OneWorld.net (U.S.)

WASHINGTON, D.C., Sep 28 (OneWorld) - Despite his standing in the polls, U.S. President George W. Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy views are broadly rejected by both the public and by the elite, according to a major new survey released Tuesday by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR).

The survey, "Global Views 2004: American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,' found that 76 percent of the general public reject the notion that Washington should play the role of world policeman and 80 percent believe that the U.S. is currently playing that role "more than it should be."

Asked what is the more important lessons from the 9/11 attacks, 73 percent of the public and 84 percent of the experts said, 73 percent of the public said "the U.S. needs to work more closely with other countries to fight terrorism," as opposed to 23 percent who said it "needs to act on its own more..." For the elite group that was surveyed separately, the margin in favor of the first choice was even larger: 84 percent, as opposed to only nine percent that called for more unilateral action.

Indeed, the survey, which was conducted in July, shows that Americans - both the public and recognized leaders -- much prefer multilateral solutions to foreign-policy problems to the more-unilateral approach that has dominated the Bush administration.

Support among both groups for strengthening the United Nations is particularly high, especially compared to two years ago, when CCFR conducted its last survey. More than two thirds of respondents in both groups said the UN should have a standing peacekeeping force, while some four in five in both groups say Americans should take part in UN peacekeeping operations.

Strong majorities of both the public and the elite also rejected Bush's notion of pre-emptive war as codified in his National Security Strategy of December, 2002, and cited as a justification for the war in Iraq after no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found there. Only 17 percent of the public and ten percent of leaders interviewed in the survey said that was justifiable if the "other country is acquiring (WMD) that could be used against them at some point in the future."

Some 53 percent of the public and 61 percent of the elite said war could only be justified if there was "strong evidence" that the country is in "imminent danger" of attack, while 25 percent of both groups said the U.S. should respond only if the other country attacks first.

CCFR has conducted the 'Global Views' survey every four years since 1976, making it a standard reference for experts on public and elite attitudes on Washington's role in the world. It decided to conduct one his year, just two years after its last one, because of the importance of foreign policy in the current election campaign.

The results reflect the views of nearly 1,200 randomly selected members of the public and of 450 "leaders with foreign policy power, specialization, and expertise", including U.S. lawmakers and their senior staff, religious, business, and labor leaders, senior administration officials, heads of major foreign policy organizations and lobby groups, and university professors and journalists who make foreign policy their main focus.

The survey found a "lowered sense of threat" from abroad compared to two years ago, with "protecting American jobs" cited more often among the public respondents (but not the elite) as a "very important" goal of foreign policy than both fighting international terrorism and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. It also found that "Islamic fundamentalism," which was considered a "critical threat" by 61 percent of the public in 2002, was cited by only 38 percent this year.

The most striking changes in elite opinion, on the other hand, was found in the sharp rise in the importance they gave to "improving the standard of living" in poor countries and in "strengthening the United Nations" compared with two years ago. Similarly, the percentage of leaders who cited "maintaining superior power worldwide" as a "very important" goal, fell from 52 percent in 2002 to only 37 percent in 2004, the first time it has received less than a majority since the question was first asked in 1994.

Large majorities of the public and the elite favor retaining traditional constraints on the use of force by individual states, including the U.S., and oppose new ideas for making those restraints looser as proposed by Bush.

Majorities of both the public and the elite groups oppose states taking unilateral military action without authorization of the UN Security Council except in cases of genocide. Two thirds of both groups, for example, said the U.S. should be required to get the Council's approval before taking military action to eliminate North Korea's alleged nuclear arsenal.

The survey also found strong support for U.S. participation in international treaties and agreements that have been rejected by the Bush administration.

For example, nearly 90 percent of the public and 85 percent of the elite said they favor a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; 80 percent of both groups said the U.S. should agree to the global ban on anti-personnel land mines; more than 70 percent of both groups said they support U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming. A strong majority also said that international terrorists should be tried before the ICC if their own countries won't try them.

While the survey showed a broad consensus - very different from the unilateralist policies pursued by the Bush administration -- between the public and the elite on most issues, it also found that the elite was unaware of how multilaterally inclined the public is.

Asked to predict what percentage of the public supported the ICC, for example, only 20 percent of the elite respondents predicted the correct answer - that it was favored by a "strong majority." Seventy percent of the elite respondents (including 68 percent of senior administration officials and 91 percent of Republicans on Capitol Hill thought it would be supported by less than a simple majority.

Similarly, the public was far more supportive of other international agreements and of steps to strengthen the UN than the elite respondents assumed, according to the CCFR results.

On Iraq-related issues, more than two thirds of the public and the elite said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq if a clear majority of the Iraqi people want it to do so. As to Bush's more ambitious plans for the Middle East, 57 percent of the public do not think Washington should put "greater pressure" on Arab states there to become more democratic and 68 percent oppose plans for increasing aid and investment in the region on the order of the Marshall Plan after World War II.

On this, as in some other specific areas, the elite takes the opposite view: 64 percent favor a Marshall Plan for the region, while 30 percent oppose the idea.

"All of these findings points again to the idea that Americans feel that the responsibilities and costs of many international actions are too great for it to shoulder alone and are looking for ways to share these burdens," according to the CCFR analysis. "More than ever, they are turning to other nations and to international institutions to help share the load through collective decision-making and collective action."