|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opinion of US worldwide
The BBC recently reported the results of a poll on world view of the US, which I found interesting, but not surprising.
On the war in Iraq, the US's approval was in single figures in many countries, including the US's traditional allies. Only in Nigeria, Kenya and Phillipines did people view it more favourable with all other countries against. Perhaps this has to do with Muslim/Christian tensions in these countries?
People also view the US influence negatively.
On climate change developed countries are especially damning, perhaps because most developed countries apart from the US are trying to tackle this problem, but surprisingly the US's attitude to climate change was popular among developing countries.
Several other polls painted a similarly bleak picture.
I would be interested to see how these polls played out in India and China.
On the war in Iraq, the US's approval was in single figures in many countries, including the US's traditional allies. Only in Nigeria, Kenya and Phillipines did people view it more favourable with all other countries against. Perhaps this has to do with Muslim/Christian tensions in these countries?
People also view the US influence negatively.
On climate change developed countries are especially damning, perhaps because most developed countries apart from the US are trying to tackle this problem, but surprisingly the US's attitude to climate change was popular among developing countries.
Several other polls painted a similarly bleak picture.
I would be interested to see how these polls played out in India and China.
It is interesting how the Philippines and African countries always gave the USA good reviews, even when nobody else did...
These charts can certainly show us a thing or two about the fallacy of unbiased opinions as well.
These charts can certainly show us a thing or two about the fallacy of unbiased opinions as well.
I have real reservations over the validity of the results of that poll. Taking the example of the "Climate Change Handling" category, the UK (GB on the poll) is undergoing widespread development of renewable energy technologies, has set very positive targets for achieving as much as 18% of total energy to come from renewable sources by 2010, and 40% by 2020. These are all positive steps. However, the US has refused to sign up to any environmental policies that may "harm America's Economy" (exact words of George Bush). In fact, at the G8 summit, they refused to agree that global warming was actually anything more than a theory, and vetoed the use of language in documents that represented Climate Change as an actual occurrence. This means that the US are not taking very many (if any) positive steps with regard to climate change. Certainly, they are not taking the issue with the same degree of seriousness as other countries such as the UK. I would therefore be very surprised if they had a higher "approval rating" of their policies towards climate change than other countries.
Were there any further details as to the source of the poll results supplied? I guess the question I'm asking is was it only Americans who were asked to comment?
Were there any further details as to the source of the poll results supplied? I guess the question I'm asking is was it only Americans who were asked to comment?
Animal, the poll is of other countries views of US policy. It's taken from here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
It's got some 26,000 respondants for around the world and their view of US policy not the other way around. Sorry if I wasn't clear. See also here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
It's got some 26,000 respondants for around the world and their view of US policy not the other way around. Sorry if I wasn't clear. See also here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
Yeah, what the hell is wrong with those darn Filipinos? No just kidding! I think those polls are a true reflection of the stellar job GWB has done since 9/11. I mean those numbers are incredible. He should be very proud of himself. Single-handedly making the US universally hated (except for Nigeria and the Philippines - who for a few seconds I will pretend don't exist!)
For as long as I remember the US has always been thought of as a bully. But a somewhat nice bully though (oxymoron?). One that you could at least reason with. Now, its just thought of as this arrogant punk that doesn't care about anyone else except itself! That might not be true, but that's the perception people have.
But I wonder if all those Americans who voted for him last time around regret their decision?!!
For as long as I remember the US has always been thought of as a bully. But a somewhat nice bully though (oxymoron?). One that you could at least reason with. Now, its just thought of as this arrogant punk that doesn't care about anyone else except itself! That might not be true, but that's the perception people have.
But I wonder if all those Americans who voted for him last time around regret their decision?!!
The US needs to step back a bit from issues such as Iraq. I don't think that Iraq had anything to do with them. There were no weapons of mass destruction, so they should not have gone in.
Although this type of poll result has not always reflect the all peoples opinion, but, it's true that Mr. GWB makes this world a war place. He is already treated as threat to world peace. I don't know what makes peoples of Philippines and Nigeria think GWB works good for world. Either they have no idea about him or they r don't know what the poll really was. Just hear Bush, US and they say YES. Quite Interesting.
| lyndonray wrote: |
|
For as long as I remember the US has always been thought of as a bully. But a somewhat nice bully though (oxymoron?). |
A nice bully, but still too powerful. They have way too much influence on our world today, even little things like how to spell authorised or colour. Or using US Gallons instead of Metric Litres. I think the US needs to step back a bit.
| X3 Talk wrote: | ||
A nice bully, but still too powerful. They have way too much influence on our world today, even little things like how to spell authorised or colour. Or using US Gallons instead of Metric Litres. I think the US needs to step back a bit. |
The things you mentioned are just due to the fact that the United States is the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. It has nothing to do with us "forcing" dollars, or the English system of measurement onto the world. The world is full of such examples in every culture throughout history. The same will be true when we are gone and some other country or culture is dominant in the world.
For Example:
Why do we use the word "tariff" in the English language? Because it comes from the Arabic language, when the Arabs spread the mercantile economic system (the forerunner of capitalism) to Europe in the days of the Arab Empire.
The Greek language was the common language for centuries due to the Greek Empire. The New Testament, as an example, was written in Greek even though it was during the period of the Roman Empire (centuries after the Greek Empire ended).
Some country or civilization is dominant at any given time, even if it is only a regional dominance as in ancient times. If Aztec civilization had evolved to be dominant instead of Western civilization, we might all be using a base 20 mathematical system instead of the Arabic base 10.
| lyndonray wrote: |
|
But I wonder if all those Americans who voted for him last time around regret their decision?!! |
Nope. Voted for him twice and perfectly content with it.
| ahamed wrote: |
| I don't know what makes peoples of Philippines and Nigeria think GWB works good for world. |
I can't offer any reasons for the Nigerian response. Until the mid to late '90s the U.S. and Nigeria had tense relations. However I believe the U.S. is still the largest buyer of Nigerian crude oil.
As for the Philippines, the United States and that island nation have a long relationship going back to the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War. The Philippines were a US territory until after World War II, when they were granted full independence (1946). (Independence would have come earlier but the war delayed it.) From 1937 until the Japanese invasion, Douglas MacArthur (having retired from the U.S. Army) was Field Marshall of the Philippine Army (the Philippines having been granted the status of "commonwealth" in 1935 by the U.S.)
A lot of U.S. citizens are of Filipino descent (2.4 million in the 2000 census, or 22% of the Asian-American population).
Furthermore, the Philippine government is fighting a radical Islamic organization (Abu Sayyaf) and is being aided by the U.S. in this effort.
I think Filipinos are still sensitive about U.S. colonialism (they had won independence from Spain in 1896, but the Treaty of Paris after the Spanish-American War gave the islands to the United States). So I am a little surprised by the numbers, but the long history we share together may partially explain the poll numbers.
Just a note, the United States isn't just about fighting the GWOT or OIF. We are the largest foreign aid contributor in the world. ($27.5 Billion in 2005) Japan was second with $13.1 billion and the UK third with $10.8 billion. Admittedly, our numbers have gone up since 2003 due to rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but the U.S. always dominates in this arena (real dollars, not a percentage of GNI). http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
So whether people perceive it as such, I think we do a lot of good in the world. I'd be interested to see what the world would be like if the United States was only as relatively powerful to the world as it was in, say, 1935. I wouldn't want to live here, but I'd be curious to see it if I could from a god-like perspective.
Respectfully,
M
I think you're right about the Philippines. The US colonialism is viewed (according to my friends from there) much more favourably than the Spanish. Probably more, it has to do with Filipino workers in the US - somewhere to go and make money, to send home.
The only reason why the US gives more aid is because it's a much bigger country than those you're comparing against. A much fairer comparison would be the US against the EU.
The only reason why the US gives more aid is because it's a much bigger country than those you're comparing against. A much fairer comparison would be the US against the EU.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I think you're right about the Philippines. The US colonialism is viewed (according to my friends from there) much more favourably than the Spanish. Probably more, it has to do with Filipino workers in the US - somewhere to go and make money, to send home.
The only reason why the US gives more aid is because it's a much bigger country than those you're comparing against. A much fairer comparison would be the US against the EU. |
Given. I'd say more so because the United States is wealthier, not simply larger. So I don't dispute your point.
The EU is larger in terms of population than the United States by about 200 million people. However, the EU and the United States are comparable in terms of GDP. (The EU's is about $400 billion more than the US.) And taken as a whole the EU's contributions are larger than the US (about $58.5 billion compared to the US' $27.5 billion)
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ee.html
Respectfully,
M
| X3 Talk wrote: |
| The US needs to step back a bit from issues such as Iraq. I don't think that Iraq had anything to do with them. There were no weapons of mass destruction, so they should not have gone in. |
There's only one way to find out - let's have the U.S. step out of world affairs, I see a couple things happeneing:
1) The rest of the world blows the Hell out of everything with nuclear weapons because nobody is there saying no to them.
2) The U.S. is destroyed because we gave up chasing terrorists and they mass attack us.
Hrm... I'm sure quite a few other things would happen.
What I am sick of seeing is the U.S. being used as a crutch. I am sick of these bullshit countries taking advantage of our good nature and using us to better themselves, then turning around and hating us and producing terrorists that want to destroy us.
I'm not saying we're perfect, we need work, but I am surprised we haven't already said "To Hell with the rest of the world." It's certainly how I feel.
Let those in Darfur kill each other. Let Iraq fall into civil war. Allow dictators to freely run and destroy their populations. Let the world do what they want and not mess with us. Sounds like a good policy, maybe we should adopt that.
Sorry folks, but we won't be here to save you one of these days
The US, well for the war, they have dragged it on long enough.
They have overthrown the threat of Saddam, found out that there is no bio weapons and that there is a lot of sand there. [just messing there!] It is now time for them to leave Iraq or else sectarian violence will grow. Leave a country to its own self, they are interferring with some one elses matter.
On Global Warming, they have decided to make a move on it which is a good sign however I believe more could have been done earlier. The main reason is that America is a very large country with a huge population, that alos contributes to the pollution. If they made significant changes in their ways of dealing with the environmnet then yes.
Going back in time - the Rugged Individualism - top idea!
They have overthrown the threat of Saddam, found out that there is no bio weapons and that there is a lot of sand there. [just messing there!] It is now time for them to leave Iraq or else sectarian violence will grow. Leave a country to its own self, they are interferring with some one elses matter.
On Global Warming, they have decided to make a move on it which is a good sign however I believe more could have been done earlier. The main reason is that America is a very large country with a huge population, that alos contributes to the pollution. If they made significant changes in their ways of dealing with the environmnet then yes.
Going back in time - the Rugged Individualism - top idea!
| TribalArt wrote: |
| They have overthrown the threat of Saddam, found out that there is no bio weapons and that there is a lot of sand there. [just messing there!] It is now time for them to leave Iraq or else sectarian violence will grow. |
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion on this point. Sectarian violence, by definition, has nothing to do with the presence (or the absence) of U.S. forces.
I edited to add the following comment: In fact, sectarian violence usually grows in the absence of a force trying to keep it down. Thus, if the U.S. leaves and the Iraqi government is unable (or politically unwilling) to forcibly keep a lid on the sectarian conflict, sectarian violence will actually grow, not diminish.
Respectfully,
M
Last edited by Moonspider on Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Personaly as a American I can say, I dont care if we are or not, we run this world ^_^ get over it! Its not like anybody could get a force of troops over the oceans to come threaten us anyways.... So basicaly we do what we want!
^That could be a dangerous attitude to adopt, because in the future there may well be another country capable of a successful invasion of the USA.
Well the poll result looks fair to me. According to it, the global approval of US policy fell 7 points within a year, and 11 points within 2 years.
That corresponds to a drop of 6 points within a year, and 14 points within 2 years among Americans themselves. Therefore, the discontent about the US policy is not limited to the outside world, but includes American citizens themselves!
That corresponds to a drop of 6 points within a year, and 14 points within 2 years among Americans themselves. Therefore, the discontent about the US policy is not limited to the outside world, but includes American citizens themselves!
what do you expect when our own goverment kills people...
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Just a note, the United States isn't just about fighting the GWOT or OIF. We are the largest foreign aid contributor in the world. ($27.5 Billion in 2005) Japan was second with $13.1 billion and the UK third with $10.8 billion. Admittedly, our numbers have gone up since 2003 due to rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but the U.S. always dominates in this arena (real dollars, not a percentage of GNI). |
This is a very misleading picture. GDP or GNI percentages are the best way of getting a feel for the level of aid since it balances different sizes of economy and wealth.
In GDP terms the US is miserly - 13th I believe - and that is without factoring in the bundled agreements that the US often forces on aid recipients - aid is often tied to conditions of buying US goods/services or allowing penetration into home markets. Military aid is much more forthcoming than genuine aid as the graph here shows....(taken from the Centre for Global Development)
2006 Results Aid - What it measures
Aid quality is just as important as aid quantity, so the CDI measures gross aid as a share of GNI adjusted for various quality factors: it subtracts debt service, penalizes “tied” aid that makes recipients spend aid only on donor goods and services, rewards aid to poor but relatively uncorrupt recipients, and penalizes overloading poor governments with many small projects.
United States Overal * Score: 2.2 * Rank: 19
United States Strengths
- Large amount of private charitable giving attributable to tax policy (rank as a share of GNI: 3)
United States Weaknesses
- Low net aid volume as a share of the economy (0.18%; rank: 20)
- Large share of tied or partially tied aid (72%; rank: 19)
- Selectivity: large share of aid to less poor and relatively undemocratic governments (rank: 17)
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_country/united_states/
| Quote: |
|
So whether people perceive it as such, I think we do a lot of good in the world. I'd be interested to see what the world would be like if the United States was only as relatively powerful to the world as it was in, say, 1935. I wouldn't want to live here, but I'd be curious to see it if I could from a god-like perspective. |
Would you care to elaborate on the good done by the US in the world? Just a couple of concrete examples to start off with. say, in the last 40-50 years. I'm not denying there are any such examples, I just don't know any off hand.
| bikerman wrote: |
| This is a very misleading picture. GDP or GNI percentages are the best way of getting a feel for the level of aid since it balances different sizes of economy and wealth.
In GDP terms the US is miserly - 13th I believe - and that is without factoring in the bundled agreements that the US often forces on aid recipients - aid is often tied to conditions of buying US goods/services or allowing penetration into home markets. Military aid is much more forthcoming than genuine aid as the graph here shows....(taken from the Centre for Global Development) |
I do not dispute any of your comments, just as I did not an earlier argument made by nopaniers in this thread.
I believe all things are a matter of perspective. Furthermore, I am not an idealist who believes any country has ever or will ever act in a purely selfless manner, including my home country and the greatest country to ever exist in my humble but all so biased opinion.
IMHO, all nations have a responsibility to their citizens to act in their own self-interest. So I’ll understand if there are disagreements on whether or not my examples here are considered “good” by all.
1. Post World War II Reconstruction.
The Marshall Plan
Reconstruction of Japan
2. Cold War
Berlin Airlift (preserving the freedom of West Berlin)
Protecting the independence of Taiwan (although since Nixon we sort of deny their existence
)
Forgive me, I went back a little farther than 50 years. I forget how quickly time passes sometimes.
3. We give food to North Korea despite the fact that we are technically enemies. (This did decline dramatically during the Bush administration.)
4. HIV/AIDS programs in Africa.
5. Aid to fight malaria in Africa.
6. Aid and assistance to Lebanon.
I could provide a litany. Here is a link to the USAID website: USAID
Respectfully,
M
Opinion of your foreign policy has been critical everywhere, including domestically. That must say something, doesn't it?
That isn't to say there isn't an easy answer. It is a very complicated situation and I don't see a resolution in site in the next 5 years either.
If I recall, I seem to remember that everyone thought it would be a simple "in and out" when you were going to invade Iraq, and everyone who said otherwise was a traitor.... I even recall the war being "won", i think it was the president behind a big banner on a navel carrier. Funny how people seem to forget these things.
That isn't to say there isn't an easy answer. It is a very complicated situation and I don't see a resolution in site in the next 5 years either.
If I recall, I seem to remember that everyone thought it would be a simple "in and out" when you were going to invade Iraq, and everyone who said otherwise was a traitor.... I even recall the war being "won", i think it was the president behind a big banner on a navel carrier. Funny how people seem to forget these things.
Moonspider - thanks for your, as usual very courteous, reply.
I've got a lot on this weekend so please forgive a slight delay in responding - I should have the time it deserves sometime this weekend.
I've got a lot on this weekend so please forgive a slight delay in responding - I should have the time it deserves sometime this weekend.
The United States defend some kind of position that, in theory, would be good. Still, the application of this mentality is totally incorrect, leading the world to much hartred toward that country. I am talking of the ideals of justice, peace and freedom. However, right now, in the name of those values, the US are doing exactly the opposite: war, arrestations, bad trials...
The intention isn't the only thing that should justify the acts. I do not think that the current political organisation of the US or the culture of this country is adequate to achieve the goals the americans have set themselves.
Before caring of what is going on in the neighbour's yard, maybe that the americans should first take a look at their important poor population, get the state back into the economy and put more cash into constructive policies instead of investing in the army.
The intention isn't the only thing that should justify the acts. I do not think that the current political organisation of the US or the culture of this country is adequate to achieve the goals the americans have set themselves.
Before caring of what is going on in the neighbour's yard, maybe that the americans should first take a look at their important poor population, get the state back into the economy and put more cash into constructive policies instead of investing in the army.
 |