June 30, 2005
Americans on Addressing World Poverty
Americans Support U.S. and G-8 Countries Committing to Spend 0.7% GDP on World Poverty
A major focus of the upcoming G-8 Summit of the major industrial powers will be several ideas for addressing world poverty, especially in Africa. A new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll of 812 Americans finds that a majority of Americans are supportive of these ideas.
One of these ideas is that wealthy countries should commit to spend seven-tenths of one percent of their GDP to address world poverty, especially in Africa. Sixty-five percent of Americans favored the United States making such a commitment, provided that the other wealthy countries do so as well. Support was higher among Democrats (77%), but was still a majority among Republicans (57%).
Another idea that received strong support was for the wealthy countries to commit to a set of goals�called the Millennium Development Goals. Respondents were told, "As you may know, the U.S. and other wealthy countries have set for themselves a series of goals, called the Millennium Development Goals. These call for reducing hunger by half, providing basic sanitation in poor countries, and other goals by the year 2015." They were then asked to assume that the costs would either be an average of $15, $30 or $50 "a year per taxpaying household in the wealthy countries" and that "other countries were willing to give this much." [See note below explaining these cost estimates.]
Overall 71 percent said that the United States should be willing to give the $15, $30 or $50. There was no significant difference in the level of support depending on the amount assumed. Democrats were only slightly more likely to approve than Republicans.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, "Americans sometimes resist major efforts to address world poverty because they tend to incorrectly assume that people in other countries are not giving as much as they are. When it is assumed that all of the wealthy countries will be doing a comparable amount, Americans show a readiness to spend substantial amounts to address world poverty; amounts that, if committed, would produce a marked reduction in world poverty."
Another key topic related to world poverty to be discussed at the G-8 Summit is farm subsidies. Farmers in developing countries have had a difficult time competing with farmers in developed countries in part because the latter receive major subsidies from their governments. Advocates for reducing world poverty have called for cutting back or eliminating such subsidies.
A large majority of Americans oppose most of the subsidies that go to American farmers. More than eighty percent of U.S. farm subsidies go to large farming businesses. A large majority of Americans�74 percent�favor subsidies to small farmers, who, in fact receive less than one fifth of farm subsidies. However 70 percent of Americans oppose the lion's share of subsidies that go to large farming companies.
Americans also want subsidies to be given in a more restricted fashion than they are presently. While most subsidies are given on a regular annual basis, not just in bad years, only 28 percent of Americans favor giving subsidies to small farmers on a regular annual basis and only 9 percent favor giving such regular subsidies to large farming companies.
The motive for opposing most of the subsidies given by the U.S. government is not, however, derived from concerns about their impact on poor farmers abroad. Most Americans do not appear to understand the effects of farm subsidies on agriculture in other countries. Only 19 percent said that they thought that U.S. farm subsidies "hurt farmers in poor countries," while 71 percent assumed that they "have no significant effect on farmers in poor countries."
Steven Kull comments, "While most Americans do not seem to understand how U.S. farm subsidies can hurt farmers in poor countries, nonetheless, an overwhelming majority oppose most of the subsidies the United States gives to farmers, i.e. regular annual subsidies to large farming companies. Thus the public would probably support the United States agreeing to cut most U.S. farm subsidies at the G-8 Summit, though not out of a desire to help poor farmers."
The poll was conducted June 22-26 with a nationwide sample of 812 American adults. The margin of error was 3.5-4%, depending on whether the question went to the full sample or part of the sample. The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.
Note: Cost estimates for meeting Millennium Development Goals
The figures of $15, $30, and $50 per year were varied because there are varying ways to estimate the costs of meeting the Millennium Development Goals. If only one goal is pursued�cutting in half the number of people living on $1 a day�the World Bank estimates a cost of $39-54 billion a year in additional aid. If all 20 of the OECD countries that give aid paid their share on a per capita basis, this would result in a cost of approximately $15 per household. If all the Millennium Development Goals are pursued and are pursued interdependently (the most economical approach) by both donor and recipient countries, the World Bank estimates that the cost would be $40-60 billion a year or roughly $30 per household. Allowing for large errors in these estimates, or a lack of coordination in execution, the figure of $50 per household is a very high-end estimate. (See http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf for the World Bank summary paper "The Costs of Attaining the Millennium Development Goals.")
June 29, 2005
The Darfur Crisis: African and American Public Opinion
African Public Says UN Has Right to Intervene to Stop Genocide; US Public Favors UN Intervention in Darfur
While the leaders of African countries have shown strong resistance to non-African forces intervening in the crisis in Darfur, a GlobeScan poll finds that in eight African countries surveyed a majority (7 countries) or a plurality (1 country) believe the UN should have the right to intervene to stop human rights abuses such as genocide, and that the UN is the most popular force to intervene in situations like Darfur. Likewise, a PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds 61% favor the UN intervening in the crisis in Darfur, with 54% willing to contribute US troops. Seven in ten favor NATO, including the US, providing support to the African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur.
Africa Poll
The eight-nation GlobeScan poll of 10,809 Africans (margin of error +/-2-3%) found that overall, 65% of Africans interviewed believe the UN Security Council should have the right to authorize the use of military force to prevent severe human rights violations such as genocide, while just 19% are opposed. Support was strongest among those in Ghana (80%), Kenya (75%), Nigeria (66%), Tanzania (66%), Zimbabwe (65%), and Cameroon (64%), while milder support was found among Angolans (55%) and South Africans (47%). Opposition to UN intervention was the highest among Angolans (37%), but in most other countries less than one in five were opposed.
Africans show widespread openness to the idea of multilateral military intervention in their own country in the event of a conflict “like Darfur.” When asked who they would prefer to intervene in the event of such a conflict, UN military troops received the widest endorsement (30%), followed by the African Union (22%). The idea of intervention by rich countries acting alone was endorsed by just 5%.
Countries endorsing the UN for this role most strongly were Ghana (48%), Kenya and Zimbabwe (both 35%). The lowest level of support for the UN was in South Africa (21%), but this was still more than the number of South Africans who preferred the African Union (12%). In three countries, the proportion of people preferring the AU and the UN were about the same—Tanzania (28% and 25% respectively), Angola and Nigeria (22% and 25% in both cases). The greatest number of people rejecting any foreign military intervention was in Cameroon (20%); the smallest number was in Ghana (6%).
Awareness of the situation in Darfur is fairly low. Just over one-third of Africans interviewed (36%) say they have heard or read a great deal or a fair amount about “the conflict in the Sudan region called Darfur.” Attitudes about whether the UN should have the right to intervene are not significantly different between those with higher or lower levels of awareness.
While African support for intervention is much higher with UN authorization when it comes to severe human rights abuses such as genocide, Africans do not reject the idea of a country being able to intervene even when it does not have UN approval. In such cases, half (51%) say a country should have the right to intervene even without UN authorization, while three in ten (28%) disagree.
Lloyd Hetherington comments, “Clearly Africans are looking outside their own countries and especially to the United Nations to help deal with some of their problems. Contrary to their leaders, it appears that they would like to see the UN intervene in dealing with problems such as the crisis in Darfur, with a growing confidence in the African Union to also take on this role.”
These findings are from a larger annual survey of African public opinion called “Africa in the New Century,” tracking attitudes of Africans on key issues, with the support of the Commission for Africa and syndicated subscribers. The survey of 10,809 Africans from eight countries (Angola, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe) was conducted between October and December 2004.
US Poll
A PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll of 812 Americans finds majority support for several forms of intervention in the crisis in Darfur. The poll was conducted June 22-26 and has a margin of error of 3.5%.
Asked whether UN members should “step in with military force to stop the violence in Darfur,” 61% said that it should, while 32% said that it should not. This support was bipartisan: 67% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats favored it. Independents were a bit lower at 52%.
A majority, albeit a slightly smaller one, also favored contributing US troops to a multilateral operation in Darfur. Asked “If other members of the UN are willing to contribute troops to a military operation in Darfur, do you think the US should or should not be willing to contribute some troops as well?” 54% said that it should, while 39% were opposed. Here again support was quite bipartisan. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans and 56% of Democrats favored contributing US troops.
Support is even higher for providing equipment and logistical support to the African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Respondents were told, “At present there is a peacekeeping force in Darfur made up of soldiers from African countries. But this force is quite weak and its presence has not stopped the violence. The African Union has asked NATO for equipment and logistical support.” They were then asked, “Do you think that NATO, including the US, should or should not provide such help?” Seventy-one percent said the US should, while 21% said it should not. Here again support was highly bipartisan, with 73% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats favoring providing such assistance.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “What is quite striking here is that even as the US is tied down in Iraq and suffering daily casualties, a majority of Americans would support contributing troops to a multilateral operation in Darfur. This suggests that what is occurring there goes against strongly held values in the American public. Indeed, multiple polls have found that many Americans believe that if severe human rights abuses are occurring, especially genocide, the UN should have the right to intervene and the US should be willing to contribute troops.”
When the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 2004 asked whether the UN should have the right to intervene in the event of human right abuses such as genocide—the same question asked in the eight-nation African poll—85% of Americans and 94% of American leaders agreed that the UN should have the right to intervene. Also, in the same CCFR poll, 75% favored using US troops “To stop a government from committing genocide and killing large numbers of its own people.”
US public support for intervention in Darfur may vary, depending on whether Americans assume that what is occurring in Darfur falls in the category of genocide. In December 2004, when the Bush administration was stating that genocide was occurring in Darfur, PIPA/KN asked whether the UN should intervene with military force “to stop the genocide in Darfur.” Seventy-four percent said it should and 60% said that the US should contribute troops. In light of the UN report that determined that war crimes and genocidal intent were occurring in Darfur, but refrained from labeling it genocide, the present poll presented the situation more equivocally, referring to “large-scale violence in Darfur, Sudan, that some, including the Bush administration, have called genocide.” In this case support for UN intervention was 13 points lower and support for the US contributing troops was 6 points lower.
The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.