March 2, 2006
Iraq Poll Illuminates Sunni-Shia Divide
Sunni Dissatisfaction Widespread
Full Report
Questionnaire/Methodology
The welling up of violent incidents that followed the bombing of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines last week in Iraq have raised questions about the roots of the frustration and anger that are playing out. A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 1,150 Iraqis conducted in January shows that among the Sunni community there is widespread unhappiness with how things are going in Iraq, but that the Shia (who recently won the majority of seats in the new Iraqi Parliament) and the Kurds (who have crafted a substantial amount of autonomy) express relative satisfaction.
Sunnis, who were a privileged group during Saddam Hussein's long rule of Iraq, diverge sharply from other ethnic groups when asked about whether Iraq is headed in the right direction, whether December's parliamentary elections were free and fair, whether the government that will result from those elections will be the legitimate representative of Iraqis, whether overthrowing Saddam was worthwhile and whether they approve of attacks on US-led forces.
Sunnis overwhelmingly feel that Iraq is not headed in the right direction, the opposite of how most of their compatriots feel. Ninety-three percent of Sunnis said the country is going in the wrong direction, compared to 16 percent of Shia and 23 percent of Kurds who felt that way. Only 6 percent of Sunnis believe Iraq is headed in the right direction.
Sunnis participated in Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections in significant numbers after boycotting the previous post-Saddam election in January 2005. Yet an overwhelming majority of Sunnis polled after the elections--94 percent--felt they were not free and fair, compared to 19 percent of Kurds and 11 percent of Shia who felt that way. Sunni allegations of election irregularities were investigated, and as a result, 227 ballot boxes were thrown out, less than 1 percent of the total vote.
Perhaps most significant, 92 percent of Sunnis said they do not believe the new Parliament will be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people. This is in sharp contrast to 90 percent of Shia and 81 percent of Kurds who said that the new Parliament will be legitimate.
A very large majority even express regret that Saddam Hussein was removed. Asked whether the ousting of Saddam was worth the hardships suffered as a result, 83 percent of Sunnis said it was not worth it. This is in stark contrast to the mere 2 percent of Shia and 8 percent of Kurds who said they feel that way.
A large majority of Sunnis--88 percent--approve of attacks on US-led forces (77 percent strongly, 11 percent somewhat) compared to a minority of Shia (41 percent) and Kurds (16 percent). Sunnis are also the only group that had a substantial minority expressing approval for attacks on Iraqi government security forces. One-fourth (24 percent) said they approve of such attacks somewhat, while only 4 percent of Shia and less than 1 percent of Kurds approved.
The deep dissatisfaction of Sunnis and the enormous gulf between Sunni public opinion and that of other Iraqis illustrates the enormous challenges inherent in forming a coalition government, which is still underway, and the importance of considering Sunni public opinion to achieve consensus.
Most Palestinians Believe Hamas Should Change its Position on Eliminating Israel
Contrary to Hamas Position, Majority Supports Two-State Solution
Hamas Victory Driven By Desire To End Corruption
By Angela Stephens
The decisive victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas in last month’s Palestinian legislative elections (winning 74 of 132 parliamentary seats) has raised the question of whether the Palestinian public has become aligned with Hamas’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and its stated goal of creating an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. Hamas has come under increasing pressure to renounce its goal of eliminating Israel, but Hamas leaders have refused.
However, new polling following the election indicates that two-thirds of Palestinians believe Hamas should change its policy of rejecting Israel’s right to exist. Most also support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Post-election polls indicate that Hamas’ victory is due largely to Palestinians’ desire to end corruption in government rather than support for the organization’s political platform.
Most Palestinians agree that Hamas should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Two-thirds (63 percent) of those polled Jan. 27-29 by Near East Consulting said Hamas should change its position calling for the elimination of Israel. Even among those who voted for Hamas, only 37 percent support Hamas’ position that Israel does not have the right to exist.
A majority of Palestinians also supports the two-state solution. In a Feb. 8-12 poll by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center (JMCC), 58 percent of Palestinians said they favor the two-state solution, while 22 percent favor “a bi-national state on all of historic Palestine.” Three percent said they want an Islamic state (a volunteered response, not included in the list of choices given to respondents).
Apparently the vast majority of Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because of its political goals but because of their desire to rid the Palestinian Authority of corruption, a theme Hamas campaigned on. Among those polled by JMCC who said they voted for Hamas, only 12 percent said they did so because of Hamas’ political agenda. A plurality of 43 percent said they voted for Hamas because they hoped it would end corruption.
Fighting corruption was cited as the most important priority for the new government by 30 percent of respondents in the Near East Consulting poll—more than any other priority. The extent of the problem was highlighted earlier this month when the Palestinian Authority attorney general announced that some $700 million has been stolen from the authority’s coffers. Two-thirds (65 percent) in the Near East Consulting poll said they believe corruption will decrease under a Hamas-led government.
After fighting corruption, internal security and unemployment/poverty are the top priorities, cited by 13 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of those polled by Near East Consulting. Only 7 percent cited a peace settlement with Israel as the top priority.
Thus, Hamas’ success is largely a rejection of prior governments, rather than an affirmation of Hamas’ approach to dealing with Israel. Three out of four Palestinians (72 percent) said in the JMCC poll that they consider the performance of the previous Palestinian Legislative Council “bad” or “very bad.” Expectations are high that the new council will do better—77 percent expect its performance will be “good” or “very good.”
Furthermore it should be noted that Hamas did not receive the majority of the popular vote. With the Palestinians’ mixed system of proportional representation according to party support for half the seats and district seats based on population for the other half, Hamas was able to take 58 percent of all seats with only 45 percent of the overall popular vote (the 58 percent includes three independents who campaigned with Hamas).
It is common after elections for some people to shift their views to align with the winning party. But in the JMCC poll, only 41 percent said they would vote for Hamas if the election were held again—down from the 45 percent who voted for Hamas. This suggests that rather than consolidating their position with the Palestinian electorate, some may now be feeling uneasy about the outcome, suggesting that some may have voted for Hamas as a kind of protest vote rather than out of a desire or expectation that Hamas would win. Indeed, the JMCC survey found that 74 percent of those polled did not expect Hamas’ overwhelming victory.
Though other priorities are at the forefront for most Palestinians, a strong majority supports a peace agreement with Israel in principle and majorities want the new government to continue political negotiations with Israel and to honor the Oslo Accords signed with Israel in 1993, which included Palestinian self-government and mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people. The Near East Consulting poll found that 80 percent support a peace agreement. The JMCC poll found that two-thirds (66 percent) want the new government to continue political negotiations with Israel, and 52 percent said that Hamas “has to go on with” the Oslo Accords, while 42 percent said it does not. Palestinians were divided in that poll on whether peace negotiations will improve under a Hamas-led government (41 percent no, 36 percent yes, 22 percent did not answer yes or no).
While Hamas has rejected negotiations with Israel, claiming that armed struggle is the only way to achieve Palestinian aspirations, most Palestinians do not support this position. Only 18 percent said in the JMCC poll that armed struggle is the best way to achieve Palestinian national goals, while 39 percent said the best way is “through negotiations” and 40 percent said “through negotiations and armed struggle.” Thus, while 58 percent do support armed struggle as part of the approach to Israel, only 18 percent support Hamas’ position of rejecting negotiation.
Though a majority of Palestinians support armed struggle, a modest majority feels that Hamas, in its new position leading the government, should refrain from engaging in it. The JMCC poll found 52 percent saying “Hamas has to stop its operations” in Israel and the occupied territories.
The high level of support for a national coalition government and for President Mahmoud Abbas remaining in power also indicate that most Palestinians do not offer blanket support for Hamas’ goals. Fifty-eight percent of those polled by JMCC said they hope to see a national coalition government established, while 24 percent prefer a Hamas government and 14 percent want a “technocrat government.” The long-ruling Fatah party, which won the next largest bloc of parliamentary seats (45) after Hamas, announced days after the election that it is not willing to join Hamas in a coalition government. Two-thirds of Palestinians (64 percent) oppose this decision, Near East Consulting found. That poll also found that 73 percent do not want Abbas, a Fatah leader, to resign from the presidency.
Polls:
Near East Consulting http://www.neareastconsulting.com/plc2006/results/index.html
JMCC http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no57.pdf
March 1, 2006
Public Opinion in India and America
Indians Have Positive Views of U.S. and Bush
Indians More Positive Than Americans on China
By Angela Stephens
As President George W. Bush arrives in India on his first visit to the world�s second most populous country, he is encountering a population that consistently has had more positive views of the United States and the president himself than most countries.
In a nationwide poll of Indians conducted by the Indian polling organization C-Voter for BBC World Service in November, 44 percent said their view of U.S. influence in the world was mainly positive, while just 17 percent said it was mainly negative (the remaining 39 percent said neither, it depends or did not answer). Indians� view of the United States was more positive than the average of 33 nations asked that question, which was 40 percent positive, 41 percent negative.
In a December 2004 BBC World Service poll (this time limited to urban populations), 54 percent said the U.S. influence in the world was mainly positive, while 30 percent said it was mainly negative.
Indian views were even more favorable when they were asked about the United States per se (as distinguished from the US role in the world). A Pew Global Attitudes survey of Indians (also limited to urban populations) last May found 71 percent said they had a favorable view of the United States, while 17 percent had an unfavorable view. Indians� view of the United States was the most favorable of all 17 countries surveyed except the United States itself. Indians� favorable view of the United States was up from 2002, when 54 percent said in a Pew poll that they viewed the United States favorably.
Most Indians believe the United States considers the interests of countries like India in making international policy decisions�a view held by relatively few countries. A Pew Global Attitudes survey of Indians last May found that 63 percent felt the United States takes into account the interests of countries like theirs (42% a fair amount, 21% a great deal). A quarter (26%) said the United States does not take such interests into account (16% not too much, 10% not much at all). This represents a positive shift from 2002, when 38 percent said the United States takes such interests into account (25% a fair amount, 13% a great deal), and 31 percent said it does not (17% not too much, 14% not much at all).
At the same time, most Indians do not want the United States to remain the sole military superpower in the world. When asked in the Pew poll if it would be better if Europe, China or another country became as powerful as the United States, 81 percent said yes. Only 15 percent wanted the United States to remain the sole military superpower.
Indian Views of President Bush
President Bush also gets relatively high marks from Indians. In the May 2005 Pew poll, 54 percent of Indians said they have �a lot� or �some� confidence in Bush �to do the right thing regarding world affairs��a higher rating than all other countries except the United States itself.
In July 2004, GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) asked Indians who they would prefer to win the presidential election and they were evenly divided�Bush 33 percent, Kerry 34 percent (urban only). This set India apart from most other countries polled�30 of 35 countries favored Kerry.
Once Bush was elected, views became even more positive. In December 2004, a BBC World Service poll asked Indians how they felt about Bush being reelected (urban only) and 62 percent said they felt it was positive for peace and security in the world, with 27 percent saying it was negative.
Americans� Views of India
When asked whether India is having a positive or negative influence in the world, the U.S. public leans slightly to a positive view. The November 2005 poll for BBC World Service found 39 percent saying that India is having a positive influence, while 35 percent said it is having a negative influence.
However, when asked whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of India per se, American views are more definitely positive. When Gallup asked this question in February 2006, 66 percent said they had a favorable view and just 23 percent said they had a negative view. Over the last five years, favorable views have grown. In 2000, only 47 percent had a favorable view, while 38 percent had a negative view.
Americans also perceive relations with India as being friendly. When Harris in August 2005 asked respondents to characterize India�s relations with the United States, a robust 62 percent rated India as friendly (42%) or a close ally (20%). Just 23 percent rated India as not friendly (20%) or an enemy (3%).
Naturally the question arises why views of India in terms of favorability and its relations with the United States are so much more positive than views of India�s influence in the world. Questions that ask about favorability often draw on a wider range of factors than a country�s foreign policy and India has long held a certain fascination for Americans. Relations between the United States and India are also quite friendly right now. But when asked to consider India�s influence in the world, these positive attitudes may be muted by memories of India�s acquisition of nuclear weapons and its confrontations with Pakistan.
Indian and American Views of China
Like most countries, Indians are quite positive about China, in contrast to Americans� unusually negative views. In the November 2005 BBC poll, 44 percent of Indians said China�s influence in the world is mainly positive (15% negative), similar to the average among the 35 countries polled�45 percent positive, 27 percent negative. On the other hand, 53 percent of Americans said China�s influence is mainly negative, while just 35 percent positive said it was mainly positive.
India and the United States also differ on their assessment of China�s potential military power. While 78 percent of Americans polled by Pew in May 2005 think it would be a bad thing if China becomes militarily as strong as the US (13% good), Indians are divided on the question (45% good, 45% bad).
Both Indians and Americans tend to believe their country could benefit from China�s economic growth, however. A majority of 53 percent in India said it would be good (36% bad), and a plurality of 49 percent in the United States said it would be good (40% bad).
Indian and American Views of the United Nations
Both Indians and Americans view the United Nations� influence in the world as more positive than negative, and majorities of both populations would see the U.N. becoming significantly more powerful in the world as a mainly positive change.
A majority of Americans (52%) said in the BBC poll in November 2005 that the U.N.�s influence is mainly positive, while 36 percent said it is mainly negative. A plurality of Indians in the same poll, 44 percent, said the U.N. influence is mainly positive, while just 12 percent said it is mainly negative.
Majorities of Indians and Americans believe it would be a mainly positive change if the U.N. becomes significantly more powerful in world affairs. Fifty-nine percent of Americans and 55 percent of Indians said in the December 2004 BBC poll that this would be mainly positive (37% of Americans, 23% of Indians said it would be mainly negative).
Indians are more likely than Americans to support reform in the membership of the U.N. Security Council, where the United States has a permanent seat and India does not, and an end to permanent members� veto power. Nor surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of Indians, 88 percent, favor adding India as a permanent member to the council, while a slight majority of Americans, 51 percent, support that (19% of Americans and 1% of Indians oppose).
Three in four Indians (77%) favor ending veto power of U.N. Security Council permanent members when the other four permanent members support a decision, as do 57 percent of Americans (13% of Indians and 34% of Americans oppose it).
Most Indians Believe Iran is Trying to Develop Nuclear Weapons
Think UN Should Try to Stop Nuclear Proliferation
Muslim and Hindu Indians Concur
A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll in India finds that two out of three Indians believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and most are concerned about this. Though India itself was the first new country to test a nuclear weapon in the period after the Non-Proliferation Treaty was established in 1968, a majority of Indians believe that the United Nations should try to prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The poll comes at a time when Iran’s nuclear intent is a top issue in the Indian Parliament and media, and there is intense debate about whether India should vote against Iran at a March 6 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog. India’s main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), warned Tuesday that the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power would be against India’s interests, while the small Samajwadi (Socialist) Party threatened Wednesday to bring a no-confidence motion in Parliament if the Indian government votes against Iran next month.
The nationwide poll of 1,452 Indians was fielded Nov. 20-30, 2005, by the Indian polling organization C-Voter.
Asked, “Do you think Iran is or is not trying to develop nuclear weapons?” 64 percent said they thought Iran was doing so; 32 percent thought it was not. Those who are more educated, and presumably better informed, were more convinced, with 71 percent believing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as compared to 57 percent among those with low levels of education.
A large majority (77%) said that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, they would feel some concern. Over a third (35%) said this would concern them “very much.” Another 42 percent said they would feel a moderate level of concern. Less than a quarter (23%) said they would be “not at all concerned.”
Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), comments, “Though the Indian public supported the Indian government when it developed nuclear weapons in the 1990s, most Indians now endorse the idea that the international community should seek to prevent any further nuclear proliferation.”
A clear majority of 58 percent said that as a general rule, the United Nations should actively work to discourage countries from acquiring nuclear weapons; 38 percent said the U.N. should not do this. This view was held by clear majorities at all levels of education and income.
Though Indians seem to be eyeing Iran with some suspicion, they do not appear to be taking a strongly negative view of Iran’s role in the world and have a less negative view than most other countries. In a recent poll for the BBC World Service conducted by GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes and also fielded by C-Voter, Indians were asked whether Iran is having a mostly positive or negative influence in the world. Responses were evenly divided between 25 percent saying mostly positive and 24 percent saying mostly negative, with a remarkably high 51 percent not answering either way. This was in contrast to the 31 other countries in the poll that had a predominantly negative view. In 24 countries, more had a negative than positive view and on average 47 percent had a negative view while just 18 percent had a positive view. 
Views of Indian Muslims
India has the second-largest Muslim community in the world and one that is sometimes at odds with the dominant Hindu community. However, as Steven Kull comments, “Clearly Muslims in India, like Hindus, believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, are concerned about it, and want to see the UN actively work to discourage proliferation in general.”
Sixty-two percent of Indian Muslims believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, as do 65 percent of Hindus. Concern about the possibility of Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons is higher among Hindus than Muslims, but only 29 percent of Muslims said they are not at all concerned. It should be noted that most Indian Muslims are Sunnis in contrast to Iranians, who are primarily Shia.
Muslims also seem to embrace the principle of using multilateral means for preventing nuclear proliferation. There was no difference between Muslims and Hindus—58 percent of Muslims embraced the idea that the United Nations should actively work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, as did 57 percent of Hindus.
Most Indians Say India Should Limit its Greenhouse Gases
See Global Warming as Important Threat
Reject Indian Government Position That Developing Countries Are Not Obliged to Limit Emissions
A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of the Indian public finds that two out of three Indians believe that India should limit its emissions of the greenhouse gases that may be causing global warming—something which, as a developing country, it is not currently obliged to do under the Kyoto Protocol. More than 8 in 10 see climate change or global warming as an important threat, and a majority rejects the idea that developing countries like India should not be expected to limit their emissions.
These positions are in sharp contrast to the views of the Indian government, which rejects “any constraints on the emissions of GHGs [greenhouse gases] by India.” (See appendix below for more details.)
The nationwide poll of 1,452 Indians was fielded Nov. 20-30, 2005, by the Indian polling organization C-Voter.
Indian respondents were presented three options to express what they “think about India taking steps to limit emissions that may be causing global warming.” Only 25 percent endorse the view that India “should not take any steps that have economic costs.” Seventy-one percent endorse positions that India should take steps, but they are divided on the level of costs they are willing to accept. The largest percentage—41 percent of the whole sample—say India “should only take limited steps that have low economic costs.” Thirty percent say India “should take strong steps even if they have significant costs.”
An extraordinary 85 percent of Indians see global warming as an important threat, with 45 percent saying it is extremely important. A mere 10 percent say it is not important at all.
Indians say they have heard a substantial amount about climate change. Asked, “How much have you heard about the idea that emissions from cars and factories are causing global warming or climate change?” only 27 percent say they have heard “not very much” (13%) or “nothing at all” (14%). A rather large 73 percent say they have heard “a great deal” (35%) or “some” (38%).
The Indian government’s unwillingness has played a central role in U.S. objections to Kyoto. In 1997—before the negotiations that produced the Kyoto Protocol—the U.S. Senate passed a resolution, 95-0, stating that the United States would not sign any agreement that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing countries, as well as for developed countries. In American political discourse, India has often served as the poster child for the image of developing countries as unwilling to take on any work of dealing with climate change.
Perhaps the most significant finding of the poll is that Indians largely reject the view, expressed by their government, that developing countries such as India do not have a responsibility to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Respondents were presented two positions on this issue and asked which position was closer to theirs. Only 26 percent endorse the view that “Less developed countries like India should not be expected to limit their emissions.” Rather, a large majority—69 percent—endorses the view that “All countries have a responsibility to make some efforts to limit their emissions.”
To see how this attitude might stand up to further challenge, respondents were then presented another pair of arguments. In this case a larger minority of 45 percent endorse the view—espoused by the Indian government—that “India should not be expected to limit its emissions because it produces relatively low emissions per person.” Nonetheless, a plurality of 50 percent endorses the view that “India should limit its emissions because India’s total emissions are quite substantial and growing.”
The difference seems to be that when the argument is simply focused on India and its low emissions, nearly half of Indians find persuasive the argument that India should be treated differently. Still, it does not really tip the scale with the Indian public. And when Indians are asked to think about the larger context of all developing countries, the idea that developing countries in general should not be required to limit their emissions persuades only a small minority.
Presumably the response to the second argument is more reflective of how Indians’ thinking would develop if they were more involved in thinking through the broader implications of India claiming an exception based on being a developing country.
Demographic Variations
Educational level is an important source of differences among groups in the sample. (Educational levels were defined as less, the same or greater than India’s national average level.) Those with higher-than-average educational levels are somewhat more ready to see India take steps to combat climate change than those with lower-than-average educational levels. Sixty-four percent of the less educated are willing to take steps involving economic costs, while this is true of 77 percent among the more educated. Sixty-three percent of the less educated think all countries have a responsibility to make some efforts (75% among the more educated), and a modest majority of the less educated—53 percent—say India’s low level of per-person emissions means it should not be expected to set limits, while a 53 percent majority of the more educated say India should be expected to set limits.
Income has similar impacts on the survey as education does. Those with higher income are somewhat more likely to accept higher costs and to reject arguments that India or developing countries in general are not responsible for reducing emissions. The sharpest difference is that among those with low incomes, 53 percent say India should not be required to limit emissions while 65 percent of those with high incomes say it should.
Between Hindus and Muslims, Hindus are more concerned about the threat of climate change than Muslims, with 47 percent of Hindus seeing the threat as extremely important as compared to 38 percent of Muslims. Seventy-two percent of Hindus say all countries are responsible to make some efforts against emissions, as compared to 57 percent of Muslims. Hindus also prefer the argument that India should limit its emissions because its total is substantial (51%) over the argument that India’s per capita emissions are low (43%). Among Muslims, the views are 53 percent arguing for an Indian exception with 46 percent against.
Comparing Indian and American Opinion
Because a question asked in this poll of Indians is similar to a question asked in a Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll of the United States, it is possible to compare Indian and American attitudes. In the United States, the government has also taken the position that constraints on emissions are economically unfeasible.
Interestingly, the public views are quite convergent. On the basic question of how to respond to global warming, Indian public opinion is astonishingly similar to U.S. public opinion. PIPA asked Americans a question with the same three response options (slightly longer, with arguments included) in June 2005. Indians’ and Americans’ thinking are only a few points apart, despite the huge disparities between the two countries in many dimensions.
Indians show a slightly higher level of concern about the threat of global warming. In a May 2005 German Marshall Fund poll, 79 percent said global warming represented an important threat, with 41 percent saying it is extremely important. Only 18 percent said it was “not an important threat.” Among Indians, 85 percent said global warming is an important threat, with 45 percent saying it is extremely important. Just 10 percent said it is not important at all.
Levels of awareness were also strikingly similar despite the sharp differences in educational levels between Americans and Indians. In June 2005 PIPA also asked how much people had heard about global warming. Seventy-two percent said they had heard “a great deal” (22%) or “some” (50%) and only 28 percent said they have heard “not very much” (20%) or “nothing at all” (8%). Among Indians, 73 percent said they had heard “a great deal” (35%) or “some” (38%), while 27 percent said they had heard “not very much” (13%) or “nothing at all” (14%).
Appendix: Position of Indian Government
While the Indian government has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it has been outspoken in its position that there is an “overriding priority of the right to development” which trumps any expectation that developing countries should seek to limit their emissions. It holds that “significant responsibility for [anthropogenic climate change] clearly does not lie with India or other developing countries.” The Indian government points out that in 1994, India’s per-capita emissions were only 23 percent of the global average and only 4 percent of those from the US in that year. It argues further that “Since … emissions are directly linked to economic activity, India’s economic growth will necessarily involve increase … from the current extremely low levels. Any constraints on the emissions of GHGs [greenhouse gases] by India, whether direct, by way of emissions targets, or indirect, will reduce growth rates”—thereby conflicting with the “overriding priority of the right to development.” (National Environment Policy 2004, India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests, pp. 30-31)
February 28, 2006
World Public Says Iraq War has Increased Global Terrorist Threat
Favors Early Withdrawal from Iraq
But Not If New Government Asks Forces to Stay
A new global poll finds that in 33 of 35 countries surveyed, the most common view is that the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world. On average, 60 percent of the respondents have this perception, while just 12 percent think the Iraq war has decreased the likelihood of terrorist attacks; another 15 percent think it has had no effect either way.
The poll of 41,856 people was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 35-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed between October 2005 and January 2006.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “Though the Bush administration has framed the intervention in Iraq as a means of fighting terrorism, all around the world—including in the US—most people view it as having increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The near unanimity of this assessment among countries is remarkable in global public opinion polling.”
Consistent with this uneasiness about the war in Iraq, more people than not in 20 of 35 countries think US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq in the next few months, while in nine countries, more people think US-led forces should remain until the situation is stabilized. Six countries are divided. On average, 50 percent favor an early withdrawal, while 35 percent favor remaining until the situation is stabilized.
The countries most eager for US coalition withdrawal are Argentina (80%), Egypt (76%), China (67%), Brazil (67%), Saudi Arabia (64%) and Senegal (64%). The countries most inclined to favor the US remaining until Iraq is stable are the US (58%), Afghanistan (58%), Australia (57%), Great Britain (56%) and Germany (55%).
However, if the new Iraqi government asks US-led forces to remain until the situation is stabilized, the picture changes sharply. In that case, more people in 21 of 34 countries asked this question think the coalition should stay; while in 11 countries more think the coalition should leave even if asked to stay. Two countries were divided. On average, 48 percent think US-led forces should agree to stay at the request of the new Iraqi government, while 32 percent stand by the view that, even if asked, US-led forces should pull out in the next few months.
While nearly all countries reject the idea that the Iraq war was an effective part of a larger war against terrorism, more countries than not also think it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein. There are 21 countries where more people view the 2003 removal of Saddam Hussein as a mistake, while in 11 countries more people view it as the right decision. Three countries are divided. On average, 45 percent view removing Saddam as a mistake, while 36 percent view it as the right decision.
GlobeScan President Doug Miller concludes, “It’s official. Citizens worldwide think Western leaders have made a fundamental mistake in their war on terror by invading Iraq. And, short of the Iraqi government asking them to stay longer, people think the troops should leave.”
Iraqis: Naturally one of the most interesting questions is how Iraqis feel about the presence of US-led forces. Iraqis are sharply divided, with 49 percent favoring an early withdrawal and 49 percent favoring US-led forces remaining until Iraq is stable. If the new Iraqi government asks the forces to stay, support for doing so rises only slightly, to 53 percent.
Looking back at the removal of Saddam in 2003, Iraqis are easily the most enthusiastic about it, with 74 percent saying it was the right decision. At the same time, 75 percent believe that it has increased the risk of terrorist attacks around the world.
Countries with Forces in Iraq: A key question is what the publics of countries that have troops participating with the US-led forces in Iraq believe those forces should do now (the question asked about US, British and allied forces in general, not about any specific country’s forces). Six countries polled have troops in Iraq. In three, majorities favor remaining until Iraq is stabilized—the US (58%), Great Britain (56%) and Australia (57%). In Italy, views are divided (44% pull out, 47% remain) and in Poland, a plurality of 50 percent favors pulling out while 39 percent favors remaining. In South Korea a slight majority (51%) favors pulling out while 47 percent favors staying.
If Iraq’s new government were to ask the forces to stay, support for staying jumps to a majority in all six of these countries—Australia (74%), US (73%), UK (69%), South Korea (69%), Poland (61%) and Italy (60%).
It should be noted, though, that support for US-led forces remaining in Iraq does not necessarily mean that public opinion in each of these countries favors their own country’s troops remaining. Indeed, polling in countries with forces in Iraq has often found public opposition to contributing troops.
Americans: As mentioned, 58 percent of Americans say that the US should remain in Iraq until Iraq is stabilized, rising to 73 percent if the new government requests it. However, 55 percent of Americans believe that the war has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks and just 21 percent say it has decreased this likelihood. A majority of Americans (60%) say that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing, but it should be noted that other polls that have asked about the war itself, rather than about removing Saddam, have found modest majorities saying that the war was a mistake.
Iraq’s Neighbors: Included in the poll were five of Iraq’s Islamic neighbors—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Afghanistan. Iraq’s immediate neighbors as well as Egypt all have clear majorities calling for withdrawal: 76 percent in Egypt; 64 percent in Saudi Arabia; 61 percent in Turkey and 58 percent in Iran (though over a third, 36 percent, prefer that the coalition remain). In Afghanistan, however, a clear majority wants to see the coalition remain (58% to 25%).
Views are quite mixed among Iraq’s neighbors about the significance of the new Iraqi government asking US-led forces to stay. In Iran, support for forces remaining jumps 38 points from 36 percent to 74 percent—a finding that highlights how important considerations of sovereignty are in Iranians’ thinking. Other countries in the region do not share this response. Even with an Iraqi government request, only 11 percent of Saudis think the coalition should stay (leave, 49%), 18 percent of Egyptians (leave, 63%), and only 28 percent of Turks (leave, 45%). In Afghanistan, though, the factor of an Iraqi government request means that support for the coalition staying goes up from 58 percent to 65 percent.
When asked how the intervention had affected the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world, all neighboring countries lean to the view that it had increased it. This is especially true of Egypt (83%) and Iran (77%). Turks agree only a little less forcibly (64%). In Saudi Arabia, a 49 percent plurality also thinks so, but 40 percent preferred not to answer the question. Afghans have the most mixed views: 39 percent think the war increased the likelihood of attacks, 29 percent think it decreased the likelihood and 20 percent think it made no difference.
Iraq’s big 74 percent majority thinking that removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision has no parallel in neighboring countries. The most support for this position is in Afghanistan, where 40 percent agree—but this is actually a narrow plurality, because 35 percent of Afghans think it was a mistake. Among Saudis, a very slim plurality—36 percent to 32 percent—regard the coalition’s removal of Saddam as a mistake, with a large percentage not weighing in on the question. In Iran, this plurality is more robust (48% mistake to 33%). Turkey and Egypt are clearly opposed, with 55 and 54 percent, respectively, calling it a mistake and only 22 and 20 percent the right decision.
Europeans: Views in European countries on Iraq are more varied at this point than conventional wisdom suggests. Perhaps most striking, a 55 percent majority of Germans say the coalition should now remain until Iraq is stable, even though three in five say it was a mistake to remove Saddam in the first place. On the other hand, a 50 percent plurality of Poles think the coalition should now leave (39% stay), though about two-thirds think removing Saddam was the right decision in 2003. The other countries that think the coalition should leave Iraq early are Spain (60%), France (56%) and Russia (53%). Countries besides Germany where majorities think the coalition should stay until stable are Britain (56%, leave 38%) and Finland (51%, leave 40%). Italians are divided (47% stay, 44% leave early).
Views shift sharply if the Iraqi government asks the coalition to stay. Sixty percent of French say that under this condition, the coalition should stay—up from 34 percent. Similarly, among Poles, 61 percent say that if asked, the coalition should stay, up from 39 percent. In three other countries, majorities favoring the coalition staying were increased: in Germany, from 55 percent to 71 percent; in Britain, from 56 percent to 69 percent; and Finland, from 51 percent to 71 percent.
It is a consensus view in Europe that the Iraq war has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide. A full three-quarters or more say this in six of the eight European countries polled: Finland (82%), Italy (81%), Germany (80%), Spain (79%), Britain (77%) and Poland (76%). Two-thirds agree in France (67%), as does a lesser majority in Russia (58%). Only 3 percent and 5 percent in France and Russia, respectively, say it has decreased the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
Views about whether it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein are a bit more varied.
Of the eight European countries polled, five countries have majorities (2) or pluralities (3) who think it was a mistake for the US and Britain to remove Saddam Hussein’s government: Spain (65%), Germany (61%), France (50%, 32% right decision), Italy (48%, 34% right), and Russia (42%, 21% right). In two countries, more think it was the right decision: Poland (65%) and Britain (49%, 40% mistake). Finland is divided (45% right decision, 42% mistake). Again, it should be noted that other polls that have asked about the war itself, as opposed to removing Saddam Hussein, have found larger percentages disapproving.
Latin America: Latin America has some of the largest majorities anywhere in the world favoring US-led forces withdrawing. The largest majority of all countries polled is found in Argentina, with 80 percent calling for withdrawal. Not far behind are Brazil (67%), Mexico (63%) and Chile (62%). Even if the new Iraqi government asks US-led forces to stay, in each country polled, with the exception of Chile, which was evenly divided (39%), Latin Americans still lean toward withdrawal, though in distinctly smaller numbers: Argentina (57%), Brazil (49%), Mexico (39%).
Asked to assess the war, Latin American views show some interesting patterns. Though Brazilians show an eagerness for US-led forces to withdraw, 65 percent say that the decision to remove Saddam was right, while a plurality of Mexicans (43%) and majorities of Argentines (74%) and Chileans (55%) say it was wrong. While large majorities of Argentines (76%) and Brazilians (56%) and a plurality of Chileans (47%) say that the war has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, most Mexicans (59%) say that it has had no effect either way.
Asia/Pacific: Asians are quite divided on what US-led forces should do at this point. Favoring an early pullout are large majorities of the Chinese (67%) and Indonesians (62%), a slight majority of South Koreans (51%) and a plurality of Sri Lankans (32% to 11%). On the other hand, majorities of Afghans (58%) and Australians (57%) and pluralities of Filipinos (48%) and Indians (39%) favor remaining until stability is established.
If the new Iraqi government asks US-led forces to stay, the Chinese (53%) and Indonesians (55%) mostly stick by their preference for withdrawal, Sri Lankans become divided (20% stay, 17% pull out), South Koreans shift to favor remaining—rising to a robust 69 percent—while the numbers favoring remaining rise to 74 percent in Australia, 65 percent in Afghanistan, 56 percent in the Philippines and 51 percent in India.
In every Asian country, a majority or plurality sees the war having increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks. But they divide on the question of whether it was a good idea to remove Saddam. Saying it was the right decision are a majority in the Philippines (56%), a clear plurality in India (48% to 28%) and a bare plurality in Afghanistan (40% to 35%). On the other hand, large majorities of South Koreans (70%), Chinese (61%) and Indonesians (67%) say it was a mistake, as do a plurality of Sri Lankans (37%). Curiously, Australians are divided on the question (47% right decision, 44% a mistake), though a clear majority (57%) favors US-led forces (which include Australians) remaining in Iraq.
Africa: Of the eight African countries polled, four favor the US pulling out early, one favors them remaining until stable and three are divided. Those who favor pulling out early are a majority of Senegalese (64%), Tanzanians (54%) and Congolese (52%) and a plurality of Zimbabweans (42% pull out, 34% remain). Only Kenyans lean toward having the forces remain (48% remain, 42% pull out). Divided views are found in Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
If the Iraqi government asks the forces to stay, views shift only modestly, but enough so that six of the eight countries favor forces remaining: majorities in Nigeria (62%), Kenya (61%) and Tanzania (54%); pluralities in Zimbabwe (44%), Ghana (43%) and South Africa (41%). A majority of Senegalese (53%) and a plurality of Congolese (42%) stand by their preference for withdrawal.
In Nigeria, a plurality of 49 percent says that the likelihood of terrorist attacks has decreased, and 50 percent say that removing Saddam was the right decision. A majority in Kenya (55%) also endorses the removal of Saddam, though a plurality of 41 percent thinks terrorism has increased as a result.
Otherwise, in all African countries a plurality or majority says that the war has increased the likelihood of terrorism (Senegal 61%, Tanzania 49%, and Zimbabwe 44%, Democratic Republic of the Congo 44%, South Africa 42% and Ghana 42%) and, except for South Africa which is divided, that removing Saddam was a mistake (Senegal 68%, Democratic Republic of the Congo 54%, Tanzania 51%, Zimbabwe 44% and Ghana 40%).