Global Attitudes Toward the US Back to 2002 Levels

Credit: Reason

According to the Pew Research Center global attitudes towards the U.S. are back to where they were in 2002. However, this renewed positive attitude is expected to decline thanks to American foreign policy in the Middle East.

From CNBC:

Favorable global feelings toward the United States have returned to 2002 levels, matching generally warm, pro-American sentiments measured just prior to the Iraq War: 64 percent of the planet's inhabitants tend to like America, according to numbers tabulated for NBC News by the Pew Research Center.

That equates to a 13-point rise in American favorability among the same 19 nations surveyed by Pew in 2007. The Pew team polled people in countries spanning from Pakistan, where only 11 percent of locals today back the United States, to Ghana, where 83 percent of the populace is pro-American, Pew figures show.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[HazelMeade]

Which goes to show that people in the rest of the world, don't actually give a shit about Guantanamo, torture, drones, civil liberties, or war. They only care if a Democrat is in office.

[Cytotoxic]

YUP. Which just further demonstrates how stupid it is to care about America's popularity.

[Gladstone]

They only care if a Democrat is in office.

This. Anti-war libertarians take note. You can attack the USG all you want but as soon as you suggest that socialized medicine, gun control, regulations, the welfare state, etc. are bad then you are not going to have many friends.

[Timon 19]

So...war is cool then?

[Gladstone]

No but you should realize that there is more to libertarianism then just opposing US wars.

[Calidissident]

Where exactly did he say that he thinks opposing war is the only part of libertarianism?

[Gladstone]

Were did I say I supported war?

[Calidissident]

You didn't. Both of you made fallacies. But I don't really get the point of either your first or second comment. When have libertarians every claimed that everyone would love everything about America if America was completely libertarian?

[Timon 19]

I will note that I made my fallacy precisely in order to draw out exactly where he was going with his argument. I got my answer.

[Timon 19]

No shit! Wow! Tell me more!

[Calidissident]

I suppose it's a coincidence that America's lowest approval rating is in Pakistan? Or that there was a dip in America's popularity around 2003? Sure, it's not the only factor affecting America's popularity, but you can't dismiss it, and people who are upset about America's lack of gun control or universal health care are a lot less likely to be a threat than those upset by the USG's warmaking

[Gladstone]

Or that there was a dip in America's popularity around 2003?

Team Red was in power. Libya, Yemen, NSA, etc. haven't hurt US popularity. Nor the fact that the US is still in Iraq.

[Calidissident]

The NSA,while related to the WOT, isn't warmaking in and of itself, and I don't see why foreigners would care about it. I would agree that a lot of foreigners, especially in Europe, give Obama a pass for things they would criticize Bush for. But it's not an exact comparison. Libya and Yemen were/aren't nearly as big of conflicts as Iraq was, and Obama will get a pass from a lot of people on Iraq because he didn't start it and major US operations ceased during his term, even though he was just following Bush's timetable. Europeans aren't totally anti-war. They'll approve of some US wars and disapprove of others. Whether a D or R is in the White House probably does affect that for some people, but we haven't had a war the size of Iraq started under a Democrat since Vietnam, and that was definitely opposed by a lot of foreigners.

[HazelMeade]

I don't see why foreigners would care about it.

Um, because foreigners us American email services like Google? You do know that the NSA scans the *content* of all emails to and from the US, right? And that includes all emails PASSING THROUGH US servers.

[HazelMeade]

Europeans aren't totally anti-war. They'll approve of some US wars and disapprove of others.

They approve of wars started by socialists and oppose wars started by capitalists. FTFY

[Doctor Whom]

Why improve the product when rebranding it works just fine?

[Rock Action]

Ever read The Image? Your comment reminded me of that.

[MJGreen]

How many people outside the US know the President is a Dem? Is this a joke, guys?

[Gladstone]

How many people outside the US know the President is a Dem? Is this a joke, guys?

Um a lot? Certainly in Europe they would. I doubt that the Pakistanis and Yeminis care since they being attacked by US drones.

[HazelMeade]

Fine. They only care that we elected a black socialist. It's okay when black socialists done-bomb people and spy on them, because it's all for hope and change and stuff.

[umh]

I've never heard anything positive about the U.S. while oversea unless they where trying to recover from slipping up and saying bad things about the U.S.

[Dave Krueger]

The ones that like us the most are probably the ones we haven't been bombing or invading or having the CIA overthrow their governments. Little do they know, their turn is coming...

[Cytotoxic]

So why are the embassy closing happening in Yemen and not Iraq?

[CE]

Because the US embassy in Iraq is basically a fortress?

[Timon 19]

3/4 of a billion will buy decent security even in the shittiest of shitholes.

[Calidissident]

Gee, I wonder what's going on in Yemen right now that could possibly result in anti-American anger?

[Almanian!]

They hate us for our freedums.

[Sevo]

Dave Krueger| 8.9.13 @ 5:03PM |#
"The ones that like us the most are probably the ones we haven't been bombing or invading or having the CIA overthrow their governments"...

The French disagree.

[Gladstone]

The French disagree.

Along with Germany, Canada, Italy and Mexico.

[Calidissident]

And actually, America's approval rating in France and Canada are at the world's average, and ahead of the UK. Italy's is significantly higher than average, and Mexico's is slightly above average. Germany's is well below average, though still more favorable than unfavorable

[Gladstone]

No I just think what he said was simplistic. Obviously Yemenis and Pakistanis aren't going to like the US because of US drones killing people.

Obama's foreign policy doesn't seem to have hurt US popularity in countries that the US invaded before. These are the countries that lurve the USG as long as it run by TEAM BLUE.

Then you have South Korea were the US supported military dictators. And I'm sure the US didn't not intervene at all in Kenya's politics.

[Calidissident]

Wait, were you reaching back all the way to WWII, the US-Mexican War, and the War of 1812? I did not get that at all, because that's so mindnumbingly stupid. Because obviously Dave was talking about all US military intervention ever, and was not at all emphasizing recent events? I'm pretty sure most Germans and Italians don't hold a grudge for the US removing their fascist dictators, and I don't see why the French would be upset by the US liberating them from Nazi occupation. As for Canada and Mexico, I think they're mostly over events that happened 150-200 years ago. As for South Korea, while the US did support military dictators, they also prevented them from getting taken over by a far worse communist North Korean regime. I don't see why you have to make such stupid false equivalencies. I'd agree some people in those countries will base their opinion solely on whether a R or D is the Whitehouse, but in case you've forgotten, Bush was president in 2002. Obviously, there's other factors at play here

[Gladstone]

Obviously, there's other factors at play here

And that's what I was saying?

While the US was supporting the Shah the US was supporting South Korean military dictators. There are other factors to explain the current state of US popularity in those two beyond "The ones that like us the most are probably the ones we haven't been bombing or invading or having the CIA overthrow their governments."

[Gladstone]

Also what is absurd about bringing up WWII when that occurred less than a decade before the 1953 Iranian Coup?

[Calidissident]

Because the 1953 Iranian Coup contributed directly to the 1979 Revolution, which is responsible for the current government in place in Iran. From what I've read as well as what I've heard from people from Iran or who have family there, the US is not all the unpopular among the Iranian people, especially compared to other Middle Eastern countries. The hostilities between governments don't necessarily indicate an equivalent hostility between the people of the two countries.

"There are other factors to explain the current state of US popularity in those two beyond "The ones that like us the most are probably the ones we haven't been bombing or invading or having the CIA overthrow their governments.'"

Well sure. If you want to play semantics, fine, but I'm pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 70 can plainly see that Dave's point was
not that all invasions, regardless of circumstances, or how long ago they were, have the exact same effect. It's not exactly some great new insight that liberating a country from the Nazis or saving them from North Korean communism is not the same thing as the drone wars or the 1953 coup.

[Gladstone]

Because the 1953 Iranian Coup contributed directly to the 1979 Revolution, which is responsible for the current government in place in Iran.

The US also contributed directly to current French, German and Italian governments. The German constitution had to be approved by the US occupation authorities in fact.

Well sure. If you want to play semantics, fine, but I'm pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 70 can plainly see that Dave's point was
not that all invasions, regardless of circumstances, or how long ago they were, have the exact same effect.

You missed the whole "Little do they know, their turn is coming," part considering their "turns" have already happened.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Germany, Canada, Italy and Mexico

Incidently all countries we have invaded at one point or another.

[Calidissident]

Who gives a fuck what the French think?

[Gladstone]

People concerned about the "International Community" and "US international standing"?

I think it's stupid that libertarians express concern about this for many reasons.

[Timon 19]

It's a NEWS STORY.

Where is this "concern"? Does reporting and commenting on what other outlets find newsworthy constitute "libertarian concern"?

What is your definition of "concern", fuckwit?

[Calidissident]

The only area today where I think a significant number of libertarians actually care about the US's reputation is how hated we are in the Muslim world, and even then I only mean that in a very qualified sense. I'm not saying that it bothers anyone if they don't all love America, just that the USG shouldn't unnecessarily do things that infuriate people in Muslim countries, which can then increase the chances of the US being attacked.

*Note the use of the word "unnecessarily"

[cw]

Our popularity is at a low in Egypt. Well, the U.S. government's popularity, anyway.

[Gladstone]

Well I think the problem is that you are justifying a libertarian policy on popularity, especially by foreigners. While French and Iranians would like a less aggressive US I'm not sure if they would support full on non-interventionism. Not to mention they wouldn't approve of libertarian domestic policy

[Calidissident]

"Well I think the problem is that you are justifying a libertarian policy on popularity, especially by foreigners."

That's not at all what I'm saying. Actually, that post wasn't even an argument, it was an explanation of the views of some libertarians. I didn't even say whether I necessarily agreed with that. My point was that I don't think libertarians are nearly as concerned about the US's popularity abroad as you seem to think they are.

I don't base my foreign policy views off of what foreigners would like best. I base them off of libertarian philosophy. I also think that when pursuing legitimate foreign policy goals, like combating terrorism, that it makes sense to also evaluate whether or not a given action is actually necessary and whether or not it could actually contribute to the problem more than it solves it. That's not at all similar to the strawman you constructed.

"While French and Iranians would like a less aggressive US I'm not sure if they would support full on non-interventionism."

Ok. And?

"Not to mention they wouldn't approve of libertarian domestic policy"

Ok. And?

[Gladstone]

Oops I didn't mean to use "you" as a direct response to what Calidissident was saying but to elaborate with what he was saying.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I find it fascinating that we are so popular in Africa. Any theories as to why?

[Almanian!]

First black President (well, after Clinton), yo. Once nation, under a groove.

[cw]

U.S. popularity grew in Africa during Bush's tenure because of AIDS-related funding. Obama's half black.

Those are the best theories I could come up with.

[Almanian!]

Not gonna lie - I just don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about the US. I just don't.

"But what about when you vacation abroad? Don't you want..." "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" No! I assess the risk - if it's not unsafe, I'll vacation abroad. Even if they hate fucking Americans. If not, I'll vacation in Wisconsin, which is like visiting another country.

Next.

[Almanian!]

Oh, here I went and helped support Timon19 and Calidissident's points above. Happy to help!

[Almanian!]

"...back to 2002 levels"

I. Blame. BUSH.