[Public Opinion Brief 51-1] Obama Era: Expectations and Concerns Coexist Regarding New American Leadership

[Public Opinion Brief 51] Obama Era: Global Public Opinion's Expectations and Concerns Regarding the United States

1. Obama Era: Expectations and Concerns Coexist Regarding New American Leadership

2. Characteristics of Korean Perceptions of the U.S.: Coexistence of Trust and Distrust

Trust in Obama's International Leadership at 61%, Positive View of Obama Doctrine Emphasizing U.S. "Human Rights & International Cooperation"

Conversely, perceptions of the U.S.'s international role are divided; distrust in actual foreign policy persists.

Koreans: Trust in Obama 88% (4th), Trust in U.S. Leadership 68% (3rd) vs. Unfairness in Korea-U.S. Relations 81% (5th)



Global citizens have expressed trust in U.S. President Obama to play a correct role in international affairs as a world leader. The United States also received positive evaluations for realizing liberal values such as respect for human rights and international cooperation. However, despite the advent of the Obama administration, which prioritizes values of cooperation and coexistence over unilateralism, people in various countries remain highly skeptical of U.S. international leadership. The perception is that the U.S. in the Obama era will act duplicitously in its own interests and resort to military action and threats against other nations. These findings are based on a survey conducted by the East Asia Institute (EAI) and the Maeil Business Newspaper in collaboration with the World Public Opinion (WPO), an international research organization at the University of Maryland, involving 11,914 respondents in 20 countries worldwide. The survey was conducted from April 4 to June 12. The margin of error is ±3-4% at a 95% confidence level.

Countries worldwide place great trust in U.S. President Obama's international leadership (Maeil Business Newspaper, June 30). An average of 61% across 20 countries believe President Obama is exercising correct international leadership. This is a stark contrast to the survey conducted a year prior, where only an average of 23% across 20 countries expressed trust in President Bush.

"U.S. Respects Human Rights" 51% ㆍ "Possesses a Cooperative Stance in International Relations" 59%

Positive evaluation of the U.S.'s international role increased by 10 percentage points in one year: 29% in 2008 → 39% in 2009

When asked, "Do you believe the U.S. respects human rights?", an average of 51% across 20 countries responded affirmatively. Negative responses accounted for 38%.

Regarding the question, "Does the U.S. maintain a cooperative attitude in its relations with other countries?", positive evaluations outnumbered negative ones. The proportion of respondents who found the U.S. cooperative was 59%, while 30% found it uncooperative.

The spread of a positive outlook on U.S. foreign policy is also evident in the evaluation of the U.S.'s international role. A year ago, during the Bush administration, only 29% on average across 20 countries responded positively regarding the U.S.'s international role. In the current survey, this figure rose to 39%, an increase of over 10 percentage points. Positive public opinion regarding the U.S.'s international role was led by traditional Western allies such as the United Kingdom (58%) and France (52%), as well as African nations currently reliant on U.S. support (Kenya 81%, Nigeria 70%). South Korea ranked third among countries highly evaluating U.S. international leadership, with 68%, following Kenya and Nigeria.

[Figure 1] Trust in U.S. Leadership: Evaluation of Bush/Obama's Leadership and the U.S.'s International Role (%)

Note 1. U.S. and Taiwan survey results are excluded from the overall average calculation.

Note 2. The survey asked about the extent to which respondents trusted that President Bush (in 2008) and President Obama (in 2009) were doing the right thing globally.

Note 3. For the evaluation of the international role, among the 16 countries that participated in both the 2008 and 2009 surveys (Mexico, India, Indonesia, China, South Korea, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Poland, France, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria), the 2008 result was 29%, identical to the 20-country average. However, the 2009 survey result was 43%, slightly higher than the 39% average for all 20 countries.

Evaluation of U.S. International Role: 39% Positive vs. 41% Negative; Islamic Countries, China, and Russia Lead Negative Opinion

In areas concerning U.S. interests: 77% perceive a high likelihood of "Military Threats," and 67% believe the U.S. is "Hypocritical Regarding International Norms."

However, negative public opinion regarding the U.S.'s international role remained significant. Positive evaluations of the U.S.'s international role stood at 39%, negative evaluations at 41%, with 20% undecided or not responding, indicating a considerable degree of reservation. Critical opinions towards the U.S. are predominantly from Islamic countries such as Pakistan (10%), Turkey (16%), and Iraq (23%). This suggests that the Obama administration's diplomatic approach, emphasizing coexistence and cooperation with the Islamic world, has not yet captured the hearts of the Islamic world. Meanwhile, Russia (15%), which has been confronting the U.S. on various diplomatic issues, and China (32%), emerging as a potential competitor to the U.S. and referred to as G2, showed lukewarm evaluations of the U.S.

[Figure 2] Changes in Positive Evaluation of the U.S.'s International Role (2008-2009; %)

Note 1. Dark gray indicates the percentage of positive responses in 2008, and light gray indicates the percentage of positive responses in 2009. Countries without dark gray markings (Pakistan, Iraq) were not included in the 2008 survey.

Note 2. U.S. and Taiwan survey results are excluded from the overall average calculation.

"U.S. Uses Military Threats for Its National Interests" 77% ㆍ "U.S. Does Not Comply with International Law" 67%

"The U.S. Acts Fairly in Relations with Our Country" 26%, Unfairly 66%

In stark contrast to the positive global trust in President Obama and the U.S.'s evaluation in areas of universal values, the assessment of U.S. foreign policy in practical areas concerning national interests is largely negative. Regarding the use of military force as a policy tool, respect for international norms, fairness in diplomatic relations with one's own country, and the U.S.'s approach to climate change, negative evaluations predominated, albeit to varying degrees. The most negative area of global perception towards the U.S. concerns military power. When asked, "Will the U.S. use military threats for its national interests?", 77% responded affirmatively. Only 15% answered that military threats would be excluded. Even 71% of U.S. citizens responded that military threats would be utilized.

Only 23% agreed with the statement, "The U.S. itself complies well with international law." A significant 67% responded that the U.S. is hypocritical, demanding other countries comply with international law while not adhering to it itself. In response to the question of whether the U.S. acts fairly in its relations with the respondent's country, negative responses overwhelmingly outnumbered affirmative ones. Only 26% of respondents stated that the U.S. acts fairly, while 66% indicated it does not. The U.S.'s approach to climate change also received predominantly negative evaluations, with 41% negative responses compared to 39% positive.

The survey results indicate that Obama's foreign policy, emphasizing coexistence with the world, is generally well-received domestically. Eighty percent of Americans expressed trust in U.S. international leadership. However, the possibility of simultaneously resolving the unprecedented economic crisis and the political and security instability in the Middle East and Afghanistan is not high. If no significant improvements are shown in economic recovery and global security, criticism will likely intensify, particularly from conservative factions within the U.S., arguing that the current approach has endangered the U.S. As indicated by this survey, the U.S. cannot escape criticism from abroad for being unilateral. Ultimately, for Obama's foreign policy to take root and bear fruit, it must appease the dissatisfaction of conservatives within the U.S. while simultaneously alleviating the concerns of the international community. Attention is focused on how these two objectives will be achieved. When the U.S. is unstable, the world is unstable, because the U.S. remains at the center of global affairs.

[Figure 3] U.S. Stance on Fundamental Values of U.S. Foreign Policy and Areas of Actual Foreign Policy: Positive Evaluation (%)