Saturday, June 24, 2006

ANKARA - Turkish Daily News

  A poll clearly illustrating the deep divide between Muslims and the West has highlighted a wide disbelief among Turks concerning the facts of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

  According to the findings of a new 15-country poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press that was announced on Thursday, Muslims view people from the West -- especially the United States and Europe -- as selfish, immoral and greedy, while people from the United States and Europe view Muslims as arrogant, violent and intolerant.

  A solid majority of most of the 15 countries polled -- both in Europe and in the Middle East -- said relations between Muslims and Westerners are generally bad. While 55 percent of people in the United States felt that way, two-thirds or more of Germans and French took a dim view of relations between Muslims and the West.

  And each side points fingers blaming the other.

  One of the more surprising findings for researchers was that solid majorities in Indonesia (65 percent), Turkey (59 percent), Egypt (59 percent) and Jordan (53 percent) said they do not believe the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States were carried out by groups of Arabs.

  The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43 percent in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59 percent currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries as 56 percent of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the United States, compared with just 17 percent who do.

Prophet cartoons issue highlights the divide:

  “Nothing highlights the divide between Muslims and the West more clearly than their responses to the uproar this past winter over cartoon depictions of Mohammed. Most people in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey blame the controversy on Western nations' disrespect for the Islamic religion. In contrast, majorities of Americans and Western Europeans who have heard of the controversy say Muslims' intolerance to different points of view is more to blame,” the center said in its introduction to the poll.

  “In the Western countries, the Muslims are to blame,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. “In the Muslim countries and among Muslim minorities in Europe, the Western people are to blame.”

  But Muslims' support for terrorism is dropping in some countries. In Indonesia, Pakistan and especially in Jordan, there have been declines in the number of people who say suicide bombings can be justified.

  The polling in 15 countries of samples ranging from about 900 to 2,000 adults was conducted in April and May and has a margin of error ranging from 2 to 6 percentage points. The polling included a proportionately larger sampling of Muslims in the European countries. In China, India and Pakistan, the polling was based on urban samples.

  The nations in which polling was conducted were China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States.

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

Poll: Jordanians, Egyptians don't believe Arabs carried out 9/11

A recent poll shows that anti-Jewish sentiment remains overwhelmingly high in Muslim countries, and that solid majorities in Egypt and Jordan said that they do not believe that groups of Arabs carried out the September 11 terror attacks.

A deep divide between Muslims and the West was clearly illustrated in the findings of a new 15-country poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Muslims view people from the West, especially the United States and Europe, as selfish, immoral and greedy. People from the U.S. and Europe view Muslims as arrogant, violent and intolerant, the poll showed.

A solid majority in most of the 15 countries polled, both in Europe and in the Mideast, said relations between Muslims and Westerners are generally bad. And each side blames the other.

One of the more surprising findings in the poll was that solid majorities in Indonesia (65 percent), Turkey (59 percent), Egypt (59 percent) and Jordan (53 percent) said they do not believe the 9/11 attacks on the United States were carried out by groups of Arabs.

But Muslim support for terrorism is dropping in some countries. In Indonesia, Pakistan and especially in Jordan, there have been declines in the number of people who say suicide bombings can be justified.

Among the other findings:

* Majorities in the Muslim countries polled say the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections will be helpful to a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. That position is solidly rejected in the non-Muslim
countries.

* Overwhelming majorities in Muslim countries blame the controversy over cartoons depicting Mohammed on Western disrespect for the Muslim religion.

Majorities in Western countries tend to blame Muslim intolerance.

The polling in 15 countries of samples ranging from about 900 to 2,000 adults was conducted in April and May and has a margin of error ranging from 2 to 6 percentage points. The polling included Muslim oversamples in the European countries. In China, India and Pakistan, the polling was based on urban samples.

The nations in which polling was conducted were China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States.

Survey records vast West-Muslim divide

Associated Press Posted online: Saturday, June 24, 2006

Washington, June 23
Muslims view people from the West especially the United States and Europe as selfish, immoral and greedy. People from the US and Europe view Muslims as arrogant, violent and intolerant.

In Pakistan, support for Osama bin Laden remains relatively high, where many people regard westerners as intolerant, cheap and dishonest, according to the results of a global poll.

The deep divide between Muslims and the West was clearly illustrated in the findings released on Thursday of a new 15-country poll by the PEW Research Centre for the People & the Press.

The polling in 15 countries of samples ranging from about 900 to 2,000 adults was conducted in April and May and has a margin of error ranging from 2 to 6 percentage points. The polling included a proportionately larger sampling of Muslims in the European countries. In China, India and Pakistan, the polling was based on urban samples.

The nations in which polling was conducted were China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, turkey and the United States. a majority of Pakistanis expressed concerns about the spread of Islamic militancy.

PEW Survey Indicates US Presence in Iraq Greatest Threat to World Peace
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 zaman.com

The US presence in Iraq is a greater threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear ambitions, results of a new international opinion poll reveals.

America's global image has again slipped with support for the so-called 'war on terror' declining even among US. allies, according a PEW poll carried out in 14 countries across the world including Turkey.

The survey shows that the Iraq war continues to exact a toll on America's overall image and on support for the struggle against terrorism. Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place.

In Great Britain, America's most important ally in Iraq, 60% say the war has made the world more dangerous, while just half that number (30%) feel it has made the world safer. "More Britons believe that the US military presence in Iraq represents a great danger to stability in the Middle East and world peace than say that about the current government in Iran (by 41%-34%)," the PEW Survey found.

In Spain, 56% say the US military presence in Iraq is a great danger to the stability of the Middle East and world peace; just 38% regard the current government in Iran in the same way.

Turks are increasingly turning away from the war on terror, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project. More than three-quarters of Turks (77%) oppose the US-led war on terror, up from 56% in 2004.

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations from March 31-May 14, finds that the US-led war on terror draws majority support in just two countries - India and Russia.

Indians are bullish on Bush as he falls in global polls
BY PRAFUL BIDWAI

24 June 2006  www.khaleejtimes.com

INDIA poses a peculiar conundrum: even as the image of the United States takes a severe beating globally, it remains bright in India. According to the Washington-based Pew Research Centre, which polled 17,000 people in 15 countries, 56 per cent of Indians have a "favourable opinion" of America. Worse, 56 per cent also approve of President Bush, whose domestic ratings have fallen to 31 per cent.

Although the proportion of Indians who favourably rate the US this year is lower than last year’s 71 per cent, it is among the highest scores anywhere in the world, exceeded only by Japan and Nigeria. It stands in contrast to the sharp fall registered in America’s rating since 1999 in France (from 62 to 39 per cent), Germany (78 to 37), and Spain (50 to 23). Even in Britain, approval has slumped from 83 per cent to 56.

Over the year, approval of the US has plummeted in every single European country barring Britain: in Germany (from 41 to 37 per cent), France (43 to 39), Russia (52 to 43) and Spain (an even sharper 41 to 23 per cent). Even more dismal is the fall in Turkey, a NATO member (23 to 12 per cent). In Pakistan, the rating has risen marginally from an abysmal 23 per cent to a poor 27 per cent (less than half that of India’s).

Even worse, India’s support for the US-led ‘war on terror’ stands at a record 65 per cent — the world’s highest, and 13 percentage points greater than last year.

But, says the Pew Centre: elsewhere, support for the war "is either flat or has declined... The Iraq war continues to exact a toll on America’s overall image... Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place."

A global majority sees the Iraq occupation as a "greater danger to world peace" than Iran, "despite growing concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.". Forty-one per cent of Britons say the Iraq occupation represents a greater danger than the Teheran regime.  In Russia, Spain, France, and China the relative proportions are 45:20, 56:38, 36:31 and 31:22. It’s only in the US and Germany that the proportions are inverse-31:46 and 40:51. The rest of the world takes an even dimmer view. The threats attributed to the occupation exceed those from Iran by 3 times in Indonesian and 7 times in Pakistan.

However, Indians who regard the Iraq occupation as a threat to world peace are just 15 per cent — the world’s lowest, and less than half the ratings in the US. A huge 59 per cent believe US can establish democracy in Iraq — a desperate hope not shared by Americans! The Indian support for the brutal occupation of Iraq is unique-despite over 100,000 civilian deaths, an intractable insurgency, and discontent in the Arab world. Even Bush admits that he made "mistakes" in Iraq. Yet, the poll results don’t show that all Indians are unable to make a judgment about war and peace. The poll represents a narrow urban sample. The interviews were conducted amongst the 10 per cent who have landline telephones. It is an elite opinion poll.

Even so, the pro-US sentiment is shocking. Not long ago, the same elite ardently opposed American hegemony. The same policy-makers and-shapers have now become abjectly pro-America. Their admiration for "the American people" (67 per cent) exceeds even their support for the US. It would be simplistic to attribute this Americophilia to the Indo-US nuclear deal. That deal was only signed last July. Three other factors seem weightier: the burgeoning of a middle class under neoliberal policies, deepened since 2000; the elite’s moral-political disorientation; and the hangover of Hindutva’s Islamophobia.

These produce callousness towards the cruelty of war and occupation, amnesia about the false excuses about weapons of mass destruction and about the US’ generally baneful global influence.

The US occupation has created a far worse situation than that under Saddam. Despite a semblance of democracy, daily life is harsher and more insecure. There is systematic loot of the country’s huge resources. Saddam had his death and torture squads. But it’s hard to say that the Abu Ghraib tortures, Fallujah’s ravaging, or the Haditha massacre are any better. Haditha is the worst US massacre since My Lai.

The atrocious ways of US troops forced Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to say that their grave misconduct on a daily basis "has become common... No respect for citizens, smashing civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch. It’s unacceptable."

In first hand accounts published in Time and Newsweek, the occupation troops emerge as mentally unstable, high on drugs, and prone to perverse behaviour. Says ex-soldier Clif Hicks: US troops "were taking steroids, Valium, hooked on painkillers, drinking. They’d go on raids and patrols totally stoned..." . He adds: "There’s a lot of guys who steal from the Iraqis. Money, family heirlooms, and then they brag about it. Guys would crap into MRE bags and throw them to old men begging for food."

Those who believe these are aberrations don’t understand the insanity that sometimes sets in among soldiers who don’t know why they are fighting. How else can one explain the sickening sadism of the four-minute video, called "Hadji Girl", apparently sung by a Marine? The lyrics read: "I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then I laughed maniacally..."

The US is not a benign power in Iraq. Nor elsewhere. It’s out to establish an Empire. Its leaders barely hide their intentions. Colluding with them is the worst thing that a country’s elite can do.

Praful Bidwai is a veteran Indian journalist and commentator. He can be reached at bidwai@bol.net.in 

---

The End of the Bush Revolution
Philip H. Gordon

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006 www.foreignaffairs.org

Summary: The Bush administration's "revolutionary" foreign policy rhetoric has not changed, but its actual policies have: after squandering U.S. legitimacy, breaking the domestic bank, and getting the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, the Bush doctrine has run up against reality and become unsustainable. The counterrevolution should be welcomed -- and, if possible, locked in.

PHILIP H. GORDON is a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution and a co-author, with Jeremy Shapiro, of Allies at War: America, Europe, and the Crisis Over Iraq.

A RETURN TO REALISM

Reading over President George W. Bush's March 2006 National Security Strategy, one would be hard-pressed to find much evidence that the president has backed away from what has become known as the Bush doctrine. "America is at war," says the document; we will "fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country" and "support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture," with the ultimate goal of "ending tyranny in our world."

Talk to any senior administration official, and he or she will tell you that the president is as committed as ever to the "revolutionary" foreign policy principles he spelled out after 9/11: the United States is fighting a war on terror and must remain on the offensive and ready to act alone, U.S. power is the foundation of global order, and the spread of democracy and freedom is the key to a safer and more peaceful world. Bush reiterated such thinking in his 2006 State of the Union address, insisting that the United States will "act boldly in freedom's cause" and "never surrender to evil."

But if the rhetoric of the Bush revolution lives on, the revolution itself is over. The question is not whether the president and most of his team still hold to the basic tenets of the Bush doctrine -- they do -- but whether they can sustain it. They cannot. Although the administration does not like to admit it, U.S. foreign policy is already on a very different trajectory than it was in Bush's first term. The budgetary, political, and diplomatic realities that the first Bush team tried to ignore have begun to set in.

The reversal of the Bush revolution is a good thing. By overreaching in Iraq, alienating important allies, and allowing the war on terrorism to overshadow all other national priorities, Bush has gotten the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, overstretched the military, and broken the domestic bank. Washington now lacks the reservoir of international legitimacy, resources, and domestic support necessary to pursue other key national interests.

It is not too late to put U.S. foreign policy back on a more sustainable course, and Bush has already begun to do so. But these new, mostly positive trends are no less reversible than the old ones were. Another terrorist attack on the United States, a major challenge from Iran, or a fresh burst of misplaced optimism about Iraq could entice the administration to return to its revolutionary course -- with potentially disastrous consequences.

THE ACCIDENTAL REVOLUTION

It is no small irony that Bush's foreign policy ended up on the idealistic end of the U.S. foreign policy spectrum. Contrary to the notion, common on the left and overseas, that the Bush team was hawkish and interventionist from the start, the administration was in fact deeply divided in its first months. If anything, it leaned toward the realist view that the United States should avoid meddling in the domestic affairs of other nations. In his campaign, Bush famously . . .

---

Pariah President: How Bush is Damaging US Standing Abroad and Threatening National Security
by Heather Wokusch
www.dissidentvoice.org
June 22, 2006

It's embarrassing to have a president who's so universally loathed. Bush arrived in Austria Tuesday and has been greeted by scorn and widespread protests, not to mention Cindy Sheehan. Random posters have been up across Vienna since April, depicting Bush's face and a German-language caption reading "A mass murderer is coming."

 

How extraordinary that even when Bush visits allies abroad he's not well received. He was heckled in the Australian Parliament in October 2003, and weeks later, lambasted for insulting the Queen when his security personnel trashed Buckingham Palace. He was greeted by hostile headlines and throngs of placard-carrying protestors in Ireland in 2004, then charged with torture by a legal activist group in Canada later that year. Bush encountered massive protests under the slogan "Not Welcome" in Germany in 2005, and faced banners depicting him as a devil, a vampire and a warmonger at the November 2005 Summit of the Americas in Argentina.

Bush was in Austria for a brief US-European Union Summit plugged by the State Department as "combating an ideology of violence with a positive vision of freedom, democracy and opportunity." Humorous in light of recent revelations that the CIA colluded with various European countries on the alleged kidnapping and secret transfer of terror suspects to countries that use torture.

But the show must go on. Expectations for Bush's visit are low, however, and his farcical jaunt to Iraq last week didn't help. The Iraqi Prime Minister wasn't informed about Bush's visit until five minutes before they met, proving that the supposedly sovereign government can't even control who enters its country.

Bush said he visited Iraq last week to look Prime Minister Maliki "in the eyes" and determine his dedication to freedom -- reminiscent of how Bush looked Russia's President Putin "in the eye" back in 2001 to "get a sense of his soul." But Bush didn't practice his mystical eye-looking quality in Vienna; the city is under a security lockdown with huge sections cordoned off lest Bush come face-to-face with growing hordes of angry protestors.

It's hard to imagine where Bush actually is welcome. A Pew opinion poll released last week found that citizens across the globe are losing confidence in the US leader, with his approval ratings plummeting, for example, to 15% in France, 7% in Spain and a 3% in Turkey. Support for the administration's militaristic policies has also dramatically waned, with majorities in only 2 of the 14 countries surveyed favoring the so-called war on terror, and similar majorities citing the US military presence in Iraq as a greater threat to world peace than Iran.

In other words, people around the world are beginning to understand that the deteriorating security situation in Iraq is linked to the sharp increase in global terrorism - and a potential threat to their own safety. And they wouldn't be heartened by Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) April 2006 assessment of National Counterterrorism Center data, which found an increase of over 5,000% in the number of global terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of terrorist-related deaths in the three years following the US invasion of Iraq. Yet the administration says the war on terror is making us safer.

It's troubling that as international disapproval of Bush and his administration's policies increases, so does anti-Americanism in general; the Pew poll found that "favorable opinions of the United States" have plummeted since last year in the majority of the 15 countries it surveyed, including in Germany, Russia and India.

So perhaps it's fitting that Bush is now visiting Austria, a country which at one point was a powerful empire controlling lands as far flung as Mexico, but today fights to have its voice heard on the world stage. The lesson is clear: Imperialistic overreach and its requisite focus on military power can eventually make the mighty crumble.

 

Heather Wokusch is a freelance writer working on a book for progressives. She can be contacted via her web site at: www.heatherwokusch.com

 

---

 

United States Global Image on the Decline: Interaction with others is Monologue not Dialogue

By Daya Gamage – US Bureau of Asian Tribune Sun, 2006-06-18 www.asiantribune.com

Washington, D.C. 18 June, (Asiantribune.com): With limited success with its revamped Global Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs campaign with the inauguration of a special bureau in the State Department fifteen months ago, the United States global image has slipped further, an indication that, since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the American soil, U.S. is still to come out of its monologues posture to engage in a dialogue with the international community especially the Third World nations.

A new Global Opinion Poll to assess America’s image overseas, released last week by the Washington-based Pew Research Center, contends that in both allied nations and other parts of the world the U.S. suffered adverse effect on its global image.

Countries where positive views dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent); Russia (43 percent, down from 52 percent); Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation of the world, (30 percent, down from 38 percent, and Turkey, only 12 percent said they had a favorable opinion, down from 23 percent last year.

As the war in Iraq entered the fourth year, the global image of the United States has slipped further. There were no indications that Bush Administration’s ‘Promotion of Democracy Worldwide’ has brought much dividends.

“Obviously, when you get many more people saying that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a threat to world peace as say that about Iran, it is a measure of how much Iraq is sapping good will to the United States,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center that released the report last week after a global survey.

Pew surveyed 16,710 people from March 31 to May 14, 2006 in Britain, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States.

The global image of America slipped even among people in some countries closely allied with the United States, the new opinion poll of Pew Research Center disclosed.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice realized this global setback when she told her department staff announcing the Bush Administration’s nominee Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs on March 14 last year that for the “U.S. to be successful (in overseas public diplomacy) we must listen. An important part of telling America’s story is learning the stories of others. Our interaction with the rest of the world must not be monologue. It must be a conversation.”

In November 2004, American and Asian professionals and experts, under the auspices of the San Francisco-based Asia Foundation symposium, which reviewed U.S. relations with the Asian Region, in a joint report, charged that the United States acts unilaterally when it comes to dealings with other nations particularly developing nations.

In this report “America’s Role in Asia” issued on November 15, 2004 in Washington for the benefit of the U.S. policy-makers said in part, “The United States tendency to use regional consultations, principally as an occasion for pressing Asian participants on U.S. priorities rather than listening carefully to their concerns will surely reinforce a growing desire of Asians to meet on key issues – particularly economic issues – without the U.S. at the table.”

Secretary Rice advocated last year that “the challenges of today are much different than the challenges of yesterday and when it comes to our public diplomacy we simply must do better. Indeed, one key conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission was that our nation must improve how we engage with the rest of the world.”

America’s public diplomacy, Karen Hughes told on March 29 this year in Houston, Texas in a lecture at Rice University’s Institute for Public Policy, must offer foreign audiences a positive vision of hope for a better life “rooted in freedom, justice, opportunity and respect for all.”

Hughes fielded questions from her Houston audience. In response to one, she contrasted the public diplomacy challenges faced during the Cold War, when the task was to get information into closed societies, with the contemporary information overload.

Today, she said, the United States competes “for attention and credibility.”

While the U.S. Under Secretary office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs headed by Karen Hughes endeavors to break away from the usual U.S. position of monologue to listen to the alternate views of the others and establish its credibility for the ‘promotion of democracy’, a corner stone of Bush’s second term agenda, Thomas Carothers, Director, Democracy and Rule of Law Project of Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 8, 2006 had this to say of the whole project of ‘democracy promotion.’:

“The Bush administration’s emphasis on the Iraq war as the leading wedge of its democracy promotion policy in the Middle East has closely associated democracy promotion with the assertion of American military power and security interests. With the U.S. intervention in Iraq viewed as illegitimate in most parts of the world, the legitimacy of the general concept of democracy promotion has suffered accordingly.”

The erosion of America’s global credibility brought to light by the Pew Research Center last week was attributed to the style it has adopted in its ‘War against Terrorism’. Carothers puts it this way: “The status of the United States as a symbol of democracy and as a leading promoter of democracy has been greatly damaged by the abuses committed by U.S. military and intelligence personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, as well as by other elements of the war on terrorism, such as the secret rendition of foreign terrorist suspects to countries that regularly practice torture, reliable reports of covert prisons in Europe, and governmental eavesdropping without court warrants within the United States.”

He continued to say in this Senate hearing last March 8 that “The damage to America’s image has been enormous, a fact that is plainly and painfully obvious to anyone who is internationally aware either abroad or at home, but which the (Bush) administration refuses to acknowledge. The widespread perception that the war on terrorism entails the frequent violation of individuals’ rights by the U.S. government sharply contradicts President Bush’s efforts to tell the world that liberty is the best antidote for terrorism.”

It is important to recall here what the Asian expert group reiterated in its report at the Asia Foundation symposium in November 2004, “Washington must persuade the Asian region that the U.S. is not seeking domination in international affairs, but rather leadership within the world.”

And, the Washington-based Pew Research Center made it clear last week that the United States needs to change its stance to improve its image in the world.

---

'War on Terra' a Stinging Failure. Period.
 

By Anwaar Hussain*
June 19, 2006
Pakistan's Pak Tribune - Original Article (English)    

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

As the duration of the War on Terra (that's Texanese for War on Terror, and I won't be reminding you again) now almost matches that of the Second World War, let us see how the man from Texas has done over the last five years.

Let us turn to a survey that has been done of 100 leading American foreign policy analysts. Released by the journal Foreign Affairs on June 14th, the report is entitled "The Terrorism Index" .

The participants of the survey included a former U.S. secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, along with well-known members of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. The majority served in previous administrations or in senior military posts. Chances are, they know what they're talking about, and the overwhelming consensus is not what America's ruling cabal would like to hear.

Despite the U.S. President's claim that he is winning the War on Terra, some 86 percent of these specialists believe otherwise. They think that the world has grown more, not less, dangerous, and that the main reasons are war in Iraq, the detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. policy toward Iran and American energy policy.

Almost 80 percent of the analysts say that a widespread rejection of radical Islamic ideology is crucial if terrorism is to be eradicated, but that this goal requires "a much higher emphasis on non-military tools." Across the board, they rated Washington's diplomatic efforts as appalling, with a median score of 1.8 out of 10. The Department of Homeland Security was rated for effectiveness at only 2.9 out of 10.

Joe Cirincione, vice-president of the Center for American Progress, the Washington think-tank which co-sponsored the survey said, "When you strip away the politics, the experts, almost to a person, are very worried about the administration … they think none of our front-line institutions is doing a good job and that Iraq has made the terror situation much worse."

Asked what presents the single greatest danger to American security, nearly half of the analysts said the greatest threat is from loose nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Only four percent said Iran. Cirincione says the fact that so few experts think Iran is a threat and so many regard Iraq as a mistake, "turns the administration's policies on their head."

Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations was even more up front in his remarks. In the survey's accompanying report, he said, "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all, that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."

In plain English, what these experts are saying is that after five years of the War on Terra, the world is much more insecure than it ever was, and that the war itself is a ringing failure. Period.

What the experts did not say, was said by the Washington-based Pew Research Center's poll of almost 17,000 people from Britain, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States. The Foreign Affairs Journal report comes on the heels of this Pew poll, and the combined reading puts to rest any doubt that one may have regarding the complete collapse of the War on Terra.

According to the global poll, conducted between March and May, Pew found that President George Bush's six years in office have so battered the image of the United States that people worldwide see Washington as a bigger threat to world peace than Tehran. This despite the fact that throughout the period the poll was conducted, the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, intensified by hard-line comments from its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was repeatedly in the news.

The annual survey also shows the continued decline in support for the U.S. since 1999. In Muslim countries with which the United States has customarily enjoyed a good relationship, such as Turkey - a member of NATO - and Indonesia, there have also been slumps. In Indonesia, America's favorable ratings have dropped from 75% to 30%, and in Turkey from 52% to 12%.

Even in Britain, Washington's closest ally, favorable ratings have slumped from 83% in 1999 to 56% this year. The pattern is similar in France, down from 62% to 39%, Germany 78% to 37%, and Spain 50% to 23%.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

As part of the overall decline in support for the U.S., the survey also records a drop in support for the U.S.-led "War on Terra," even in countries like Spain, in spite of the Madrid bombings two years ago by al-Qaeda that left 192 dead. Support for the "War on Terra" dropped in Spain from 26% last year to 19% this year. Favorable ratings of the U.S. in India dropped over the year from 71% to 56%.

In the U.K., the second biggest contributor of troops in Iraq, 60% said the Iraq War had made the world more dangerous. Only 30% said it had made the world safer, and 41% of British people said the America's presence in Iraq represented a great danger to world peace, with 34% citing Iran as a bigger threat.

For the first time in the past five years, two influential reports are simultaneously speaking straight and to the point. No six-of-one-and-half-a-dozen-of-another language. The message is clear: The Texan's War on Terra is a miserable disaster.

However, there is a silver lining for the man from Crawford in the Pew poll. Majorities in two countries, India and Nigeria, have expressed confidence in him.

With a third reelection impossible for Bush, and the world wishing to begin its own "War on Terra" against him and his gang, Bush had better begin weighing his chances for the top slot in one of these countries (hint: Nigeria has proven oil reserves of 36 billion barrels).

Anwaar Hussain is a former Pakistan Air Force F-16 fighter pilot. With a Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies from Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad, he now    resides in United Arab Emirates. He has published a series of articles in Defense Journal, South Asia Tribune and a host of other web portals. Other than international affairs, Anwaar Hussain has written extensively on the religious and political issues that plague Pakistan.

---

Congress Is Important, Americans Say, but Just 29 Percent Approve

By Karlyn H. Bowman June 21, 2006 Roll Call  

How big a deal is Congress for ordinary Americans? In a mid-June Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey, 36 percent said that a shift in the partisan control of Congress would make a lot of difference in their lives. Another 30 percent said it would make some difference, while only 16 percent and 13 percent said a little or no difference, respectively.

 

Resident Fellow Karlyn Bowman

And how satisfied were respondents about the current Congress? Just 29 percent approved of the job Congress was doing. Broken down by party affiliation, 23 percent of self-described Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of independents said they approved of the job Congress was doing.

 

U.S. Leadership on Terrorism. The Pew Global Attitudes project recently released a 15-nation survey on attitudes about various countries, the Iraq war, the situation in Iran and bird flu. Most interviews were conducted in April and May.

Respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed “the U.S. led efforts to fight terrorism.” Seventy-three percent of Americans favored the effort, compared to 65 percent of respondents in India, 52 percent in Russia, 49 percent in Great Britain and Nigeria, 47 percent in Germany, 43 percent in France, 39 percent in Indonesia, 30 percent in Pakistan, 26 percent in Japan, 19 percent in Spain and China,16 percent in Jordan, 14 percent in Turkey and 10 percent in Egypt.

Zarqawi’s Revenge? Twenty-four percent of respondents told CBS News interviewers in a June 10-11 poll that attacks on Iraqi civilians would increase as a result of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s killing; 18 percent said they would decrease; and 54 percent said they would stay about the same. In the meantime, 30 percent of respondents said that attacks on U.S. troops would increase as a result of al-Zarqawi’s killing, 16 percent said they would decrease, and 50 percent said they would stay about the same.

The results were similar on a slightly different question asked June 9-11 by Gallup/USA Today. Thirty percent said there would be more insurgent attacks in Iraq as a result of his death, 20 percent said there would be fewer attacks, and 48 percent said there would be about the same number.

In the meantime, 31 percent of respondents in a mid-June Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey called al-Zarqawi’s death a major victory, 46 percent said it was a minor one and 20 percent said it was not a victory.

Changing Religions. In its June 9-11 survey, 72 percent of those polled told Gallup and USA Today interviewers that they had always had the same religious preference. Another 15 percent said they had switched from one religion to another, while 10 percent said they had moved away from religion.

When those who had switched were asked why they had done so, the top two reasons were disagreement with the teachings of their original religion (40 percent) and finding a new religion that was more fulfilling (38 percent).

Black Men in America. In a recently released poll taken in March and April, The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University asked a large sample of Americans how various groups in this country were doing.

Just 10 percent of black men said that black men were doing very well. Forty percent of white men thought white men were doing very well.

In another question, 34 percent of black men said things were getting worse for black men in general, 29 percent said they were getting better and 36 percent said they were staying about the same. Black women were in general agreement about the condition of black men. By contrast, 58 percent of white men felt things were getting better for black men.

When asked about the single biggest problem facing black men today, 31 percent of black men responded that young black men were not taking their education seriously enough, followed by 15 percent who cited drug and alcohol abuse and 14 percent who pointed to irresponsible fathers.

When asked about the cause of the problems facing black men, 23 percent of black men said the problems were more a result of what whites had done to blacks, while 59 percent said the problems were a result of what black men have failed to do.

In another question, 61 percent of black men said that black men do not show proper respect for black women. Fifty-seven percent of this group called this a serious problem.

World Cup Fever? Nearly seven in 10 Americans--69 percent--told Gallup in early June that they did not plan to watch any of the World Cup soccer matches. Nine percent said they would watch as much as possible about them, while 22 percent said they would watch some but not a lot. Those responses are not significantly different from Gallup’s polls on the subject in 1990, 1994 and 2002.

In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in February and March this year, only 4 percent of those surveyed said soccer was their favorite sport. But six times as many Hispanics--24 percent--listed it as their favorite.

Karlyn H. Bowman is a resident fellow at AEI www.aei.org

---

6/14/06  www.payvand.com/news/06/jun/1130.html

Poll: America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations from March 31-May 14.
 

II. Iran and the Nuclear Question

Beyond the immediate issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is widespread sentiment - especially in the West - that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Overwhelming majorities in Germany (91%), Japan (87%) and France (85%) say non-nuclear countries should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Roughly three-quarters in Great Britain (77%), the United States (74%), and Russia (73%) also say that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing such weapons.

Attitudes in Muslim countries on halting nuclear weapons proliferation divide along about the same lines as opinions on Iran's nuclear program. A narrow majority in Jordan (53%), 50% of Pakistanis, and 44% of Egyptians say non-nuclear countries should not be stopped in their attempts to develop nuclear weapons; comparable percentages in all three countries say they favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Most Indonesians (61%) and Turks (58%) say countries that do not possess nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Majorities in these countries also expressed opposition to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

 

Divided Over Iran

 

Publics in Muslim and non-Muslim countries have deeply divided opinions about Iran - its nuclear program, its government, even the country itself. Solid majorities in four of the five predominantly Muslim countries express favorable opinions of Iran. In contrast, large majorities in most major industrialized countries - as well as pluralities in India and China - view Iran negatively.

More than three-quarters of Indonesians (77%) and nearly as many Pakistanis (72%) have favorable opinions of Iran. Smaller majorities in Egypt (59%) and Turkey (53%) also express positive views. Jordan is the only Muslim country surveyed where the public is divided - 49% express positive opinions of Iran and 51% negative ones.

Nigerians' views of Iran underscore the divide over Iran between Muslims and non-Muslims. Overall opinion in Nigeria, where Muslims constitute about half the population, is evenly split (43% favorable/44% unfavorable). However, there are huge differences between the country's Muslim and Christian populations; more than three-quarters of Nigeria's Muslims (78%) express favorable views of Iran, compared with just 10% of Nigerian Christians.

In three of four Western European countries surveyed - Germany, France and Spain - two-thirds or more express negative opinions of Iran. The lone exception is Great Britain, where unfavorable opinions of Iran outnumber favorable ones by a slight margin (39%-34%).

Most Americans (57%) view Iran negatively, though the percentage expressing unfavorable opinions has fallen significantly from the recent past. In a February 2006 survey by the Gallup Organization 86% had an unfavorable view of Iran; that is fairly consistent with findings from Gallup surveys dating to 2002.

 

Little Confidence in Ahmadinejad

 

While publics in most Muslim countries have high regard for the country of Iran, they voice more negative opinions of its president. Roughly two-thirds in both Egypt (68%) and Jordan (65%) say they have little or no confidence in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to "do the right thing" in world affairs. In Turkey, 41% say they have no confidence in the Ahmadinejad, while only a quarter of Turks say they have a lot or some confidence in the Iranian president.

Indonesia (48%) and Nigeria (40%) are the only countries surveyed where pluralities say they have at least some confidence in Ahmadinejad. In Nigeria, views of the Iranian leader - like those of the country itself - are split along religious lines. While 69% of Nigeria's Muslims say they have confidence in Iran's president, just 13% of the country's Christians share that view.

Western Europeans express even less confidence in Ahmadinejad than do the publics of Muslim countries. Majorities in Germany (60%), France (57%) and Spain (53%) say they have no confidence in the Iranian leader. Opinion of Iran's president is less negative in Great Britain; still, 39% say they have no confidence and 21% not too much confidence in Ahmadinejad.

 

More See Iran as Danger

 

An increasing number in the U.S., as well as in Western Europe and Russia, believe that the government of Iran represents a danger to Mideast stability and world peace. Nearly half of Americans (46%) now say that the Iranian government poses a great danger to global peace; three years ago, just 26% expressed this opinion.

The shift has been even more dramatic among Western European publics; 51% of Germans believe the current government in Tehran is a great danger to world peace, up from 18% in May 2003. In Spain, France and Great Britain, the percentage of people who see Iran as a great danger has roughly tripled compared with three years ago.

Fewer Russians than Americans or Western Europeans think the government of Iran represents a serious danger (20%). However, about half of Russians (52%) say Iran poses a great or at least a moderate danger to regional stability and world peace. In May 2003, just 17% of Russians thought that Iran represented at least a moderate danger.

Iran's government is viewed as far less dangerous by publics in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. Nonetheless, 19% of Jordanians say the government of Iran represents a great danger - and 25% a moderate danger - to stability in the Middle East and world peace; in May 2003, just 16% viewed Iran as a great or moderate danger. Opinion on this issue has been more stable in Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan. In each of these countries, as well as in Egypt, no more than about a third believes that the Iranian government poses a great or moderate danger to peace and stability.

 

Iran's Nuclear Goal - Weapons

 

In the Middle East and major industrialized countries, overwhelming numbers of citizens say they have heard of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. But this is not the case in other countries. A majority in China (54%) has not heard of the issue, and substantial minorities in Pakistan (45%), Indonesia (41%), and Nigeria (40%) also are unaware of the Iran nuclear controversy.

The dominant opinion among those who have heard about the nuclear dispute - in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike - is that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, either as its sole objective or along with developing nuclear energy.

In major industrialized countries, with the exception of Great Britain, large majorities express the opinion that the goal of Iran's nuclear program is nuclear weapons; relatively few volunteer that Tehran has the dual goals of weapons and energy. The idea that Iran seeks both weapons and energy is a much more prevalent view in other countries. In Egypt, 30% think that Iran's aim is nuclear weapons, while about as many (28%) think the goal of its nuclear program is both weapons and energy. Relatively high percentages in Jordan and Turkey (28% in each) also volunteer that Iran wants to develop both weapons and energy from its nuclear program.

More than four-in-ten Indonesians (44%) say the goal of Iran's nuclear program is energy - the highest percentage of the 15 nations surveyed. Still, somewhat more Indonesians (a combined 51%) say Iran's goal is either to develop nuclear weapons (33%), or volunteer that it wants both weapons and energy (18%).

 

What Would Iran Do?

 

There is no consensus about what Iran would be likely to do if it in fact develops nuclear weapons. But Americans and Western Europeans generally believe that two cataclysmic scenarios are likely - that Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations, and that it would attack Israel.

Large majorities in the U.S. and Western Europe, as well as about half of Japanese (52%), say that if Iran develops nuclear weapons it would be likely to provide them to terrorist groups. An Iranian attack on Israel also is viewed as likely by most Americans and Western Europeans.

The publics in predominantly Muslim countries mostly believe a nuclear-armed Iran would use such weapons for defensive purposes only. Fully 80% of Indonesians and smaller majorities in other Muslim countries say Iran is likely to use nuclear weapons only in its own defense. In addition, relatively small minorities in all five Muslim countries surveyed feel that Iran is likely to pass along nuclear weapons to terrorists.

At the same time, however, more than six-in-ten in Jordan (65%) and Egypt (61%) say that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it would be likely to attack Israel; about half of Turks (51%) and Indonesians (49%) agree. And in Jordan and Egypt, in particular, sizable minorities favor Iran actually acquiring nuclear weapons (45% and 44%, respectively).

There also is a widespread belief, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, that a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to attack the United States or European nations. Two-thirds of Spaniards (66%) and nearly as many Americans (63%) say such an attack is likely. Roughly half of the respondents in France, Germany and Britain - as well as in Turkey, Indonesia and Jordan - say an attack by Iran on the U.S. or Europe is likely.

In both Pakistan and China, relatively large percentages declined to offer opinions on possible actions by Iran, if it were to develop nuclear weapons. In each country, just 37% have heard of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program; that is by far the lowest level of awareness among the 15 countries surveyed.

---

FULL REPORT http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas
No Global Warming Alarm in the U.S., China

Released: 06.13.06

Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
I. America's Image and U.S. Foreign Policy
II. Iran and the Nuclear Question
III. Global Concerns and Issues
Methodological Appendix
Questionnaire

Summary of Findings

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.

A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But favorable opinions of the United States have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed. Only about a quarter of the Spanish public (23%) expresses positive views of the U.S., down from 41% last year; America's image also has declined significantly in India (from 71% to 56%) and Indonesia (from 38% to 30%).

Yet the survey shows that Americans and the publics of major U.S. allies share common concerns, not only over the possible nuclear threat posed by Iran but also over the recent victory by the Hamas Party in Palestinian elections. In contrast, the predominantly Muslim populations surveyed generally are less worried about both of these developments.

Nearly half of Americans (46%) view the current government in Iran as a "great danger" to stability in the Middle East and to world peace, up from 26% in 2003. Concern over Iran also has risen sharply in Western Europe, especially Germany. Currently 51% of Germans see Iran as a great danger to world peace, compared with just 18% three years ago.

Opposition to Iran developing nuclear weapons is nearly unanimous in Germany, Japan, France, and Great Britain, as well as in the U.S. Opinion in predominantly Muslim countries varies widely: solid majorities in Turkey (61%) and Indonesia (59%) oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but people in Egypt and Jordan are divided, and most Pakistanis (52%) favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. In addition, more people in major industrialized nations than in Muslim countries believe that Iran wants a nuclear program to develop weapons, not nuclear energy.

Divisions between the West and Muslim nations in opinions of the Hamas Party's victory are even wider. Fully 71% of Germans and 69% of the French feel the Hamas triumph will be bad for the Palestinian people, among those who are aware of the issue. Somewhat fewer Americans (50%) express this view, although just 20% think the Hamas triumph will be a good thing for the Palestinians. Among major U.S. allies, only the British are divided on Hamas' election - 34% say it will be bad, while 32% take a positive view.

By contrast, large majorities in Pakistan (87%), Egypt (76%), Jordan (68%), and Indonesia (61%) feel that the Hamas Party victory will be good for the Palestinian people, among those who had heard about the election. In addition, the Muslim publics surveyed generally feel the Hamas triumph will increase chances of a fair settlement of the Mideast conflict - a view that is roundly rejected in the West.

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations from March 31-May 14, finds that the U.S.-led war on terror draws majority support in just two countries - India and Russia. In India, support for the U.S.-led war on terror has increased significantly over the past year - from 52% to 65% - even though opinions of the U.S. have grown more negative over that period.

But in most other countries, support for the war on terror is either flat or has declined. In Japan, barely a quarter of respondents (26%) now favor the U.S.-led war on terror, down from 61% in the summer of 2002. Only about four-in-ten Indonesians (39%) back the war on terror, compared with 50% a year ago. And in Spain, the site of a devastating terrorist attack two years ago, four times as many people oppose the war on terror as support it (76% vs. 19%).

The survey shows that the Iraq war continues to exact a toll on America's overall image and on support for the struggle against terrorism. Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, America's most important ally in Iraq, 60% say the war has made the world more dangerous, while just half that number (30%) feel it has made the world safer.

Moreover, even as concerns about Iran have increased, somewhat more Britons believe that the U.S. military presence in Iraq represents a great danger to stability in the Middle East and world peace than say that about the current government in Iran (by 41%-34%). In Spain, fully 56% say the U.S. military presence in Iraq is a great danger to the stability of the Middle East and world peace; just 38% regard the current government in Iran in the same way. Among America's traditional allies, Germany is the only country where more people say Iran is a great danger than offer the same view of the U.S. military presence in Iraq (by 51%-40%).

Opinions about threats to global peace also reflect regional concerns. While solid majorities in Jordan and Egypt see America's presence in Iraq as a great danger, even higher percentages in these countries view the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a great danger to regional stability and world peace. The Japanese are particularly concerned about North Korea - 46% say the government there represents a great danger to world peace. Those concerns are not shared nearly as much in China, which borders North Korea; just 11% of Chinese feel that the current government in Pyongyang poses a great danger to Asian stability and world peace.

 

 

The survey finds sizable gaps in public attentiveness to major issues and events. In this regard, the extraordinarily high level of attentiveness to bird flu disease is significant. More than 90% of the publics in 14 of 15 countries polled say they have heard of the disease; the only exception is Pakistan, where 82% say they are aware of the disease.

But attentiveness to other widely covered issues and events varies widely. There is nearly universal awareness of global warming in major industrialized countries; in addition, 80% of Russians and 78% of Chinese say they have heard of global warming. Yet global warming has drawn scant attention in Muslim countries, with the exception of Turkey (75%). And in India, just 57% say they have heard of global warming.

Reports about U.S. prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have attracted broad attention in Western Europe and Japan - more attention, in fact, than in the United States. Roughly three-quarters of Americans (76%) say they have heard of the prison abuses, compared with about 90% or more in the four Western European countries and Japan.

Among predominantly Muslim countries, large majorities in Egypt (80%), Jordan (79%), and Turkey (68%) say they have heard of the reports of prison abuse. But in Indonesia, Pakistan, and among Muslims in Nigeria, most people have not heard of this issue. Moreover, just 38% of Chinese and 23% of Indians say they are aware of the prison abuse story.

While there is extensive interest in bird flu, public alarm over the spread of the disease has been mostly limited to Asia. Nearly two-thirds of Indonesians (65%) say they are very worried that they themselves or a family member will be exposed to the bird flu; bird flu worries also are extensive in India (57% very worried), Nigeria (57%), and Russia (56%). But the disease has generated far less concern in Western Europe and the United States. Only about one-in-ten Americans (13%) say they are very worried about the bird flu; similar levels of concern are evident in France (13%), Germany (10%), and Great Britain (9%).

There also is a substantial gap in concern over global warming - roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue.

But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China - the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming - the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem.

The survey finds the most publics surveyed are dissatisfied with national conditions. But China is a notable exception - 81% of Chinese say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their country, up from 72% in 2005. Majorities in only two other countries - Egypt (55%) and Jordan (53%) - express satisfaction with national conditions.

Only about three-in-ten Americans (29%) say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S., down from 39% last year and 50% in 2003. Levels of national satisfaction in France have followed a similar downward trajectory - from 44% in 2003 to just 20% today. Public discontent is even higher in Nigeria, which has been wracked by internal strife. Just 7% of Nigerians have a positive view of the state of the nation, compared with 93% who express a negative opinion.

Other Major Findings

 

• There has been a marked change in views of the Middle East conflict in both Germany and France. In both countries, increasing numbers sympathize with Israel; Germans now side with Israel over the Palestinians by about two-to-one (37%-18%).
   
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel is enormously popular in France as well as in Germany. Fully 80% of the French express at least some confidence in Merkel.
   
• Positive views of the American people - along with the U.S. - have declined in Spain. Just 37% of the Spanish feel favorably toward Americans, down from 55% last year.
   
• Turks are increasingly turning away from the war on terror. More than three-quarters of Turks (77%) oppose the U.S.-led war on terror, up from 56% in 2004.
   
• Negative views of France have increased over the past year, especially in Muslim countries. In Turkey, 61% feel unfavorably toward France, up from 51% last year.

 

About the Pew Global Attitudes Project

 

The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys encompassing a broad array of subjects ranging from people's assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and important issues of the day. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, currently principal, the Albright Group LLC, and by former Senator John C. Danforth, currently partner, Bryan Cave LLP. The project is directed by Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" in Washington, DC, that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is principally funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Since its inception in 2001, the project has released 13 major reports, as well as numerous commentaries and other releases, on topics including attitudes towards the U.S. and American foreign policy, globalization, democratization, and terrorism.

Pew Global Attitudes Project team members include Mary McIntosh, president of Princeton Survey Research Associates International, and Bruce Stokes, an international economics columnist at the National Journal. Contributors to the report and to the Pew Global Attitudes Project include Richard Wike, Carroll Doherty, Paul Taylor, Michael Dimock, Elizabeth Mueller Gross, Jodie T. Allen, and others of the Pew Research Center. For this survey, the Pew Global Attitudes Project team consulted with survey and policy experts, regional and academic experts, and policymakers. Their expertise provided tremendous guidance in shaping the survey.

Following each release, the project also produces a series of in-depth analyses on specific topics covered in the survey, which will be found at pewglobal.org. The data are also made available on our website within two years of publication.

For further information, please contact:
Richard Wike
Senior Project Director
Pew Global Attitudes Project
202.419.4400
rwike@pewresearch.org

Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
I. America's Image and U.S. Foreign Policy
II. Iran and the Nuclear Question
III. Global Concerns and Issues
Methodological Appendix
Questionnaire

* * * *

I. America's Image and U.S. Foreign Policy

I. America's Image and U.S. Foreign Policy

With America's image declining in many parts of the world, favorability ratings for the United States continue to trail those of other major countries. In Europe, as well as predominantly Muslim countries, the U.S. is generally less popular than Germany, France, Japan, and China. However, the U.S. fares somewhat better in Asia; in fact, Indians rate the U.S. higher than Germany, France, or China and only slightly below Japan. However, America's favorability rating has dropped 15 points in India since last year.

 

 

Meanwhile, Japan and China, two neighboring Asian rivals with long histories of conflict, hold very negative opinions of one another. Slightly more than a quarter of Japanese (28%) have a positive opinion of China, and even fewer Chinese (21%) have a favorable view of Japan. On the other hand, traditional European rivals Germany and France rate one another quite positively; in fact, both rate the other country more favorably than their own.

In Western Europe, attitudes toward America remain considerably more negative than they were in 2002, prior to the Iraq war.¹ However, in a reversal of recent patterns, this year young people in France and Germany are more likely to have a favorable opinion of the U.S. than are their older counterparts. Over the last year, positive assessments of the U.S. have increased among French and German 18-34 year-olds, while declining among those age 35 and older.

 

Nigerians Split Over U.S.

 

In Nigeria, Christians and Muslims hold starkly different opinions of the U.S., and America's relatively high overall rating - 62% favorable - masks deep divisions between the country's two main religious groups. Roughly nine-in-ten (89%) Nigerian Christians have a favorable view of the U.S., compared with only 32% of Nigerian Muslims.

This gap has grown slightly since 2003, when America's favorability was 85% among Christians and 38% among Muslims. Christians and Muslims have quite different views of other countries as well, but these two groups are especially polarized over the U.S., with Christians holding a more positive view of the U.S. than of other countries and Muslims having a more negative view of America than of other countries.

 

France's Image Slips

 

Turmoil in France over the last year - riots by immigrants and others last fall, as well as protests in February through April of this year over an attempt to change French labor law - appears to have taken a toll on France's image. In every country where trends are available - with one exception - the image of France has declined significantly since 2005, including double digit falls in Indonesia (from 68% to 52% favorable), Turkey (from 30% to 18%), and Great Britain (from 71% to 59%).

The lone exception is the U.S., where 52% now have a favorable impression of France, still below the pre-Iraq War level of 79% in February 2002, but up from 46% last year. France is considerably more popular now among Americans than in May 2003, when only 29% gave France a favorable grade.

 

Americans More Favorable

 

The improved attitudes in the U.S. toward France are part of a broader trend - the American public's feelings about other major countries are also more positive than in 2005. Germany, China, and Japan also receive more positive assessments from the American people.

A narrow majority of Americans (52%) now have a favorable opinion of China, up from 43% last year. And the already strong favorability rating for Germany has also improved, jumping from 60% in 2005 to 66% this year. Japan's rating has also grown from 63% to 66%; however, this is not a statistically significant change.

 

Views of the American People

 

Opinions of the American people have declined, in some cases substantially, since 2002. Nonetheless, publics around the world continue to have a more positive opinion of the American people than they do of the United States. In seven of the 14 foreign countries surveyed, at least half of respondents have a favorable impression of Americans; in contrast, four countries give the U.S. positive marks. Americans remain relatively popular in Britain, France, and Germany; however in Spain, the image of Americans has plummeted, dropping from 55% favorable last year to 37% this year. On this issue, the Spanish public is now more similar to Muslim countries than to its Western European neighbors.

Although Americans are still unpopular in the five predominantly Muslim countries, there have been slight, but significant, improvements in Jordan and Pakistan. These are balanced, however, by declines among Indonesians and Turks. In Turkey - a longstanding NATO ally - fewer than one-in-five (17%) have a favorable opinion of Americans.

Perceptions of the American people have grown more negative in Nigeria since 2003, however almost all of the decline has taken place among the country's Muslim population - in 2003 48% of Muslims had a favorable impression of Americans; three years later only 23% view Americans favorably. Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians continue to hold Americans in extraordinarily high regard (88% favorable in 2003, 86% favorable today).

Americans are relatively well-liked in the three Asian countries we surveyed, with 82% of Japanese giving the American people favorable marks, up from 73% in 2002. Americans remain popular in India (67% favorable), and in China the favorability rating for Americans has increased six points to 49%.

 

Bush Even Less Popular in Europe

 

While the past year has been a difficult one for President Bush domestically, his troubles are also reflected in international public opinion. Confidence in Bush to do the right thing in world affairs has dropped in seven of the 11 countries where trend data from 2005 is available. Opinion of Bush has continued to decline in European countries, while Muslims publics remain strongly opposed to the American president. At 3%, Turkey now registers the lowest level of confidence in President Bush. The country with the largest drop in confidence for Bush over the last year, however, is the U.S.; 62% had a lot or some confidence in Bush last year, compared to 50% this year.

Bush receives relatively low marks compared to the other European leaders tested on the survey - Great Britain's Tony Blair, France's Jacque Chirac, Germany's Angela Merkel, and Russia's Vladimir Putin - although there are some exceptions. For example, Bush is the highest rated leader in India and Nigeria. In the latter, Bush's popularity is overwhelmingly driven by the country's Christian population (82% a lot or some confidence among Christians, 19% among Muslims).

 

 

Tony Blair remains extremely popular among the American people, as two-in-three have confidence that he will do the right thing in world affairs. Despite being a left-of-center political figure in Britain, Blair is especially popular among Republicans (88% a lot or some confidence), although majorities of Democrats (55%) and independents (63%) also have confidence in the British prime minister. However, Americans place little trust in either Chirac or Putin.

Meanwhile, despite two trips to the U.S. since her election as Germany's first female chancellor, a plurality (39%) of Americans declined to offer an opinion of Merkel. Among Germans, however, she is extremely popular - 77% of Germans have confidence in her ability to handle international affairs.

 

Waning Support for the War on Terrorism

 

Nearly five years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, international support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism continues to wane. Outside of the U.S. only two countries - India and Russia - register majority support for the war on terror, and it remains particularly unpopular in predominantly Muslim countries, although support has risen eight points since last year among Pakistanis, whose government is a key partner in efforts to combat Al Qaeda.

Among several of America's traditional allies, support has fallen steeply since 2002, and it has virtually collapsed in two countries, Spain and Japan. In the former, the percentage who favor U.S. efforts against terrorism now stands at 19%, down from 63% in 2003, while among Japanese it has tumbled from 61% in 2002 to 26% today.

 

Ongoing Concerns About Iraq

 

As was true last year, publics from a variety of regions believe the war in Iraq has generated more instability in the world. In ten of fifteen countries, a majority say the war has made the world more dangerous.

The French public is the most likely to believe this, followed by Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt. Meanwhile, the U.S. is the only country in which a majority - although a narrow one (51%) - believes the war has made the world a safer place, although pluralities in India and Nigeria also think the war has made the world safer.

International opinion on the future of Iraq is generally gloomy. Majorities in most countries surveyed believe that efforts to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq will ultimately fail. Pessimism is strongest in Spain, Turkey, Germany, Jordan, and Egypt - in all five countries, more than six-in-ten respondents believe efforts to establish democracy will definitely or probably fail.

However, a narrow majority in Great Britain, the country with the second largest military contingent in Iraq, believe these efforts will ultimately succeed. Even greater numbers of Indians and Nigerians believe democracy will be established in Iraq.

American public opinion also tends to be somewhat optimistic about the future of Iraq, with 54% saying efforts to establish a stable democratic government will be successful, up from 49% in March of this year, but down from 60% in July 2005. Views on this issue are driven at least in part by party affiliation - 76% of Republicans believe the war will end in success, compared with only 39% of Democrats and 52% of independents.

Notes

¹ No pre-Iraq war data is available from Spain.

Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
I. America's Image and U.S. Foreign Policy
II. Iran and the Nuclear Question
III. Global Concerns and Issues
Methodological Appendix
Questionnaire

 

 

* * * *

II. Iran and the Nuclear Question

Beyond the immediate issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is widespread sentiment - especially in the West - that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Overwhelming majorities in Germany (91%), Japan (87%) and France (85%) say non-nuclear countries should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Roughly three-quarters in Great Britain (77%), the United States (74%), and Russia (73%) also say that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing such weapons.

Attitudes in Muslim countries on halting nuclear weapons proliferation divide along about the same lines as opinions on Iran's nuclear program. A narrow majority in Jordan (53%), 50% of Pakistanis, and 44% of Egyptians say non-nuclear countries should not be stopped in their attempts to develop nuclear weapons; comparable percentages in all three countries say they favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Most Indonesians (61%) and Turks (58%) say countries that do not possess nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Majorities in these countries also expressed opposition to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

 

Divided Over Iran

 

Publics in Muslim and non-Muslim countries have deeply divided opinions about Iran - its nuclear program, its government, even the country itself. Solid majorities in four of the five predominantly Muslim countries express favorable opinions of Iran. In contrast, large majorities in most major industrialized countries - as well as pluralities in India and China - view Iran negatively.

More than three-quarters of Indonesians (77%) and nearly as many Pakistanis (72%) have favorable opinions of Iran. Smaller majorities in Egypt (59%) and Turkey (53%) also express positive views. Jordan is the only Muslim country surveyed where the public is divided - 49% express positive opinions of Iran and 51% negative ones.

Nigerians' views of Iran underscore the divide over Iran between Muslims and non-Muslims. Overall opinion in Nigeria, where Muslims constitute about half the population, is evenly split (43% favorable/44% unfavorable). However, there are huge differences between the country's Muslim and Christian populations; more than three-quarters of Nigeria's Muslims (78%) express favorable views of Iran, compared with just 10% of Nigerian Christians.

In three of four Western European countries surveyed - Germany, France and Spain - two-thirds or more express negative opinions of Iran. The lone exception is Great Britain, where unfavorable opinions of Iran outnumber favorable ones by a slight margin (39%-34%).

Most Americans (57%) view Iran negatively, though the percentage expressing unfavorable opinions has fallen significantly from the recent past. In a February 2006 survey by the Gallup Organization 86% had an unfavorable view of Iran; that is fairly consistent with findings from Gallup surveys dating to 2002.

 

Little Confidence in Ahmadinejad

 

While publics in most Muslim countries have high regard for the country of Iran, they voice more negative opinions of its president. Roughly two-thirds in both Egypt (68%) and Jordan (65%) say they have little or no confidence in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to "do the right thing" in world affairs. In Turkey, 41% say they have no confidence in the Ahmadinejad, while only a quarter of Turks say they have a lot or some confidence in the Iranian president.

Indonesia (48%) and Nigeria (40%) are the only countries surveyed where pluralities say they have at least some confidence in Ahmadinejad. In Nigeria, views of the Iranian leader - like those of the country itself - are split along religious lines. While 69% of Nigeria's Muslims say they have confidence in Iran's president, just 13% of the country's Christians share that view.

Western Europeans express even less confidence in Ahmadinejad than do the publics of Muslim countries. Majorities in Germany (60%), France (57%) and Spain (53%) say they have no confidence in the Iranian leader. Opinion of Iran's president is less negative in Great Britain; still, 39% say they have no confidence and 21% not too much confidence in Ahmadinejad.

 

More See Iran as Danger

 

An increasing number in the U.S., as well as in Western Europe and Russia, believe that the government of Iran represents a danger to Mideast stability and world peace. Nearly half of Americans (46%) now say that the Iranian government poses a great danger to global peace; three years ago, just 26% expressed this opinion.

The shift has been even more dramatic among Western European publics; 51% of Germans believe the current government in Tehran is a great danger to world peace, up from 18% in May 2003. In Spain, France and Great Britain, the percentage of people who see Iran as a great danger has roughly tripled compared with three years ago.

Fewer Russians than Americans or Western Europeans think the government of Iran represents a serious danger (20%). However, about half of Russians (52%) say Iran poses a great or at least a moderate danger to regional stability and world peace. In May 2003, just 17% of Russians thought that Iran represented at least a moderate danger.

Iran's government is viewed as far less dangerous by publics in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. Nonetheless, 19% of Jordanians say the government of Iran represents a great danger - and 25% a moderate danger - to stability in the Middle East and world peace; in May 2003, just 16% viewed Iran as a great or moderate danger. Opinion on this issue has been more stable in Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan. In each of these countries, as well as in Egypt, no more than about a third believes that the Iranian government poses a great or moderate danger to peace and stability.

 

Iran's Nuclear Goal - Weapons

 

In the Middle East and major industrialized countries, overwhelming numbers of citizens say they have heard of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. But this is not the case in other countries. A majority in China (54%) has not heard of the issue, and substantial minorities in Pakistan (45%), Indonesia (41%), and Nigeria (40%) also are unaware of the Iran nuclear controversy.

The dominant opinion among those who have heard about the nuclear dispute - in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike - is that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, either as its sole objective or along with developing nuclear energy.

In major industrialized countries, with the exception of Great Britain, large majorities express the opinion that the goal of Iran's nuclear program is nuclear weapons; relatively few volunteer that Tehran has the dual goals of weapons and energy. The idea that Iran seeks both weapons and energy is a much more prevalent view in other countries. In Egypt, 30% think that Iran's aim is nuclear weapons, while about as many (28%) think the goal of its nuclear program is both weapons and energy. Relatively high percentages in Jordan and Turkey (28% in each) also volunteer that Iran wants to develop both weapons and energy from its nuclear program.

More than four-in-ten Indonesians (44%) say the goal of Iran's nuclear program is energy - the highest percentage of the 15 nations surveyed. Still, somewhat more Indonesians (a combined 51%) say Iran's goal is either to develop nuclear weapons (33%), or volunteer that it wants both weapons and energy (18%).

 

What Would Iran Do?

 

There is no consensus about what Iran would be likely to do if it in fact develops nuclear weapons. But Americans and Western Europeans generally believe that two cataclysmic scenarios are likely - that Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations, and that it would attack Israel.

Large majorities in the U.S. and Western Europe, as well as about half of Japanese (52%), say that if Iran develops nuclear weapons it would be likely to provide them to terrorist groups. An Iranian attack on Israel also is viewed as likely by most Americans and Western Europeans.

The publics in predominantly Muslim countries mostly believe a nuclear-armed Iran would use such weapons for defensive purposes only. Fully 80% of Indonesians and smaller majorities in other Muslim countries say Iran is likely to use nuclear weapons only in its own defense. In addition, relatively small minorities in all five Muslim countries surveyed feel that Iran is likely to pass along nuclear weapons to terrorists.

At the same time, however, more than six-in-ten in Jordan (65%) and Egypt (61%) say that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it would be likely to attack Israel; about half of Turks (51%) and Indonesians (49%) agree. And in Jordan and Egypt, in particular, sizable minorities favor Iran actually acquiring nuclear weapons (45% and 44%, respectively).

There also is a widespread belief, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, that a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to attack the United States or European nations. Two-thirds of Spaniards (66%) and nearly as many Americans (63%) say such an attack is likely. Roughly half of the respondents in France, Germany and Britain - as well as in Turkey, Indonesia and Jordan - say an attack by Iran on the U.S. or Europe is likely.

In both Pakistan and China, relatively large percentages declined to offer opinions on possible actions by Iran, if it were to develop nuclear weapons. In each country, just 37% have heard of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program; that is by far the lowest level of awareness among the 15 countries surveyed.

* * * *

III. Global Concerns and Issues

Public attentiveness to major global events and issues is typically higher in major industrialized countries than in less developed countries. But awareness of news developments varies widely, by country and by issue.

The German public consistently expresses broad familiarity with events and issues. While attention to reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is high across all major industrialized countries, nearly every German interviewed (98%) says they have heard of the prison abuse. That compares with about 90% in other Western European countries and Japan, and 76% in the U.S.

Among Muslim publics, sizable majorities in Egypt (80%), Jordan (79%), and Turkey (68%) have heard of the prison abuse reports. But public attentiveness is far lower in Indonesia (28%) and Pakistan (21%).

For the most part, Americans are significantly less aware of events and issues than are the publics in Germany and other major industrialized countries. And as is typically the case with news interest among Americans, there are significant gender and age differences in attentiveness. For instance, 83% of men say they have heard of the abuse reports at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, compared with 69% of women. Just 57% of young people under age 30 have heard of these reports; in other age categories, 75% or more have heard of the prison abuse reports.

The Chinese public is broadly aware of the bird flu (93%) and global warming (78%) but not of events in the Middle East. Only about four-in-ten Chinese say they have heard of reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (38%) and the Iran nuclear dispute (37%), and even fewer have heard of the Hamas Party's victory in the Palestinian election (27%).

Pakistanis show little familiarity with global and even some regional developments. Just 12% of Pakistanis say they have heard of global warming, and only 37% are aware of the nuclear dispute in neighboring Iran. But one recent development that has drawn broad interest in Pakistan - aside from bird flu - is the U.S. aid program for the country in response to last fall's earthquake. Fully 85% of Pakistanis have heard of the American assistance program. That compares with 69% of Americans and nearly as many Germans (66%).

 

Global Warming

 

Americans express relatively little concern over global warming, especially when compared with publics of other major nations. Barely half of the Americans who have heard of global warming say they personally worry about the issue a great deal (19%) or a fair amount (34%). Nearly as many say they worry only a little (26%) or not at all (21%).

The Japanese express the highest level of concern over global warming among the publics of major industrialized nations. Fully 66% of Japanese say they worry about this a great deal, while another 27% say they worry a fair amount. In France, a combined 87% express a great deal (46%) or fair amount (41%) of concern. Roughly the same percentage in Spain (85%) says they worry at least a fair amount about global warming. Smaller percentages in Great Britain (67%) and Germany (64%) voice significant concern about global warming.

The American public is deeply divided politically in concerns over global warming. Only about a third of Republicans (34%) say they worry a great deal (10%) or a fair amount (24%) over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. About two-thirds of Democrats (66%) and 57% of independents express at least a fair amount of concern over global warming. Roughly four-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (41%) express have at least a fair amount of concern about global warming; that compares with 53% of white mainline Protestants, and 64% of seculars.

 

More Sympathy for Israel

 

In past Global Attitudes surveys, the American public's strong pro-Israel stance set it apart from other countries. But that has changed as Germans, in particular, have become much more sympathetic to Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians.

Nearly four-in-ten Germans (37%) say they sympathize with Israel in the Mideast conflict compared with 18% who sympathize with the Palestinians. In March 2004, Germans' sympathies were evenly divided (24% Israel, 24% Palestinians).

The French also have become more sympathetic to Israel. Four years ago, French respondents sympathized with the Palestinians over Israel by roughly two-to-one (36% to 19%). Today, identical percentages sympathize with each side in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.

Among Western European countries, the Spanish stand out for their strong support for the Palestinians. Roughly a third of Spanish (32%) say they sympathize more with the Palestinians, compared with just 9% who feel more sympathetically to Israel.

The Muslim publics surveyed continue to overwhelmingly side with the Palestinians. Turks sympathize with the Palestinians over Israel by 63% to 5%, which reflects almost no change since 2004. And virtually all Jordanians and Egyptians (97% each) say they sympathize with the Palestinians.

 

U.N. Ratings

 

In most countries, opinions of the United Nations have been stable in recent years. But the publics in Turkey and Russia, in particular, have grown more negative toward the world body.

Just 29% of Turks express favorable opinions of the U.N., down from 51% in March 2004. Fewer Russians also feel favorably toward the U.N.; 49% now, compared with 60% in March 2004. Positive ratings of the U.N. also have declined somewhat in Great Britain since 2004 - from 74% to 65%.

The American public's view of the U.N. has been falling for several years. As recently as September 2001, before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 77% expressed a favorable opinion of the United Nations; today, just 51% do, although that represents a slight improvement from last fall (48% in October 2005).

Opinions of the U.N. in the Muslim countries surveyed vary widely. More than three-quarters of Indonesians (78%) express positive views of the U.N., but Egyptians are almost evenly divided (49% favorable/51% unfavorable). The U.N.'s image in Turkey has plummeted, but positive views of this institution have increased modestly in Jordan (to 30% from 21% in 2004) and Pakistan (to 42% from 35%).

 

Dubai Ports Debate

 

The controversy earlier this year over an Arab-owned company possibly running U.S. ports stirred considerable public anger in the U.S. But it did not resonate widely in predominantly Muslim countries. Just 45% in Egypt, 36% in Jordan, and significantly smaller numbers in other Muslim countries, say they have heard of the ports debate.

However, Muslims who have been following the debate largely believe that American opposition to the ports deal reflected prejudice against Arabs, rather than reasonable concerns over port security. By 69%-13%, Egyptians feel U.S. opposition to the ports proposal was based on prejudice rather than reasonable security concerns, and opinion is comparable in Jordan (72% prejudice/23% reasonable concerns).

* * * *

Methodological Appendix

 

About the 2006 Global Attitudes Survey

 

Results for the survey are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. All surveys are based on national samples except in China, India, and Pakistan, where the sample was disproportionately or exclusively urban.

The table below shows the margin of sampling error based on all interviews conducted in that country. For results based on the full sample in a given country, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus the margin of error. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Great Britain
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Telephone adults 18 plus
Languages: English, Urdu, and Arabic
Fieldwork dates: April 4-26, 2006
Sample size: 902 including a 412 Muslim oversample; sample is weighted to be representative of the general population
Margin of Error: 6%
Representative: Telephone households

China
Sample design: Probability sample in six cities and surrounding rural areas - Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Xinxiang, Jinzhong, and Luzhou
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 to 60
Languages: Chinese (dialects: Mandarin, Beijingese, Cantonese, Sichun, Hubei, Dongbei, Shanghaiese)
Fieldwork dates: April 7-18, 2006
Sample size: 2180
Margin of Error: 2%
Representative: Disproportionately urban

Egypt
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Arabic
Fieldwork dates: April 5-27, 2006
Sample size: 1000
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Adult population

France
Sample design: Quota
Mode: Telephone adults 18 plus
Languages: French
Fieldwork dates: April 5-19, 2006
Sample size: 905 including a 400 Muslim oversample; sample is weighted to be representative of the general population
Margin of Error: 4%
Representative: Telephone households

Germany
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Telephone adults 18 plus
Languages: German and Turkish
Fieldwork dates: April 5-27, 2006
Sample size: 902 including a 413 Muslim oversample; sample is weighted to be representative of the general population
Margin of Error: 6%
Representative: Telephone households

India
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18-64
Languages: Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Kannada, Bengali
Fieldwork dates: April 15-May 3, 2006
Sample size: 2029
Margin of Error: 2%
Representative: Urban only

Indonesia
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Bahasa Indonesia
Fieldwork dates: April 8-30, 2006
Sample size: 1022
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Eighteen provinces representing 87% of population

Japan
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Telephone adults 18 plus
Languages: Japanese
Fieldwork dates: March 31-April 21, 2006
Sample size: 500
Margin of Error: 5%
Representative: Telephone households

Jordan
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Arabic
Fieldwork dates: April 5-27, 2006
Sample size: 1000
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Adult population

Nigeria
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, and English
Fieldwork dates: April 20-29, 2006
Sample size: 1000
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Adult population

Pakistan
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Urdu
Fieldwork dates: April 7-28, 2006
Sample size: 1277
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Disproportionately urban

Russia
Sample design Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Russian
Fieldwork dates: April 6-16, 2006
Sample size: 1000
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Adult population

Spain
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Spanish and Arabic
Fieldwork dates: April 7-May 4, 2006
Sample size: 979 including a 402 Muslim oversample; sample is weighted to be representative of the general population
Margin of Error: 4%
Representative: Adult population

Turkey
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Turkish
Fieldwork dates: April 1-25, 2006
Sample size: 1013
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Adult population

United States
Sample design: Probability
Mode: Telephone adults 18 plus
Languages: English
Fieldwork dates: May 2-14, 2006
Sample size: 1001
Margin of Error: 3%
Representative: Telephone households in continental U.S.

The main theme of the Fifth Annual Globalization Conference, sponsored by the Ankara Municipality, is to establish bridges between different civilizations and cultures

FULYA ÖZERKAN  -  ANKARA - Turkish Daily News Sunday, June 25, 2006
 

  Top representatives from world cities, religious leaders, businessmen, youth representatives and well-known musicians and singers will come together for a “Meeting of Civilizations” this week in Ankara.

  Building on the success of the four previous annual conferences, the Fifth Annual Globalization Conference will unite a prestigious group of representatives from 60 world cities, 40 representatives from international organizations including the World Bank and the United Nations, around 100 singers, businessmen, talented youth leaders and representatives from nongovernmental organizations, between June 30 and July 3 at Ankara's Sheraton Hotel.

  Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony A. Williams, well-known actress Kathleen Turner, famous musician and music producer Quincy Jones, former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf are among the attendees. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, is also invited to the conference, but it has not yet been confirmed whether she will attend.

  U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wanted to participate in the annual conference but will not be able to so as she will be attending celebrations in the United States on the occasion of Independence Day, but she is expected to send a deputy to the meeting in Ankara, said an official from the Greater Ankara Municipality.

  Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will inaugurate the international conference during which Frannie Lautier, vice president of the World Bank Institute, and Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos will deliver speeches.

  His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper, Chief Rabbi Israel Singer, chairman of the World Jewish Congress, and Turkey's Religious Affairs Director Ali Bardakoğlu will chair a joint session in order to highlight the tolerance of monotheist religions.

  Turkey's world-famous pop singer Tarkan will give an outdoor concert at the Atatürk Culture Center as part of the Globalization Conference. The concert on Saturday will be open to the public.

  “Meeting of Civilizations” is the main theme of the conference this year, sponsored by the Ankara Municipality and aimed at establishing bridges between different civilizations and cultures.

  The Fifth Globalization Meeting displays Turkey's committed global effort at the institutional and nongovernmental levels to establish bridges and overcome misperceptions between civilizations in this rapidly globalizing world, where societies are compelled to become more and more interdependent.

  Turkey's full support for mutual understanding and dialogue between cultures and civilizations is also evidenced by its co-sponsorship of the U.N.-led “Alliance of Civilizations” project. Erdoğan and his Spanish counterpart, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, are the co-chairmen of the U.N. initiative, whose goal is to bridge divides, overcome prejudice and polarization in the world and advance mutual respect for religious beliefs and traditions.

  “There is no more suitable country than Turkey for this conference,” Ramazan Kabasakal, head of the foreign relations department at the Ankara Municipality, told the Turkish Daily News.

  Turkey, which is home to many cultures and civilizations, is a bridge between East and West. Being a strong ally of Western nations, Turkey is a full-fledged member of NATO and aspires to join the European Union.

  “This conference will be a reference for both Ankara and Turkey. We're competing with world cities such as Washington and Rome,” he added.

  In earlier remarks explaining the goal of the conference, Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek had said: “As the capital of a country that is cradle of civilizations and which is guided in foreign policy by the motto, ‘Peace at home, peace in the world,' we believe we have important messages to deliver to the world in order to eliminate tension and establish bridges between civilizations.”

  The mayor also emphasized that the international gathering would make significant contributions to the promotion of Ankara and Turkey.

  Another aspect of this conference, which brings together people from many circles such as politics, business, sports and art, is to come up with concrete solutions to existing problems in world cities, Kabasakal said.

  “Many local gatherings [led by municipalities] are taking place annually, but the difference with this upcoming conference is to find instant and concrete solutions to problems,” he added.

  Kabasakal said the conference would also offer an opportunity for youth to explain problems they face in their own cities and suggest projects that can later be funded by international organizations.
 

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

'We Share and Support Erdogan's Aspirations'
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Wednesday, June 28, 2006
zaman.com

'Freedom of Expression does not Mean Freedom to Insult'
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Wednesday, June 28, 2006
zaman.com

 “Freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to insult," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday, addressing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg.

PM Erdogan delivered a speech at the Assembly as part of a debate regarding a report on freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs, prepared by rapporteur Sinikka Hurskainen of Finland.

Presenting his joint initiative with Spanish PM José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in the "Alliance of Civilisations" project, Erdogan stated the recent cartoon crisis revealed the growing and dangerous polarization of the international community along cultural and religious fault-lines, exploited by extremists. He appealed for a middle ground for respect, tolerance and cultural pluralism, saying "We must mobilize our hopes, not our fears".

Erdogan underlined that the freedom of expression should not be confused with the freedom to insult.

Erdogan also recalled that democracy means tolerance and consensus, as well as freedom of expression, stating that democracy is also an alliance of freedoms.

Also commenting on the growth of xenophobia in the West, Erdogan said that the rise of Islamophobia and xenophobia could create the perception of an attack on the Islamic world, giving rise to an atmosphere of dangerous conflict.

Negative Image Of U.S. Grows Overseas
Oxford Analytica 06.28.06 From www.forbes.com

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President George Bush's Administration has emphasised the importance of improving U.S. public diplomacy. However, international perceptions of the United States have become increasingly negative.

Abroad, the administration's foreign policy widely is perceived as aggressive and unilateral. While its strategic choices have been unconstrained by international opinion, the administration has attempted to shape global views through public diplomacy:

Advertising strategy: The Bush Administration initially approached public diplomacy as a matter of advertising, choosing ad executive, Charlotte Beers, to head its efforts immediately after Sept. 11. Her "shared values" campaign was widely seen as an ineffective attempt to "re-brand" the United States in the Muslim world.

The Hughes campaign: The current approach retains a campaign-style focus on image rather than substantive policy shaping. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes is a former Bush campaign adviser. Her efforts incorporate features of political campaigns.

Yet Hughes' campaigning experience may not translate into effective public diplomacy. There are significant limitations to campaign "information management," which apply more strongly in the international arena:

Predispositions: Effective persuasion is rare in politics. Prior "political predispositions" form a stable anchor for most citizens' voting choices. In addressing foreign populations, the administration faces predispositions stronger than oppositional partisanship.

Competing messages: Campaigns face competition for citizens' attention. Yet on foreign soil, Hughes' team cannot even rely on access to television viewers or newspaper readers.

Lack of credibility: Political psychologists view "source credibility" as a key ingredient in persuasion. However, world opinion increasingly views the United States as a "danger to world peace," or at best a self-interested power.

The Bush Administration's open disdain for international treaties and institutions undermines efforts to convince others that the United States is a benevolent hegemon. These are matters of policy; some are fundamental aspects of the administration's ideology and difficult to alter. However, without concrete policy changes signalling benevolent U.S. intentions or cooperativeness, a lack of credibility will undermine public diplomacy.

Public diplomacy need not be conducted like a political campaign or short-term advertising blitz:

Cultural exchanges: Instead of a rapid response orientation, the administration could emphasise longer-term efforts to change global attitudes towards the United States. The most promising elements of Hughes' public diplomacy strategy are cross-cultural exchange programs.

Humanitarian aid: Polls show that humanitarian aid can improve the U.S. image even in hostile territory.

Enlightened self-interest: Washington should not wait for national disasters to enact policies that reflect concern for other nations, particularly poor and disadvantaged populations.

The decline in esteem for the United States can be reversed, but not through campaign-style rapid response teams or re-branding techniques. Only a different approach to the policy-making process--taking world opinion into account when formulating policy options--can begin to recoup lost prestige.

To read an extended version of this article, log on to Oxford Analytica's Web site.

Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic-consulting firm drawing on a network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other leading universities and research institutions around the world.

Negative U.S. image grows
Oxford Analytica

Russia to stay out of clash of civilizations - Putin

MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will not get involved in any clash of civilizations, as conflict is not in its national interests, the president said Tuesday.

"Russia does not need confrontation of any sort, and we will not be part of any 'holy alliance,'" Vladimir Putin said at a meeting in the Foreign Ministry.

He said an element of uncertainty had remained after the bipolar geopolitical system collapsed, which might fuel talk about an inevitable conflict of civilizations similar to the Cold War.

Putin said new ideas and approaches were needed to thwart these dangerous trends and that the first world summit of religious leaders, which will be held in Moscow on July 4-5, should draft initiatives on a dialogue between civilizations.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060627/50516129.html

'İslamofobi insanlık suçu'

 

Erdoğan, ifade özgürlüğü ve dini inanç konulu oturumda kendisine ayrılan 15 dakikalık süreyi ikiye katladı. FOTOĞRAF: İSMAİL YEŞİLYURT / AA

Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan, Avrupalı parlamenterlerden dini değerlere saldırılmamasını istedi

29/06/2006 (399 kişi okudu)  www.radikal.com.tr

 

GÜVEN ÖZALP (Arşivi)

STRASBOURG - Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan, ifade özgürlüğünün kalesi Avrupa Konseyi Parlamenter Meclisi'nde (AKPM) dün yapılan 'ifade özgürlüğü ve dini inançlara saygı' konulu oturumdaki konuşmasında, 'Sınırsız özgürlük olmaz' temasını işledi. Medeniyetler İttifakı projesinin eşbaşkanı sıfatıyla yaptığı konuşmada "Eleştiriye evet, hakarete hayır" diyen Erdoğan, Batı ve İslam âlemi arasında fay hattına işaret edip tıpkı antisemitizm gibi İslamofobinin de insanlık suçu sayılmasını istedi:
İfade özgürlüğü mutlak hak değil: Uluslararası insan hakları hukukuna göre ifade özgürlüğü dahi mutlak hak olmayıp, diğer bireylerin hak ve itibarının korunması gibi sınırlamalara tabidir. BM sözleşmesi ve AİHM içtihadına göre de ifade özgürlüğü terör ve şiddeti teşvik ve kışkırtma, kin ve nefret duygularının tahriki veya dini değerlere saldırı hallerinde kısıtlanıyor. Bu önlemler yüzyıllarca tecrübe edilmiş gelenek ve uygulamalarla ortaya çıktı.
Asıl sorun tehlikeli kutuplaşma: Karikatür kriziyle yaşadığımız acı tecrübe, ifade özgürlüğüyle dini inançlara saygı arasında yanlış anlaşılmalardan kaynaklanan çelişkiye dikkati çekse de, çok daha ciddi bir sorunun yansıması: Uluslararası toplumun, kültürel ve dini değerler temelinde giderek artan kutuplaşmaya yönelmesi.
Aşırılıklar zarar verir: Batı ile İslam âlemi arasında fay hattı ortaya çıktı. Aşırı uçlar durumu istismar ediyor. Aslolan orta yolu bulmak. Her toplumun kutsalları var. Bunlara saldırmaya kimsenin hakkı yok. Özgürlüğün de sınırı var. Sınırsız özgürlük teoride olsa da pratikte tarih boyunca olmamıştır.
Özgürlük ittifakı kurulmalı: Demokrasi özgürlüklerin ittifakıdır. Ama bu noktada karşımıza çatışma tehlikesi çıkıyor. Özgürlüklerin çatışmasını önleyecek bir özgürlük ittifakını kurmalıyız.
İslamofobi de insanlık suçu: Dini ve kültürel değerlere kimsenin saldırma hakkı yok. Antisemitizmi nasıl insanlık suçu görüyorsak, İslamofobyayı da görmeliyiz.
Ya ittifak, ya çatışma: Dünya küresel barışı sağlamakta kararlıysa medeniyetler ittifakı kurmak şart. Ama yok küresel teröre zemin hazırlanacaksa o zaman medeniyetler çatışmasının seyircisi olmaya devam edelim diyorum.
 

Soykırım atışması
Daha sonra söz alan Danimarkalı vekil Rune Lund, "İfade özgürlüğü kapsamında Ermeni soykırımı olduğunu, Kürtlere de soykırım uygulandığını ve Türkiye'nin Kıbrıs'ı işgal ettiğini söyleme hakkım var" deyince Başbakan şöyle dedi: "Eleştiriyle hakaret karıştırılmamalı. Soykırım iddiası bilimsel verilere dayandırılmazsa aczi gösterir." Başka bir vekilin "Soykırıma izin veren Tanrı yanlış yaptı" sözüne ise Erdoğan'ın yanıtı "Dinimizde soykırımın yeri yok. Yaradılanı Yaradandan dolayı severiz" oldu.
Erdoğan, Osmanlı'da Musevilerin Yaşamı sergisini açtı.

---

AKPM genel kurul toplantıları başlıyor (İngilizce)

Avrupa Konseyi Parlamenterler Meclisi (AKPM) genel kurul toplantıları 26 Haziran'da Strasbourg'da başlıyor.

Toplantılarda Türkiye'yi TBMM'den Murt Mercan başkanlığında bir heyet temsil edecek. Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan da, 28 Hazirandaki oturumda, “ifade özgürlüğü ve dini inanışlara saygı” konulu bir konuşma yapacak.

AKPM Başkanı Hollandalı Rene van der Linden, Medeniyetler İttifakı projesinin eş başkanı olması dolayısıyla, Erdoğan'ı konuşma yapması için geçen ay Strasbourg'a davet etmişti.

Genel kurulda aynı gün, “ifade özgürlüğü ve dini inanışlara saygı” konulu bir rapor ve buna bağlı tavsiye karar tasarısı tartışılarak oylanacak. AKPM genel kurulu toplantıları sırasında İsviçreli Senatör Dick Marty'nin, Amerikan Merkezi Haberalma Teşkilatının (CIA) Avrupa'daki yasadışı faaliyetlerine ilişkin hazırladığı rapor ve buna bağlı tavsiye karar tasarısı, 27 Haziranda tartışılarak oylanacak. Marty, iki hafta önce Paris'te açıkladığı raporda, aralarında Türkiye'nin de bulunduğu 14 Avrupa Konseyi ülkesinin, “CIA'nın terör zanlılarını yasa dışı bir biçimde gözaltına alması ve nakletmesinden dolaylı veya dolaysız olarak sorumlu olduğunu” ileri sürmüştü.

Dick Marty, Avrupa Konseyi ülkelerin parlamentolarına yaptığı çağrıda, raporundaki bulguların değerlendirilmesi için soruşturma başlatılmasını talep etmişti. AKPM toplantılarında, “Azerbaycanlı milletvekillerinin yetki belgelerinin askıya alınmasını” talep eden bir tavsiye karar tasarısı da oylamaya sunulacak.
24 Temmuz 2006 www.abhaber.com

Erdogan: We Should Show No Tolerance To Islamophobia & Anti-semitism

STRASBOURG - ``Islamophobia cannot be considered within the framework of freedom of expression just as Anti-Semitism. And, no tolerance can be shown to Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism,`` said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Holding a news conference in Strasbourg after participating in the summer session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Erdogan noted that the incidents that occurred after publication of cartoons which caused uneasiness in the Muslim world have indicated how important the Alliance of Civilizations Initiative is.

``There is need for mutual affection and respect to co-existence. The important thing is to find the common values among differences, and form a unity. Therefore, the Alliance of Civilizations Initiative, we launched together with Spanish PM Zapatero, is very important. I believe that PACE will make significant contributions to this initiative,`` he emphasized.

-REFORMS TO CONTINUE-

Referring to Turkey`s reforms on the road to EU membership, Erdogan said, ``we continue our reforms without any interruption. We have made public an important reform package last April. The package envisages establishment of an ombudsman`s office, and it has been passed from the parliament. It also foresees a number of amendments to Turkish Court of Accounts, foundations and housing institutions, and private education institution. These amendments are being debated at the parliamentary commissions. And, all these steps are the most important indicators of the determination of our government to reach European standards.``

-CYPRUS-

On Cyprus problem, Erdogan said that Turkey is still asked to take further steps. ``First they take the steps they have to, and then they expect us to take further steps,`` he noted.

Stating that Turkey has not seen the outcome of the steps it took, Erdogan said, ``to include the Cyprus issue in the policy chapters is, for an ethical point of view, absolutely unfair. What do science, culture or environment have to do with Cyprus.``

Commenting on his visit to European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Erdogan said that he discussed two issues, including the efforts of the compensation commission set up in Cyprus, and the Anti-Terror Law.  June 29, 2006

Mon Jun 19 2006

      Prince of Wales, University of Maryland Launch 'Clash of Civilizations' Series

       COLLEGE PARK, Md., June 19 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Prince of Wales is helping the University of Maryland launch a new international effort aimed, in part, at promoting better understanding and easing tensions between Islam and the West. The university is publishing a new series, "Essays on the Alliance of Civilizations," written by high-level world figures to stimulate more constructive international dialogues. Prince Charles has written the inaugural essay.

       The series is the first response to a U.N.initiative, the Alliance of Civilizations, set up last year by the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey to "bridge divides and overcome prejudice, misconceptions, misperceptions and polarization which potentially threaten world peace."

       "The daily violence of words and actions spreads like a fever across cultures and borders," says Suheil Bushrui, the University of Maryland professor co-directing the project who secured the participation of Prince Charles. "Yet academic and international dialogues seem too often to focus on mere symptoms and not the infection. We need to change the tone and look for ways to harmonize and integrate cross-cultural discussions."

       In his essay, Prince Charles rejects the notion of a clash of civilizations as "dangerously simplistic," finding instead destructive and fanatical tendencies on all sides that make the world increasingly dangerous. He recognizes the "universal truths," which, he says, all the great religions share, and highlights the contributions Islam has made down the centuries to the advancement of science and the development of modern Western culture.

       The Prince also warns of the dangers of abandoning faith in pursuit of materialism and a modern lifestyle, a pursuit that has environmental, as well as spiritual, costs. He writes: "In an obsession with being 'modern,' we have stripped away the very thing that makes life worth living - the web of connections that link us to each other, to our Earth, and to the divine mysteries of life...There is, I think, a growing and uneasy sense that our technology and consumption are getting out of hand...and that we are fouling our nest."

       Prince Charles suggests the answer lies in seeking a balance that combines "the best of timeless wisdom, together with the most appropriate of modern advancements. Surely, then, we can learn to work together across divided faiths, polarized political views, and over-specialized professions to create that urgently needed, integrated approach to the way we treat our environment and ourselves." In this respect, The Prince states, America is "in a very special position to provide the leadership that the world needs to heal the fragmentation of modern existence..."

       "His Royal Highness was most gracious in helping us begin our series and eager to address the growing threats to world security," Bushrui says. "It is not well known in America, but for the past 25 years, Prince Charles has produced a significant body of writings that address crucial problems such as the environment and health. He has a remarkable vision and has translated it into practical projects. How well do people know that he has designed and built a planned community that excludes motor vehicles?"

       Other high-level international figures will offer new essays in the series approximately every six months, and the alliance will also sponsor a variety of academic events. The University of Maryland Center for Heritage Resource Studies and the department of anthropology are publishing the series under the editorship of Bushrui and U.K. Professor David Cadman, who is affiliated with the Temenos Academy.

       Later this year, Bushrui and Cadman will publish in both English and Arabic a selection of Prince Charles' speeches and public addresses, "The Prince Speaks."

       The Prince's essay, "Religion - the Ties that Bind," is available online: http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/pdf/tiesthatbind.pdf .

       - - - -

       CONTACT: Neil Tickner, University of Maryland Communications, 301-405-4622, ntickner@umd.edu

New Islamic Vision for Addressing the West

Rashid Khashana     Al-Hayat     - 29/06/06/ http://english.daralhayat.com

The last EU-US summit meeting in Vienna coincided with the foreign minister's 33rd session of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Baku, Azerbaijan. The session had not been prepared. Its purpose was to consolidate a new vision for addressing the challenges facing the Islamic world. The meeting did not rush into a criticism of Western positions or accusations against the 'other'. It sought a new approach, beginning with redressing the internal situations of the participant countries and then calling on others to outline plans for combating Islamophobia and changing the negative image of the Islamic world, especially in the media.

In this context, among the documents endorsed by the conference, chiefly the 'Baku Declaration', there was clear emphasis on the need to push forward with reforms in Islamic countries, whether in the economic, social or cultural fields. There was also stress on boosting democracy, achieving transparency, and strengthening the role of civil society and considering it the backbone for protecting cultural, religious and ethnical diversity and a source of reciprocal enrichment and dialogue among religions and civilizations.

In the face of the growing Islamophobia in many of the Western countries, the conference adopted an initiative to establish a system that would monitor the manifestations of this phobia.

Likewise, the EU set up a watch organization to monitor "the manifestations of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism", especially in the media. Last May, the organization held a meeting between Arab and European media representatives at its Vienna-based headquarters, but the Arab side criticized the watch organization's bias toward the European agenda and its lack of enthusiasm for finding common denominators.

As for the OIC, it sought to establish communication between its institutions and the EU organizations to co-ordinate the creation of Islam-related secondary education programs, taking into consideration the vital role of the media in this field, especially for the youth.

Another important practical step in this regard is the conference that the OIC intends to hold in Azerbaijan, which is dedicated to studying the role of the media in boosting mutual tolerance and understanding between peoples and civilizations, and bridging what OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called the "gap" between the Islamic and Western worlds, which he attributed to a "discrepancy between the two worlds' economic and social development levels".

If this new mentality persists, the conference will be a spring board for expanding the scope of communication and dialogue with Western elites to bring about a balanced approach to addressing freedom, rights, and cultural and religious identity.

But the interest in formulating this approach did not lead to the exclusion of the heated issues from the Baku conference's agenda. For the first time, a unified Islamic position was put together toward the Iranian-Western conflict, and 57 Islamic states directed a joint statement to Europe and the US as an indirect reply to the recent Vienna summit.

Adherence to the right of the Islamic countries to conduct research on nuclear energy and the peaceful use of nuclear power constituted the cornerstone of the stance reached at the Baku conference.

Based on this, it was agreed that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be the only authority that has jurisdiction over how far the IAEA member states abide by the guarantees relating to the development of nuclear power. The OIC countries rejected all pre-conditions for resuming negotiations between Iran and the IAEA.

The European countries have been invited to take part in reviving the dialogue and facilitating the IAEA's work, which means ruling out any Security Council role in resolving the crisis, and rejecting the logic of imposing sanctions on Iran. The Baku Declaration also emphasized the necessity of subjecting the Israeli nuclear installations to international surveillance and that the Jewish State join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This unified vision may be considered as heralding the consolidation of further participation of the Islamic world in international affairs, and the beginning of facing a campaign that aims to link terrorism with Islam. This vision expresses the power of 1 billion, 300 million Muslims in the world, who are still considered an unrepresented power in international decision-making.

The eight major Islamic countries that held their recent annual summit in Malaysia may be the driving force for this gathering that is still in the process of coming into its own.

'Islamophobia in West, Measures Should be Taken to Halt Trend'

By Emrah Ulker, New York  Published: Friday, June 30, 2006  zaman.com

 State Minister Mehmet Aydin in New York attended the Alliance of Civilizations meeting, and stressed an increasing trend in Islamophobia in Western countries.

“Islamophobia has become very noticeable in most of the world including the West,” said Aydin and called on the international community and other movements to fight this trend.

The minister noted that the spread of Islamophobia could only be prevented through education and with the help of the media.

Spain Peace Foundation Chair Federico Mayor and Minister Mehmet Aydin, the co-chairmen of the Alliance of civilizations, who met with United Nations (UN) General Secretary Kofi Annan at the UN Head office, made statements after the meeting.

The mayor said that prejudices and ignorance could be overcome by dialogue.

While the Spanish Mayor said, “Such an explanation would be incomplete,” when the reporters asked “Is the Islamic world paying its due for September 11?” Mr. Aydin noted that “Both the West and Islam have paid their shares in various ways since 11 September 2001.”

The ministers said that the fourth and the last meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations would be held in Istanbul in October and they would present the report to Annan in December.

At a Turkish house in New York, Aydin said that it was some irresponsible European politicians’ that want to get more votes in the general elections which provoked violence and Islamophobia.

Recalling the bomb attacks held against 70 mosques in Europe, Aydin said “Most of them are not referred to the police in fear that the number of attacks will increase, ” and added, “Islamophobia should be fought against in the same way anti-Semitism is fought against.”

ue-cumbre 16-06-2006

Líderes UE mostrarán su apoyo a la Alianza de Civilizaciones

Los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de la UE prevén hoy mencionar la Alianza de Civilizaciones entre los instrumentos que utilizarán para promover el diálogo entre culturas y subrayarán el papel en este ámbito de los medios de comunicación libres.

El proyecto de conclusiones de la cumbre de la UE que concluye hoy en Bruselas, señala que la Unión 'continuará promoviendo activamente el diálogo entre culturas y civilizaciones a través de todos los mecanismos existentes'.

El texto cita al proceso de asociación entre la UE y los países de la orilla sur del Mediterráneo -Marruecos, Túnez, Argelia, Egipto, Turquía, Jordania, Siria, El Líbano, Israel y la Autoridad Nacional Palestina-, el denominado proceso de Barcelona.

Asimismo, menciona a la Fundación Anna Lindh, con sede en Alejandría y creada por la UE como instrumento para promover la comprensión y la tolerancia entre religiones y culturas en el Mediterráneo.

Por último, menciona la Alianza de Civilizaciones, la iniciativa para el diálogo entre Occidente y el mundo musulmán que copatrocinan los Gobiernos de España y Turquía, y que cuenta con el respaldo del secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan.

El secretario de Estado para la UE, Alberto Navarro, señaló ayer que el Gobierno español había solicitado la inclusión de una referencia en el texto a esta iniciativa.

Por otro lado, las conclusiones precisan que la UE pondrá en este ámbito un 'énfasis particular en la promoción y en papel de los medios de comunicación libres'.
Terra Actualidad - EFE

El Grupo Español de Alianza de Civilizaciones se reúne para constituir una red de apoyo al Grupo de Alto Nivel

Redacción / EP 13 de junio de 2006
El Grupo Español de Alianza de Civilizaciones se reúne hoy en la Fundación Tres Culturas ubicada en Sevilla con el objetivo de constituir una red nacional que sirva de apoyo al Grupo de Alto Nivel de Naciones Unidas sobre la Alianza de Civilizaciones.

El presidente de la Junta, Manuel Chaves, preside la primera reunión del Grupo Español de la Alianza de Civilizaciones, en la que participarán expertos del mundo político, académico y diplomático para debatir sobre esta iniciativa de diálogo entre culturas, informó la Fundación Tres Culturas en un comunicado.

Así, asisten entre otros el copresidente del Grupo de Alto Nivel de las Naciones Unidas para la Alianza de Civilizaciones, Federico Mayor Zaragoza; el secretario de Estado para Asuntos Exteriores, Bernardino León, y el consejero del Rey de Marruecos, André Azoulay, que es miembro del Grupo de Alto Nivel de las Naciones Unidas para la Alianza de Civilizaciones y Presidente Delegado de la Fundación Tres Culturas.

La reunión tiene como objetivo constituir esta Red nacional de apoyo al proyecto de la Alianza de Civilizaciones, una iniciativa propuesta por el presidente del Gobierno de España, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, copatrocinado por Turquía y respaldado por Naciones Unidas.

En la constitución de la Red española para la Alianza de Civilizaciones participarán más de 40 personalidades del ámbito político, cultural, periodístico, académico y diplomático del panorama social español.

Entre ellos, se encuentran algunos expertos en el diálogo intercultural como el catedrático emérito de Derecho Internacional Público y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad de Sevilla y miembro del patronato Cultura de Paz, Juan Antonio Carrillo Salcedo,; el director de la Casa Asia, Ión de la Riva; el presidente del Real Instituto Elcano, Gustavo Suárez Pertierra; el director de la Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, Gonzalo Fernández y la presidenta de la Sociedad Estatal para la Acción Cultural, Carmen Cerdeira.

SESIONES DE TRABAJO
De esta forma, en las sesiones de trabajo se tratará de establecer los objetivos de la red española, identificar los diversos temas que se pueden trabajar desde las diversas instituciones de nuestro país y establecer un calendario de trabajo.

La creación de esta Red española para la Alianza de Civilizaciones es una iniciativa conjunta de la Fundación Tres Culturas y el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y Cooperación, que pretende apoyar de este modo los trabajos del Grupo de Alto Nivel (GAN) que el Secretario General de Naciones Unidas, Kofi Annan, formó para respaldar el llamamiento de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y el primer ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, y cuya primera reunión se celebró el pasado 27 de noviembre en Palma de Mallorca.

Entre las personalidades internacionales que forman parte de este elenco de alto nivel se encuentran el ex presidente de Irán, Mohamed Jatamí, el obispo sudafricano y Premio Nobel de la Paz, Desmond Tutu, y el ex director del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), Enrique Iglesias.

onu 13-06-2006

Mayor Zaragoza desea que la Alianza de Civilizaciones 'no fracase' y pide 'imaginación' para que tenga continuidad

El vicepresidente del Grupo de Alto Nivel (GAN) de Naciones Unidas para la Alianza de Civilizaciones, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, dijo hoy que esta iniciativa copatrocinada por el Gobierno de España 'no puede fracasar porque nos va mucho en ello' y demandó, 'antes y después' del informe que el GAN presentará a finales de año al secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, 'ir imaginando actividades que hagan posible el despegue'.

En la inauguración de una reunión del Grupo Español de Alianza de Civilizaciones con el objetivo de recibir propuestas para constituir una red nacional que apoye al GAN, Mayor Zaragoza destacó la importancia del Grupo de Alto Nivel y esperó que el informe que remitirán 'no quede relegado a las estanterías como otros magníficos informes' y para ello solicitó actividades que hagan que la iniciativa tenga continuidad.

Conminó entonces a pensar propuestas 'originales e insólitas que se puedan llevar a cabo', entre las que apuntó intercambio de escolares, hermanamientos de ciudades y de alumnos universitarios occidentales e islámicos o un gran movimiento juvenil.

El vicepresidente del GAN hizo hincapié en la necesidad de conocer todas las partes del conflicto de culturas e indicó que 'las imágenes que vemos en los medios de comunicación de jóvenes islámicos violentos tan sólo representan un tres por ciento'. Así, instó a la cultura occidental 'a cambiar también nosotros de actitud'.

Toda esta labor de seguimiento tan importante para Mayor Zaragoza requiere a su juicio de un cambio 'radical' en la estructura de Naciones Unidas, con un Consejo de Seguridad 'obsoleto' y una representación en la Asamblea General de 'diplomáticos que no conocen la realidad de sus países'.

En la misma línea, el presidente de la Junta de Andalucía, Manuel Chaves, valoró el 'marco de reflexión' que supone la Alianza de Civilizaciones y compartió que 'si queremos que no sea un manifiesto más, sin efectos ulteriores traducibles en acciones consecuentes, debemos concretar las responsabilidades e introducir en nuestros códigos de conducta, en nuestros sistemas educativos o en los medios de comunicación de masas, elementos puntuales y prácticas capaces de producir un nuevo impacto social, de elaborar un conjunto de aspiraciones e inquietudes éticas superiores y de generar un cambio de actitud y de mentalidad, sobre todo en las generaciones más jóvenes'.

Para el presidente andaluz, 'todo esto implica educar para la tolerancia y la diversidad, asumir el lenguaje de los demás, correr el riesgo de la confrontación y el debate, no rehuir los problemas, ser sensibles a las críticas, juzgar al otro en relación con sí mismo y sus circunstancias, desvelas las formas de dominación occidentales y ser capaces, a la vez, de censurar costumbres o comportamientos arcaicos y contrarios a la dignidad del ser humano'.

'Este diálogo para la modernidad' no puede para Chaves estar dirigida exclusivamente a los gobiernos o a los representantes de las distintas confesiones religiosas 'sino que debe abrirse al conjunto de la sociedad civil y, de manera especial, a los grupos independientes y a las fuerzas reformistas existentes en los países árabes'.

AZOULAY

El consejero del Rey de Marruecos, André Azoulay, confió en la iniciativa de la Alianza de Civilizaciones y comentó que desde el primer momento este enfoque abierto a la sociedad civil generó expectativas y esperanzas en la opinión pública y en los hogares de los países árabes musulmanes. Abogó por trabajar en la relación del Islam con el resto del mundo y apuntó como primer objetivo de la Alianza explicar por qué razón se pudo producir el 11-S, el 11-M o los atentados de Casablanca.

También en la inauguración de la reunión el el secretario de Estado para Asuntos Exteriores, Bernardino León, señaló que la convivencia es el primer reto de la agenda internacional, el conocimiento y el respeto del otro y dijo esperar un informe 'ambicioso, con mensaje políticos y moral' para entregar a la ONU.

OBJETIVOS DE LA REUNION

La reunión mantenida hoy tiene como objetivo constituir una Red nacional de apoyo al proyecto de la Alianza de Civilizaciones. Participaron más de 40 personalidades del ámbito político, cultural, periodístico, académico y diplomático del panorama social español.

Entre ellos, se encuentran algunos expertos en el diálogo intercultural como el catedrático emérito de Derecho Internacional Público y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad de Sevilla y miembro del patronato Cultura de Paz, Juan Antonio Carrillo Salcedo,; el director de la Casa Asia, Ión de la Riva; el presidente del Real Instituto Elcano, Gustavo Suárez Pertierra; el director de la Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, Gonzalo Fernández y la presidenta de la Sociedad Estatal para la Acción Cultural, Carmen Cerdeira.

La creación de esta Red española para la Alianza de Civilizaciones es una iniciativa conjunta de la Fundación Tres Culturas y el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y Cooperación, que pretende apoyar de este modo los trabajos del Grupo de Alto Nivel (GAN) que el Secretario General de Naciones Unidas, Kofi Annan, formó para respaldar el llamamiento de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y el primer ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, y cuya primera reunión se celebró el pasado 27 de noviembre en Palma de Mallorca.

Entre las personalidades internacionales que forman parte de este elenco de alto nivel se encuentran el ex presidente de Irán, Mohamed Jatamí, el obispo sudafricano y Premio Nobel de la Paz, Desmond Tute, y el ex director del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), Enrique Iglesias.
Terra Actualidad - Europa Press

alianza-civilizaciones 13-06-2006

Red señala como gran problema de la Alianza llegar al ciudadano

El Grupo Español de Alianza de Civilizaciones reunido hoy por primera vez para constituir una red nacional de apoyo a dicha iniciativa plantea, como uno de los principales problemas con los que se encuentra el proyecto, el de transmitir al ciudadano de a pie los trabajos de 'alto nivel'.

Entre las conclusiones que pueden extraerse de las intervenciones de la reunión destacan 'el enorme interés' con el que la sociedad civil española, a través de 48 organismos implicados, ha acogido esta propuesta, que se presenta como 'la única alternativa viable al 'choque de civilizaciones' (Samuel P. Huntington) y como respuesta política a un problema político que debe reconfigurar las relaciones entre el mundo árabe-islámico y occidente'.

En la constitución de esta red, creada a instancias de la Fundación Tres Culturas y el Ministerio de Exteriores, participaron cerca de cincuenta instituciones sociales y más de cuarenta personalidades del ámbito político, cultural, periodístico, académico y diplomático.

Este grupo pretende apoyar los trabajos del Grupo de Alto Nivel que el secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, formó para respaldar el llamamiento del presidente del Gobierno español, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, y el primer ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Según explicó a Efe el director de la Fundación Tres Culturas, Enrique Ojeda, después del verano esta Red Española volverá a reunirse con el objetivo de poder ejecutar las conclusiones a las que se lleguen con los trabajos que termine el Grupo de Alto nivel de la ONU encargado de la Alianza.

Ojeda señaló que uno de los 'grandes problemas' planteados por el Grupo para la Alianza de Civilizaciones es el de 'pasar de las reuniones de alto nivel al ciudadano de a pie', problema que desde su Fundación tratarán de solventar a través de la Cultura, la Educación y los medios de Comunicación.

En esta línea, Tres Culturas tiene previstas acciones como la celebración de un homenaje a Juan Goytisolo en Marraquech, en el terreno de la cultura, la creación de un máster sobre el mundo árabe y el Mediterráneo en colaboración con la Universidad Internacional de Andalucía (UNIA) en el ámbito de la Educación, y la propuesta de un foro permanente de periodistas hispano-marroquíes o la utilización de internet para favorecer el diálogo en lo que a Medios de Comunicación se refiere.

En el acto de constitución del grupo estuvieron el secretario de Estado para Asuntos Exteriores, Bernardino León, el copresidente del Grupo de Alto Nivel de las Naciones Unidas para la Alianza de Civilizaciones, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, el presidente de la Junta, Manuel Chaves, y el consejero del rey de Marruecos, André Azoulay.

Terra Actualidad - EFE

17 de junio de 2006  www.abc.es

Cumbre UE.- Los Veinticinco asumirán la Alianza de Civilizaciones como vía para fomentar el diálogo

BRUSELAS, 16 Jun. (EUROPA PRESS)

El Gobierno estudia conceder becas de estudio en países árabes     
Lunes, 24 de Julio de 2006

Tomando como punto de partida la idea de que la educación abre fronteras, el Gobierno está barajando la posibilidad de estrechar relaciones con el mundo árabe promoviendo los intercambios de estudio y los viajes entre los jóvenes del mundo occidental y los del árabe-musulmán.

ONU.- La Alianza de Civilizaciones pedirá la creación de becas 'erasmus' entre universitarios occidentales e islámicos

El Grupo Español de Alianza de Civilizaciones se reúne mañana para crear una red de apoyo al Grupo de Alto Nivel

Una ventana abierta al mundo  

24.06.06 www.noticiasdenavarra.com