Follow us on social

google cta
242690590_315526940516156_9053846824518756975_n

Poll finds improved US image abroad, but wariness of military ties

The new survey conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation also found that a ‘democracy vs. autocracy’ frame could be counterproductive.

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

While approval of both the United States and the health of its democracy has reached its highest point abroad in the last four years, Washington’s globe-spanning military infrastructure is generally not seen in such a favorable light, according to a new survey of public opinion in nine key countries released Thursday by the Eurasia Group Foundation. 

The report, which was based on responses to several foreign policy-related questions by nearly 5,000 respondents between the end of April and mid-May, found that President Biden appears to have made some headway in restoring Washington’s international image over the previous three years that EGF has polled the same countries.

“Most respondents (60%) think American democracy sets a positive example for the world and about half (53%) think their own system of government should be more like that of the United States,” according to the report. It also noted that about three-quarters of all respondents said their country would be better off if the United States, rather than China, was “the world’s leading power.”

The report found major differences, however, in respondents’ views in different countries. The nine countries covered by the survey included Mexico and Brazil in Latin America, Poland and Germany in Europe, Nigeria and Egypt on the African continent, and India, China, and Japan in Asia.

Respondents in Brazil, Poland, Nigeria, and India, for example, tended to express more favorable views of the United States and its democracy compared to Mexico, Germany, Japan, Egypt, and China. The report also noted that Washington’s treaty allies — Brazil, Germany, Poland, and Japan — indicated less favorable opinions of American democracy than those countries don’t have such a relationship.

And while the strong majority of respondents overall preferred U.S. leadership and six in ten believe that the United States is responsible for “maintaining international stability,” nearly half (47 percent) viewed the presence of U.S. military bases in their region as a “threat to their independence,” the highest percentage that EGF polls have found in the last four years. Leading the latter group was China (70 percent), India (65 percent), Egypt (62 percent) and Mexico (49 percent).

And U.S. “soft power” — in the form of its cultural exports, trade more generally, and support for non-governmental organizations — gained more approval than military activity and sales overseas. “What we find is that American soft power is viewed more positively than American hard power,” Zuri Linetsky, one of the report’s co-authors, told Responsible Statecraft. “We find more support for the power of the American example than the example of American power,” he added.

Particularly notable in that regard, according to the report, was the strong overall approval of Biden’s decision last summer to withdraw U.S. military forces from Afghanistan. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they approved of the withdrawal versus only 20 percent who opposed.

Similarly, 52 percent of respondents said they approved of Washington’s handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine against only 19 percent who disapproved (although a plurality in China disapproved). Asked why they approved, avoiding a direct U.S.-Russian war and preventing the suffering of Ukrainians were most often cited. Least often cited were “defending democracies from autocracies” and “punishing Russia for its aggression.”

In that respect, Linetsky suggested that Biden’s emphasis on dividing countries between democracies and autocracies may be counterproductive. Asked what they considered the “most significant threat to international security,” only 12 percent of all respondents cited “authoritarianism,” well behind the other four options, including the spread of nuclear weapons (29 percent), terrorism and violent extremism (23 percent), great-power competition (22 percent), and climate change (14 percent).

“We’re trying to get a better sense of how the United States can best interact with other countries,” according to Linetsky. “Maybe the authoritarian/democratic framing is not the best.”

The survey found that several factors tended to contribute to more favorable views of the United States. Older respondents generally responded more positively, as did better educated respondents. Respondents with close friends or relatives living in the United States and those who had actually visited tended to have much more favorable views than those without such connections.

Asked whether U.S. military collaboration with their country had a positive or negative impact, Egyptians respondents were the most negative by far (64 percent). The most positive were respondents in Poland (80 percent positive), India (79 percent), Nigeria (73 percent), and Brazil (56 percent).

Egyptian respondents were also the most negative about the impact of American cultural products, including movies, music, and television. Nearly two-thirds of Egyptians said they had a negative impact. Majorities in all other countries surveyed reported positive impacts by solid majorities, including 84 percent of respondents in Brazil, 82 percent of Indian respondents, 77 percent of Nigerians, 75 percent of Poles, 69 percent of Mexicans, 60 percent of Germans, and 59 percent of Chinese.

Majorities of respondents in six of the ten countries said they would “like to see (their) system of government become more like that of the United States,” led by Nigeria (85 percent), Brazil (77 percent), India (71 percent), Poland (65 percent), and Egypt (57 percent). Majorities in China, Japan ,and Germany, on the other hand, indicated they were either neutral or wanted their governments to be less like that of the U.S.

The survey was conducted through the internet, and respondents tended to be relatively well-educated and employed. The sample included 757 and 768 respondents from China and India, respectively; In the other seven countries, it included 495 respondents.


President Joe Biden, UN General Assembly, Sept. 2021 (Photo: White House)
google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)
Top photo credit: President Cyril Ramaphosa (Photo: GCIS/Flickr) and Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)

Africa

South Africa is struggling to unfurl its wings as a leading middle power and advance its relations with its fellow BRICS members while keeping out of the cross hairs of the U.S. president. This has been particularly hard considering that one member of the Global South grouping — Iran — is on Donald Trump’s current list of potential military targets.

South Africa joined BRICS in 2006. The organization is supposed to serve as an intergovernmental forum for member countries to connect on issues related to diplomacy, security, and economics. But the bloc has angered President Trump, who sees it as a threat to American leadership, particularly given China’s membership in the group.

keep readingShow less
Trump Khamanei
Top image credit: Bella1105/shutterstock.com

Could Trump bomb Iran before settling on a rationale?

Middle East

Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted.

In the Vietnam War, the principal public rationale of saving South Vietnam from communism got replaced in the minds of the warmakers — especially after losing hope of winning the contest in Vietnam — by the belief that the United States had to keep fighting to preserve its credibility. In the Iraq War, when President George W. Bush’s prewar argument about weapons of mass destruction fell apart, he shifted to a rationale centered on bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

keep readingShow less
James Holtsnider
Top image credit: James Holtsnider, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Jordan, testifies before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 11, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New US ambassador's charm offensive is backfiring in Jordan

Middle East

Since arriving in Amman around three months ago to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, James Holtsnider quickly became one of the highest-profile envoys in the Hashemite Kingdom. In addition to presenting his credentials to King Abdullah II, Holtsnider has met with Jordanian soccer players, attended weddings, and joined tribal gatherings.

However, a January 14 request by a U.S. Embassy delegation for the ambassador to offer condolences at the family home of former Karak mayor Abdullah Al-Dmour showed that many Jordanians have little interest in participating in Holtsnider’s public relations initiative. Dmour’s relatives rejected the U.S. ambassador’s wish to visit. Dmour’s tribe issued a statement noting Holtsnider’s request “violates Jordanian tribal customs, which separates the sanctity of mourning from any political presence with public implications.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.