Search

Begin New Search Topic Public Opinion Political Geography North America

11. Americans on War Powers, Authorization for Use of Military Force and Arms Sales: A National Survey of Registered Voters

Author:
Steven Kull
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
The question of when the United States should use military force is a profound question. There has been a long-running debate about the role of Congress and the President when it comes to making this decisions. The constitution gives Congress the power to fund the military and declare war, and declares the President as the Commander in Chief of the military. However, there are ambiguities about which branch of government has the power in a number of specific situations related to the use of force and the transfer of arms to another country. Currently there are a number of pieces of Congressional legislation that seek to give Congress greater power. One proposal seeks to give Congress greater influence over the use of military force outside of the framework of a declaration of war or in response to an attack on the US. Current law, grounded in the War Powers Act of 1973, requires that the President withdraw troops after 60 days unless Congress votes in favor of continuing it. However, since its passage, every President has considered this unconstitutional and many have not abided by it, keeping forces in place without Congressional approval. In order to stop such a military operation, Congress must gather a veto-proof majority, or bring the President to court. Neither has ever happened. A proposal that has been put forth in Congress is to ‘flip the script’ on this, and automatically cut off funding to such military operations after 60 days, unless Congress actively votes in favor of continuing the operation. (Based on H.R. 2108, H.R. 5410 and S. 2391) Another proposal deals with the termination of a Congressional authorization to use military force (AUMF). Shortly after the September 11 attacks Congress authorized the President to use military force against those responsible for the attacks, or who have aided those responsible. Since then all presidents have used this AUMF to justify various uses of force that some Members of Congress feel go beyond its original purpose. Currently there is a proposal to terminate this AUMF which requires an act of Congress. (Based on H.R. 255 and S. 2391) The last proposal seeks to give Congress greater authority over arms sales. Currently, all arms sales must be approved by the President, and Congress can only halt an arms sale with a majority vote, or more realistically a veto-proof majority. Members of Congress believe that it should be easier for Congress to halt an arms sale. They have introduced a proposal that would also ‘flip the script’ in this case by requiring that any arms sale over $14 million only proceed if Congress votes in favor. (Based on H.R. 5410 and S. 2391) To bring the American people a voice at the table of the current debate on these various pieces of legislation, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) has conducted an in-depth on-line survey of 2,702 registered voters with a probability-based sample provided by Nielsen Scarborough.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Public Opinion, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. Public responses to foreign protectionism: Evidence from the US-China trade war

Author:
David Steinberg and Yeling Tan
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
America's recent turn toward protectionism has raised concerns about the future viability of the liberal international trading system. This study examines how and why public attitudes toward international trade change when one's country is targeted by protectionist measures from abroad. To address this question, the authors fielded three original survey experiments in the country most affected by US protectionism: China. First, they find consistent evidence that US protectionism reduces Chinese citizens' support for trade. This finding is replicated in parallel experiments on technology cooperation, and further validated outside of the China context with a survey experiment in Argentina. Second, they show that responses to US protectionism reflect both a "direct reciprocity" logic—citizens want to retaliate against the United States specifically—and a "generalized reciprocity" logic that reduces support for trade on a broader, systemic basis.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Public Opinion, Trade, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

13. Our National Devaluation of Diplomacy

Author:
Thomas E. McNamara
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
A recent RAND Report on “The Foreign Service and American Public Opinion” (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1845-1.html) reveals how little the American public knows about diplomacy and foreign affairs. For the report, which goes much deeper than most foreign policy polls, RAND surveyed representative samples of Americans over a two-year period (2020-2021). The results are not surprising, but they are worrisome for anyone interested in national security policy and prosperity. This report and conclusions highlight the deep ignorance of Americans about diplomacy, its policies, and its practice. The “no opinion” responses in some polls and the “I-never-knew-that” replies in some focus groups—even on basics—can range from 25% to 50%.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, and Civil Services
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

14. Combating Global Hunger as an American Foreign Policy Priority

Author:
Gloria Dabek and Emily Sullivan
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
While not traditionally prioritized as a tool of foreign policy, combatting world hunger has high bipartisan support from the American public. Global hunger can often get lost in American foreign policy discussions amid concerns about military engagements, trade relationships, and international cooperation and competition. However, the 2021 Chicago Council Survey found that a majority of Americans believe that combating global hunger should be of some importance to US foreign policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Agriculture, Food, Public Opinion, and Hunger
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

15. ¿Un buen aliado? Análisis de la visión estadounidense sobre el rol español en la OTAN

Author:
Juan Tovar
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
Estados Unidos es el actor más relevante dentro de la OTANy ha condicionado la participación española en la organizacióndesde su ingreso. El artículo analiza desde la perspectiva estadounidense la participación española en la OTAN. Para ello se centra en diferentes factores como serían las declaraciones públicas de los dirigentes estadounidenses en las reuniones bilaterales,la posición de la opinión pública estadounidensey el análisis de diversos objetos de debate como el gasto en defensa, los activos estratégicos españoles, su participación en las diferentes misiones implementadas por la organizacióny la posición española en asuntos y regiones de interéspara Estados Unidos. A pesar de lasdeclaraciones de los líderes estadounidenses sobre el rol españoly la imagen positiva de Españaen la opinión pública estadounidense, se constata un importante margen para su mejora.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, NATO, Public Opinion, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, North America, and United States of America

16. Iranian Public Opinion at the Start of the Biden Administration: Report

Author:
Nancy Gallagher, Clay Ramsay, and Ebrahim Mohseni
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
This report covers findings from two surveys fielded in September and early October 2020 and late January through early February 2021 to assess how Iranians were faring as the covid-19 pandemic intensified the challenges their country was already facing, what they thought about the parliamentary election in Iran and the presidential election in the United States, and how the inauguration of Joe Biden impacted their attitudes towards nuclear diplomacy and regional security. Iran was one of the earliest countries to be hard-hit by the novel coronavirus, with the country’s first cases confirmed on February 13, 2020, two days before the parliamentary election, senior officials among those soon infected, and high death rates reported. Western reporting depicted widespread government incompetence and cover-ups exacerbating the pandemic’s toll. As in other countries, Iranian officials struggled to decide whether to close schools, curtail economic activities, and restrict religious observances in hopes of slowing the virus’ spread, but cases and deaths remained high through 2020. When we fielded the first survey wave, the daily number of new confirmed covid-19 cases in Iran was starting to climb sharply again after having been relatively flat since May. Some world leaders, including the U.N. Secretary General, called for an easing of sanctions on Iran as part of global efforts to fight the pandemic. The United States, which had withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018, maintained that medicine, personal protective equipment, and other humanitarian supplies were exempt from the steadily increasing sanctions applied as part of its “maximum pressure” campaign. But, the United States’ designation in September 2019 of the Central Bank of Iran as a terrorist organization made most foreign suppliers of humanitarian goods reluctant to sell to Iran. A decision in October 2020 to also designate the few Iranian banks that were not previously subject to secondary sanctions further impeded humanitarian trade, caused another sharp drop in the value of Iran’s currency, and had other negative economic effects. The Trump administration’s stated objective was to keep imposing more sanctions until Iran acquiesced to a long list of U.S. demands articulated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The original twelve points include the types of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program that the government rejected during previous negotiations and that the Iranian public has consistently opposed. It also included stopping development of nuclear-capable missiles and ending support for various groups throughout the Middle East.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, and International Community
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

17. Democrats, Republicans Support Alliances, Disagree on International Organizations

Author:
Karl Friedhoff
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
While Americans of all political stripes remain committed to allies and alliances, the public is divided along partisan lines on the value of international organizations. Upon entering office, one of Joe Biden’s first orders of foreign policy business will be to start the long process of repairing America’s standing abroad. Such an effort will begin with mending fences with allies and partners around the world. The good news for the Biden administration is that Americans of all political stripes remain committed to allies and alliances. But beyond the US alliance network, the public is divided along partisan lines on the value of international organizations. While Democrats remain committed to multilateralism and cooperating with the international community, Republicans—as they have since at least the early 2000s—remain skeptical about international organizations and working with the international community more broadly.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Organization, Public Opinion, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

18. Divisions on US-China Policy: Opinion Leaders and the Public

Author:
Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz, Joshua W. Busby, Joshua D. Kertzer, and Jonathan Monten
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz, Joshua Busby, Joshua D. Kertzer, Jonathan Monten, and Jordan Tama analyze recent surveys of foreign policy professionals and the American public on the degree of threat posed by China and how the United States should respond. As President Joseph Biden returns to the White House, this time to sit behind the Resolute desk, perhaps no foreign policy question looms larger than that of US-China relations. The results of the 2020 Chicago Council Survey and the 2020 Chicago Council on Global Affairs-University of Texas at Austin survey of foreign policy professionals and the American public find there are significant partisan differences among leaders and the public on the degree of threat posed by China and how the United States should respond. When it comes to defending Taiwan, however, the divisions are not between partisans but between the public and opinion leaders, with the public in opposition and leaders in support of an American defense of Taiwan.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Public Opinion
Political Geography:
China, East Asia, North America, and United States of America

19. Despite Political Tension, Americans and Russians See Cooperation as Essential

Author:
Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm, Denis Volkov, and Stepan Goncharov
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
A joint Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center survey shows few Russians or Americans expect great changes to US-Russia ties now or in the next 10 years, although both publics see the merits of collaboration. According to a January–February 2021 joint survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center in Moscow, neither Russians nor Americans expect the new US administration to prompt a reset in bilateral relations. While many Russians have yet to form an opinion of US President Joseph Biden, few in either country expect great changes to US-Russia ties now or even in the next 10 years. Despite this anticipated stasis, both publics acknowledge the importance of bilateral cooperation on a number of long-term foreign policy issues.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Public Opinion, and Survey
Political Geography:
Russia, North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

20. Americans, Japanese, and South Koreans Wary of China's Intentions

Author:
Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura, and Dina Smeltz
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
American, Japanese, and South Korean publics see China as a more of a threat than a partner. Trilateral cooperation will be key to managing China's rise. Against a backdrop of growing regional rivalry, March and April 2021 surveys conducted in the United States, Japan, and South Korea show that publics in all three countries share similar views of China’s growing influence and intentions. But the data also show that internal divisions within the US-Japan-South Korea relationship will pose challenges to deeper cooperation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, and Public Opinion
Political Geography:
Japan, China, East Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America