Follow us on social

Poll: Middle income Global South really likes China

Poll: Middle income Global South really likes China

Not so much among high-earners in other parts of Asia

Analysis | QiOSK

Middle-income countries of the Global South hold significantly more favorable views of China and its influence than those held by high-income countries of North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, according to newly released findings of a poll of 34 countries released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

The survey, the latest in an annual series by the Pew Global Attitudes project, found that a median of 56% of respondents in 17 middle-income nations across Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia held an overall “positive” view of China.

That contrasted sharply with a median of 24% of respondents in 18 high-income countries (including the United States) who shared that assessment. The only exception in the high-income group was Singapore, where 67% of respondents said their view of China was “positive.”

The survey also found a sharp divide in views of China’s influence on global peace and security between respondents in India, Japan and South Korea on the one hand and respondents in six smaller countries of South and Southeast Asia. Solid majorities in the latter group agreed that Beijing contributed “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to peace and security, while large majorities in the former group rated Beijing’s contribution as “not too much” or “not at all.”

The poll, which interviewed more than 44,000 respondents across 34 countries, excluding the United States, between January and May, is the latest in an annual series dating back more than two decades. In addition to Singapore, India, Japan, and South Korea, the countries surveyed in the Asia-Pacific region included Australia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

In Europe, representative samples of respondents were polled in France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Spain, and the UK. In the Americas, the poll covered Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, while in sub-Saharan Africa, it surveyed opinion in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa. Respondents in Israel, Tunisia, and Turkey were also interviewed.

The latest release found that the United States enjoys more favorable views than China, both in high-income countries where a median of 53% view the U.S. as “positive” and in middle-income countries where a median of 61% of respondents said they held a “positive” view.

In Malaysia, Singapore, Tunisia and Turkey, more people held a positive view of China than the U.S., while views were roughly evenly split among respondents in Bangladesh, Greece, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

One key finding of the latest survey makes clear that the perception of China’s global economic influence is now well established. In 10 of the 13 countries where respondents were asked both in 2019 and in 2024 about the impact of China on their own country’s economy, a significantly larger share said China has a “great deal of impact” than said so five years ago.

As to the nature of that impact, however, a median of 47% of respondents said in middle-income countries that it was “positive,” while 29% assessed it as “negative.” In the 18 high-income countries (including the U.S.), on the other hand, a median of 28% described China’s economic influence as positive, while 57% said they viewed it as “negative.” U.S. respondents were the most negative.

Of the countries whose respondents were also asked to assess China’s economic impact on their country in 2019, Pew found that views have generally become more negative, notably in Argentina, Brazil, Israel, Japan, South Korean, and Tunisia.

Asked about their views on the conduct of Chinese companies in their countries, respondents in middle-income countries were mostly positive. A median of 7 % of respondents in nine such countries said they held generally positive views about these companies’ effect on the local economy, while a 63% median said the companies worked to protect the environment; and a 57% median said they treated local workers fairly.

At least two out of every three respondents in Thailand, Kenya, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka gave Chinese companies positive marks (“very” or “somewhat well”) in all three areas, while respondents in Nigeria, the Philippines, and South Africa were more reserved. While around half of Ghanaian and Indian respondents said the companies’ operations were generally good for the economy, they were more critical about the companies’ environmental practices and how they treated local workers.

Among the 10 Asian-Pacific countries surveyed, majorities or pluralities of respondents expressed concern about territorial disputes between China and its neighbors.

Respondents in the Philippines, where tensions with China over the Spratley Islands have, if anything, increased since the poll was completed, 91% of respondents said they were either “very” (65%) or “somewhat” (25%) concerned about Manila’s conflict with Beijing.

Nearly nine of ten respondents in South Korea and Japan also expressed concern – 57% in each country said they were “very concerned.” Four out of 10 respondents in Australia and three of four respondents in Malaysia also expressed concern – 36% in each said they were “very concerned.” Seven of ten respondents in India, which also has a territorial dispute with China in the Himalayas, expressed concern – 44% said they were “very concerned.”

By contrast, 61% of Thai respondents said they were “not concerned,” while pluralities in Singapore and Bangladesh said they were “somewhat concerned.”


Chinatown Street Market during Chinese New Year in Singapore. (Derek Teo/Shutterstock)

Analysis | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

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.