International Law and Treaties

Consistent with, and perhaps underlying, their support for multilateral institutions and approaches is support for the idea of international law-again, something that could constrain US action. Perhaps the highest test of support for an idea is the willingness to put US troops in harm's way. When the Chicago Council asked respondents in June 2002 about their support for using US troops for a number of possible purposes, one of the highest scoring, endorsed by 76%, was to "uphold international law."[9]

Americans also show support for developing new international judicial institutions. In the July 2006 Chicago Council poll, 71% favored US participation in the International Criminal Court. When in October 2006 WPO presented pro and con arguments, including the administration's argument that US troops may be dragged in front of the court on trumped up charges, support was still 68% in favor of participation. [10]

Support for the World Court is also fairly strong. Fifty-six percent favored strengthening the World Court (Chicago Council, June 2002). In the June 2004 Chicago Council poll 57% supported granting compulsory jurisdiction.[11]

Americans show strong support for the US participating in arms control treaties-which inherently constrain US options. An October 2005 Pew study showed that 70% favored the US signing a treaty to "reduce and eliminate all nuclear weapons, including our own."[12] In the 2006 Chicago Council poll 86% supported the US participating in the comprehensive test ban treaty and in the 2004 Chicago Council poll 80% supported US participation in the land mines treaty.[13] In May 2002 82% approved of the "agreement between the United States and Russia to substantially reduce the number of nuclear weapons in each of these countries" (Gallup).[14]

Perhaps the most important of all arms control treaties is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, that the United States signed in 1968. An overwhelming majority endorses US participation in the NPT, even when informed that this commits the US to seek to eliminate its nuclear weapons together with other nuclear weapon states. In November 2006 WPO found only a bare majority (51%) aware that the US and most countries of the world had signed the NPT, but this was up sharply from March 2004 when just 39% knew. Nonetheless, when respondents were told that "according to this treaty, the countries that have nuclear weapons have agreed to actively work together toward eliminating their nuclear weapons" while "countries that do not have nuclear weapons, including Iran, have agreed not to try to acquire them," 78% approved of US participation.[14a]

More specifically, 82% supported the "goal of eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons, which is stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." When asked "Do you approve of the United States continuing to be a member...or do you think the US should withdraw?" 79% thought the US should remain in the NPT. When asked how well the United States was fulfilling its obligation to "actively work together" with other members of the NPT "toward eliminating nuclear weapons," 15% said the US was doing very well, 40% somewhat well, 28% not very well and 9% not at all well.[14b]

Collective Security

A cornerstone of American support for the multilateral use of force is the principle of collective security. In November 1995, PIPA presented the following question:

The UN was established on the principle of collective security, which says that when a UN member is attacked by another country, UN members should help defend the attacked nation. Some say the US should contribute its military forces to such UN efforts, because then potential aggressors will know that aggression will not succeed. Others say the US should not contribute troops to such efforts, because American troops may be put at risk in operations that are not directly related to US interests. Do you think the US should or should not contribute troops to UN efforts to help defend UN members if they are attacked?

Sixty-nine percent said that the US should contribute troops to such UN efforts, while 23% said the US should not.[15]

Americans continue to support US participation in the collective security structure of NATO. In the June 2004 Chicago Council poll, only 20% wanted to either decrease the US commitment to NATO (14%) or withdraw from it (6%). However, 72% favored either keeping the commitment the same (58%) or increasing it (14%). As of June 2006, 61 percent said that NATO is still essential (GMF).[16]

Support for NATO expansion also reflects the support the general principle of collective security and cooperative multilateral approaches. In the February-April 1998 PIPA poll that found 61% in support of expanding NATO, the most popular argument in support of doing so (rated as convincing by 80%) was that "It is better to include Eastern European countries rather than to exclude them, because peace is more likely if we all communicate and work together." The second strongest pro argument was based on a core principle of collective security--76% found convincing the argument that "it is important for potential aggressors to know that they cannot get away with conquering countries."[17]

While the public's support for following through on bilateral commitments to use military force to protect countries from aggression is quite soft, support for doing so as part of a multilateral effort is quite strong. The Chicago Council poll found that when respondents were asked about defending countries against aggression without mention of the UN, support was quite low for protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq, for protecting South Korea from North Korea, and for protecting Israel from Arab forces. But when asked about participating in a UN operation to protect these countries, support was much higher. This greater readiness to contribute to multilateral effort and also for the US to be constrained from using military force without UN approval is discussed in-depth elsewhere. [See United Nations: The United Nations and the Use of Military Force]

Americans also favor sizing US defense capabilities to the assumption that the US will fulfill its commitments to protect other countries in a multilateral fashion. In a February 2005 PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, offered three options, just 17% wanted the US to "spend enough so that it can protect itself and other countries on its own," while just 11% wanted the US to "only spend enough to protect itself but not to protect other countries." A strong majority of 69% wanted the US to "only spend enough to protect itself and to join in efforts to protect countries together with allies or through the UN." [18]

In general, for the US to take the kind of multilateral approach to the use of military force that Americans say they want, it would be necessary to put more reliance on the other members of a cooperative multilateral system. There is evidence that Americans are ready to do so. In a November 1995 PIPA poll respondents were presented with some of the complexities of relying on allies to carry part of the responsibility for protecting shared interests. They were asked:

Right now the US has a world-wide military presence which protects its interests, such as oil in the Persian Gulf region. US allies who share these interests, like the Europeans and Japan, also benefit from this US military presence. Some people feel that these allies should contribute more military forces to protect these interests so that the US can reduce its burden. Others do not like this idea because, they say, we cannot be fully confident that allies will effectively protect shared interests. Do you favor or oppose the idea of allies taking over some of these responsibilities so that the US can reduce its presence abroad?

An overwhelming 79% favored having the allies take over some of these responsibilities, with only 19% opposed.[19]

To test this attitude with a concrete case, respondents were asked to consider the possibility of having the Persian Gulf policed by "a multinational naval patrol with ships from different countries as well as the US." The complexities of this idea were also introduced with the comment, "Most likely this would reduce the burden on the US but also mean having shared command with other countries." Nevertheless, 72% said they would favor such a multinational naval patrol over the US doing the patrolling on its own.[20]

Respondents also showed strong support for putting more emphasis on acting multilaterally to maintain US commitments to protect other countries. When presented four different options for dealing with US commitments to protect other countries only 7% wanted to "withdraw" US commitments, while only 5% wanted to maintain its commitments by acting "primarily on its own." An overwhelming majority favored more multilateral approaches. The largest number, 49%, favored the US maintaining its commitments but "whenever possible" acting "together with allies or through the UN." Thirty-eight percent wanted to see the US "change its commitments to protect countries so that it is only committed to protecting them together with allies or through the UN." [21]

Dealing with Terrorism

A very large majority favors the US dealing with the problem of terrorism in a multilateral fashion. When an October 2006 poll by WPO asked "What do you think is the more important lesson of September 11th",72% answered that "the US needs to work more closely with other countries to fight terrorism," while 24% said that "the US needs to act on its own more to fight terrorism." This is up from 61% favoring a multilateral approach in the June 2002 Chicago Council poll.

In the October 2006 WPO/KN poll 94% thought it was important "for the war on terrorism to be seen by the world as an effort of many countries working together, not just a US effort" (73% very important-up from 67% in September 2003). A September 2003 Ipsos-Reid poll also showed 70% felt that "the war on terrorism should be a cooperative effort involving many countries that agree on goals and war plans," as opposed to only 27% who identified more with "the war on terrorism is something the US should conduct according to its own plan and goals, regardless of what other countries think."

(It should be noted that if a question sets up a dichotomy between US interests and the interests of allies, the public has no majority view. In August 2003 Pew asked whether the US should "determine its policy [on] the war on terrorism...based mostly on the national interests of the US, or should it strongly take into account the interests of its allies?" This wording is confusing because it implies that the interests of the US and its allies are inherently opposed-begging the question of why they are allied with each other. Forty-eight percent picked national interests, 35% picked allies' interests, and 9% percent volunteered "both").[22]

Americans not only prefer a multilateral approach to addressing terrorism-they also perceive that a unilateral approach can be counterproductive. A December 2004 Opinion Research Corporation poll found 71% agreed (44% strongly) with the statement that "When the United States acts alone against terrorism, it makes itself a bigger target than when it cooperates with other nations in a coordinated crackdown on terrorism." [22a]

The support for the multilateral approach is evident in questions that offer different approaches to take against international terrorism. The Chicago Council found in 2004 that 88% supported "working through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism and to make sure UN members enforce them," and 82% wanted to see the "trial of suspected terrorists in an International Criminal Court." Likewise, in September 2003 79% wanted to make "setting up an international system to cut off funding for terrorism" a higher priority, and 76% said the same about "setting up a UN database of terrorists to which all countries would contribute" (PIPA, September 2003).[22b]

These attitudes were very strong in late 2001, only a few months after the September 11 attacks. Overwhelming majorities favored seeking UN Security Council approval for military action against terrorism. In a September 19-24, 2001 Harris poll, 84% said that it was important (54% very, 30% somewhat) to "get the support of the United Nations--including a vote of the Security Council--supporting our response to the attacks, even if this means exercising more restraint than we'd like." [22c]

Contrary to US policy at the time, a very strong majority favored including other countries' forces in the military action in Afghanistan. In the November 1-4, 2001 PIPA poll, only 24% thought it would be better to not get more countries involved and then have to make joint decisions with them; 73% said "it would be better if more countries would join with us, because then it would be an international effort, not just an American one." In a September 14-18, 2001 Associated Press poll, an extraordinary 90% said that the United Nations should "play a major role in pulling countries together to fight against terrorism." [22d] Overwhelming majorities supported the UN Security Council being able to require UN members to allow a UN-sponsored police force to enter countries and conduct investigations (70%), to freeze the assets of suspected terrorist groups (86%), to provide intelligence on them (88%), to arrest them (87%), and if the member country refuses to do so, to send in an international military force to capture suspected terrorists (82%) (PIPA, November 2001).[22e]

⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: