By Patricia H. Kushlis
World Public Opinion.org released a troubling 17 nation poll on the seventh anniversary of 9/11. The poll contained information that the US government as well as the presidential campaigns should stand up and take to heart. The poll indicated that there were still significant numbers of people who do not think Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and among those polled as a many as 30 percent in Mexico and 36 percent in Turkey thought the U.S. government itself had been the culprit. In contrast Kenyans (where earlier US Embassy bombings took place), Nigerians and those from several European countries which have had Al Qaeda or terrorist group problems themselves were far more likely to point the finger squarely at Al Qaeda.
As Steve Kull, Director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), pointed out in the 9/11 poll’s accompanying press release, the greatest correlation was between respondents who continued to believe the US was behind 9/11 and the same respondents’ attitudes towards the US. E.g. the more negative the individual’s perceptions of the US, the more likely to blame the US for 9/11. This, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Why so?
Let me hazard a guess.
Mexico vs. Turkey
I think that the answers behind the poll’s questions differ from country to country depending upon US relationships with and attitudes and behavior towards the countries in question. The high level of anti-Americanism in Mexico for instance seems to me to relate most closely to American “get tough” policies on illegal immigrants - many of whom come to the US from Mexico seeking work. Some have families on both sides of our southern border and recent US immigration policies have impeded easy access that date back generations. Our too gung-ho, publicity-seeking-gun-brandishing-private-border vigilantes and tightened US immigration policies just make their lives harder.
In contrast, the continuing high level of anti-Americanism in Turkey likely derives from very different factors. These range from the still somewhat contentious US-Turkish bilateral relationship that went sour over the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the perceptions that the Bush administration’s “global war on terror” is aimed at Muslims and most Turks are Muslims.
That being said, I think the fundamental negatives to positive perceptions of the US abroad in most of the countries polled are primarily due to:
• The Bush administration’s misuse of the phrase “global war on terror” which is seen as a code word for “global war on Islam” particularly among Muslims;
• The fact that US actions that have stemmed from GWOT, in particular the invasion and occupation of Iraq, came about as part and parcel of the “Bush doctrine” of preemptive war and the Administration’s use of the US military (using a baseball bat to kill a gnat) as the primary implementer.
Bottom line: it’s the policy, the rhetoric and the institutions, stupid
I think the Bush administration is itself responsible for many of the negative reactions that are reflected in this and other polls of foreign publics’ negative and sometimes erroneous perceptions of the US. A new study from RAND called “How Terrorist Groups End” (available to download or purchase on RAND’s website) underscores this dilemma.
Seems to me that as long as the US is perceived as arrogant, anti-Muslim and militaristic, the more likely foreigners will believe the Al Qaeda line. The first actions the US should take, therefore, to change these perceptions are to declare death to the global war on terror and to shutter Guantanamo.
Beyond this, I think the US made a huge mistake in 1999 when it abolished the US Information Agency, the only US governmental institution that coordinated and implemented the media, cultural and educational programs that tended and enhanced America’s public face abroad. USIA did not make policy – it followed the State Department’s directives – but it packaged and implemented that policy based on its own survey research designed to help inform policy makers. It did these tasks well and usually nimbly.
True, the international information climate has changed dramatically since the early 1990s when USIA was still an effective whole. But from what I can see, the fragments of USIA that remain (either under the Broadcasting Board of Governors or the State Department) are ill-equipped, ill-funded, ill-coordinated and ill-staffed to embrace the rapidly changing international media environment effectively.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has stepped into the vacuum, but the military does not have the credibility, nor will it ever have the credibility or the expertise to handle well most media relations with foreign civilian publics outside these United States. This was not the military’s role during the Cold War and it's a mistake to attempt to let it take this on today.
Despite the fact that the US military has a positive face at home, it does not abroad. This will not change until US policy and national security doctrine take a 180 degree turn. Meanwhile, the recreation of a robust, nimble civilian foreign information service designed to meet uniquely 21st century needs could help too.
An addendum: Here's Melinda Brouwer's thoughtful take on the implications of PIPA's 9/11 poll.