.
• People in the West express more satisfaction with their lives than do those in emerging nations. But this pattern is reversed when respondents are asked about the future of their nation’s children. Asians, in particular, are much more optimistic about prospects for the next generation than are Americans or Europeans.
• Publics all around the world are more satisfied with their family lives than with their incomes or jobs. But people in several countries — in Africa, the Middle East/Conflict Area and Eastern Europe — voice significant discontent with their family lives.
• While crime is a top national problem all around the world, it ranks high as a pressing personal concern in Latin American countries, especially in Honduras.
• Fully 15% of Americans say there have been times in the past year they have been unable to afford food — the highest proportion in any advanced economy. But levels of reported deprivation in Angola are highest in the world; 86% of Angolans report being unable to afford food at some point in the last 12 months.
• Africa is the only region in which a significant minority volunteers hunger as a personal problem.
• Canada is the only country in the West in which a majority of those surveyed express satisfaction with national conditions.

Roadmap to the Report

The first section of the report looks at how people evaluate their lives and concerns. Section II focuses on public attitudes toward national conditions and institutions. Section III examines public views of the world and global threats. Section IV analyzes how the people of the world view the United States.

A description of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, its board of international advisers, and complete list of the countries surveyed immediately follows. A summary of the research process and methodology can be found at the end of the report, along with complete results for all countries surveyed.

The public is deeply divided about the future of U.S.-China relations. Although a solid 60% majority say relations between the United States and China are stable — neither improving nor getting worse — there is little agreement over the question of whether our current handling of China is tough enough and no single policy stance gets majority support.

Today, 44% of the American people say the Clinton administration has not been tough enough in its dealings with China and 43% say the administration struck the right balance. Just 2% say the U.S. has been too tough.

Similarly, no consensus exists on the question of whether the U.S. should cooperate with China to help maintain peace and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in Asia or take a firm stand against human rights abuses there, even if it increases tensions between the two countries. Today, 45% of the public chooses cooperation; 44% opt for a firm stand.

Again, agreement fails to emerge when the public is asked to balance trade and military security. Given the choice, 47% of Americans say containing China’s military power is more important; 42% say maintaining China as a trading partner is more important.

Those most attentive to accusations that China stole nuclear technology from the United States, white evangelical Christians, and Republicans take a tougher position on China than the average American. For instance, of the 19% who followed news about the accusations against China very closely, over two-thirds say the Clinton administration has not been tough enough with China, compared to less than half of the general public who agree. In addition, a 55% majority of white evangelical Protestants say the United States should contain China’s growth as a military power — eight percentage points above the average.

Opinion More Negative

American public opinion toward China has grown slightly more negative since President Clinton visited the Asian nation last summer. As Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji tours the U.S. this week, increasing numbers of Americans express skepticism about China’s resolve on free markets, democracy and diplomacy.

Less than one-quarter (23%) of Americans now say China is becoming more democratic and allowing its people more freedom; 65% feel just the opposite is true. This is a return to the 26%-64% split in 1997 and marks a significant change from August 1998, when 35% of Americans thought the Asian nation was becoming more open and 51% disagreed.

Similar movement can be seen on the issue of free markets, although the public is not quite so adamant in their view of China’s resistance of economic reforms. Today, 34% say the Chinese economy is becoming more like the U.S. economy; 47% disagree. In August 1998, Americans were more evenly divided: 41% felt the Chinese economy was becoming more open, 44% disagreed.

Although a 48% plurality of the public continues to see China as a serious problem — a number basically unchanged since September 1997, when 46% of the public felt this way — many Americans are becoming increasingly critical in their view of China. More Americans now describe China as an “adversary” (up to 20% from 14% in 1997) and fewer dismiss China as “not much of a problem” (down to 25% from 32%). Moreover, two-thirds of the public considers allegations that China stole nuclear technology from the United States to be very serious.¹

Low Priority Given China

Americans’ ambivalence about China may be due, in part, to the relatively low priority they give to the nation. A slim majority (52%) say that keeping a close watch on the development of China as a world power should be a top priority for the U.S. government. This is considerably lower than the number who place a premium on reducing the threat of international terrorism (75%), stopping international drug trafficking (72%) and halting the spread of AIDS (65%).

That said, however, concern about China ranks above that of other Asian nations. Only 38% of the public rates managing trade and economic disputes with Japan a top priority; even fewer (29%) say that countering the threat of militarism in North Korea should be a top priority.

Majorities of the American public as well as the nation’s Opinion Leaders approve the expansion of NATO into Central Europe, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press released today (Tuesday 4 p.m.) as the Senate begins hearings on Alliance enlargement.

These results come from a comprehensive study, conducted initially four years ago and repeated now, of what the public and leadership groups believe are the dangers and opportunities for America’s foreign policy in the post-Cold War world. The survey report will be released in its entirety on Thursday (4 p.m.) as America’s Place in the World, Part II.

Public approval of the expansion was more than three to one in favor (63% for, 18% opposed) in the poll of 2,000 adult Americans, which has a sampling error of plus or minus 2%.

A separate and more in-depth poll of nearly 600 Opinion Leaders in ten groups — including foreign affairs and security specialists, scholars, scientists, religious leaders, governors and mayors, top business executives, Congressional staffers who specialize in international matters, labor union leaders and senior media figures — found majority support for enlarging NATO among every group. Most enthusiastic for expansion are Union, Business and Religious leaders. Least welcoming (although still a majority) are the Foreign Affairs and Security groups, whose members are ostensibly the most knowledgeable about diplomatic and defense issues.

There appears to be little change in the level of support among these Opinion Leaders when the potential price tag of $200 million a year was cited, although this specific question was asked only of three groups: Foreign Affairs, Security, and the Media.

A significantly lower level of support was found among these Influential groups for a second round of NATO expansion in which more former Soviet bloc nations would eventually join the Alliance. Nonetheless, majorities in every group except one still favored the additional enlargement, and the exception, Foreign Affairs, gave it plurality approval. The Security group and Congressional aides were next most dubious about a second round.

The Leadership groups were also asked about expanding the role of NATO beyond Europe. Seven of the ten groups approve using Alliance (including American) forces to defend Western interests outside the continent such as in the Persian Gulf, with majorities of Religious leaders and particularly Business leaders opposed. All groups by huge majorities endorse using NATO forces to provide peacekeeeping in countries that border on NATO nations such as Bosnia. Lesser but still substantial majorities approve the use of NATO forces for peacekeeping in case of conflict between NATO member nations.

More than half of all Americans (53%) have a favorable view of NATO, but the overwhelming approval of its expansion plans was surprising in view of the scant knowledge among the public about which countries have been invited to join. Specifically, only 10% of the public was able to identify even one of the potential new members. Those who have some information about international affairs (based on respondents who answered correctly at least one of three knowledge questions¹) more often approve of expanding NATO than those who have no such information (74% vs. 50% approval).

As with NAFTA, American opinion leaders and the American public have conflicting views about Asia. A plurality of opinion leaders believe Asia is now more important to the United States than Europe, a recent survey found, while the public (by a 50% to 31% margin) continues to see Europe as most important.

The choice of Asia by the Influentials was largely one of pocketbooks vs. hearts. Of those respondents selecting the Pacific Rim, more than three-fourths cited economic reasons. The public, in continuing to look to Europe, may not see the same economic opportunity as the Influentials; it believes by an overwhelming five to one margin (72% to 14%) that Japan has an unfair trade policy toward the United States.

The survey by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press also found that the Influentials view the Asian region with most concern. No nation has replaced the former Soviet Union as the greatest danger to the United States, but the aggregated concern about the traditional nations of Asia was high. Those Influentials who specialize in security and defense issues considered it most dangerous to the United States, far more than the former Soviet Union or the Mideast.

Strong majorities or pluralities of almost all Influential groups would use U.S. troops to stop a North Korean invasion of South Korea, while most of the public would oppose it. Strong majorities in every Influential group would keep U.S. force levels in South Korea at current levels. Stronger sentiment was found for deep cuts in U.S. forces in Europe than in South Korea.

The survey of 649 opinion leaders in the nine groups — foreign affairs, security-defense, business, media, religion, science, state and local government, academia, and culture — was conducted in July and August, with two parallel public surveys in September and October. The results were released earlier this month in a report titled as America’s Place in the World.