Showing posts with label Pew Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pew Center. Show all posts

Friday, October 9, 2009

Obama's Nobel Prize

Pew Research
October 9
Today's news that President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is another sign of his international appeal. A 25-nation Pew Global Attitudes survey conducted in May-June of this year highlighted the extent of Obama's popularity, especially among many of America's traditional allies in Western Europe, but also noted that challenges still persist in much of the Muslim world.
My question regarding Obama's designation is related to the simple fact concering what he really done by now. Promising and assuming some statements it's one thing, effectively working for peace and achieving it it's another.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The World Muslim Population

- 23% of the population, according to a Pew Research Study.

The Sunni Muslims are predominant - 87-90% - with predominantly Shi'a concentration - 68-80% - in Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.

More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world's Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Most Mexicans See Better Life in U.S.

One-In-Three Would Migrate
Troubled by Crime, the Economy, Drugs and Corruption
September 23
Facing a variety of national problems, Mexicans overwhelmingly are dissatisfied with the direction of their country. Large majorities describe crime (81%) and illegal drugs (73%) as very big problems, and Mexicans overwhelmingly endorse President Felipe Calderón's tough stance against drug traffickers. Nearly six-in-ten Mexicans say those who leave their country for the United States enjoy a better life there. One-in-three would move to the U.S. if they had the opportunity, and most of those would do so without authorization. Nonetheless, the U.S. Census Bureau reported yesterday that immigration from Mexico to the U.S. is on the decline. In that regard, the current survey finds that four-in-ten Mexicans say they know someone who left for the U.S. but returned because they could not find a job. Even more (47%) report knowing someone who returned because they were turned back by the border patrol. The latest findings from the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey of Mexico, conducted between May 26 and June 2 with 1,000 face-to-face interviews, examines Mexican attitudes toward migration and life in the U.S.; the campaign against drug traffickers; national conditions and the economy; national leaders and institutions; the U.S. and President Barack Obama; trade and globalization; and daily life.

Obama Addressed a More Popular United Nations

Ratings of the U.N. Improved the Most in the United States
September 21
While the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly has frequently produced controversy, the United Nations remains a quite popular institution throughout much of the world. A 25-nation Pew Global Attitudes survey, conducted in May and June of this year, found largely positive views toward the U.N. with majorities or pluralities in 19 of the 25 countries expressing a positive opinion. Moreover, ratings of the U.N. have grown more positive since 2007 in 12 of the 25 nations. In no country, though, have ratings improved as much as in the U.S. Two years ago, 48% of Americans held a favorable view of the U.N., compared with 61% today, the highest U.S. rating the U.N. has received since 2001.

Monday, September 14, 2009

US Image Improves in Canada Despite Differences over Economy, Afghanistan

Pew Global Attitudes Project
September 14
As in much of the world, America's image has bounced back in Canada according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey conducted in May and June of this year. Positive ratings for the United States have become more common, and President Barack Obama receives considerably higher marks than George W. Bush did when he was in the White House. Even so, as Obama prepares to meet with visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, many Canadians say that the U.S. economy is having a negative impact on their country, and many disagree with Obama on one of his top foreign policy priorities: the war in Afghanistan.

Muslim world decreased the support for terrorism


September 10
Eight years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that support for Osama bin Laden has declined considerably among Muslim publics in recent years. Moreover, majorities or pluralities among eight of the nine Muslim publics surveyed this year say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam; only in the Palestinian territories does a majority endorse such attacks.The drop in support for bin Laden has been most dramatic in Indonesia, Pakistan and Jordan. Currently, about one-quarter of Muslims in Jordan (28%) and Indonesia (25%) express confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs; in 2003, majorities in each country agreed (56% and 59%, respectively).

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Few in NATO Support Call For Additional Forces in Afghanistan

August 31
In an assessment of the war in Afghanistan by the commander of U.S. and NATO forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated that a new strategy is needed to fight the Taliban. Although it was not addressed in the strategic review sent to both the Pentagon and NATO headquarters on Monday, it is widely anticipated that McChrystal will ask for more troops to deal with the situation in a separate request expected in a of couple weeks, a proposal that may face considerable opposition in many NATO countries.
While the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey of 25 nations found broad global support for President Barack Obama and his policy goals, the one notable exception was his decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Significant opposition to troop increases was found in all NATO countries polled; at least half of those surveyed in Germany (63%), France (62%), Poland (57%), Canada (55%), Britain (51%) and Spain (50%) disapproved of sending more troops to Afghanistan.In addition to opposing new troop commitments, many in NATO countries want troops withdrawn altogether.

Read the full commentary at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1325/little-support-in-nato-for-afghanistan-troop-increases

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Confidence in Obama Lifts U.S. Image Around the World

Most Muslim Publics Not So Easily Moved
July 23
The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama. In many countries opinions of the U.S. are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade, before George W. Bush took office. Improvements in the U.S. image have been most pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings have soared. Opinions of America have also become more positive in key countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. However, the U.S. image has moved little in some predominantly Muslim countries, where deep concerns continue about U.S. policy and America's role in the world despite the president's popularity.
These are the findings of the latest survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, which conducted over 26,000 interviews from May 18 to June 16 among 24 nations and the Palestinian territories. In addition to an in-depth examination of the image of America, this report examines attitudes toward the worldwide recession, globalization, China and other major powers, Islamic extremism, the environment and swine flu.
Also at PewGlobal.org, explore a new interactive database allowing you to search public opinion trends in 55 countries on topics ranging from attitudes toward the U.S. to people's assessments of their own lives to views about globalization, democratization, extremism and other important issues.
Results can be displayed in map, table or chart formats: http://pewglobal.org/database/
And for more information on this year's report, watch a slide show with commentary by Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut: http://pewglobal.org/docs/?DocID=12

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Obama Unlikely to Find a Quick Fix for U.S. Global Image




Pew Research
April 1


As Barack Obama travels through Europe on his first overseas trip as president, keep your expectations modest that this is the beginning of a major revival of America's global image.

No question that Barack Obama has a great personal following around the world, especially in comparison with President Bush. But to restore the global image of the nation he now leads, the new president must overcome a number of fundamental criticisms.

Judging from Pew Research's interviews with 177,000 people in 55 nations between 2002 and 2008, topping the list of carryover complaints is the charge that America too often acts unilaterally: that it doesn't take into account the interests of other nations in formulating policy. Closely linked to this critique is the view that the United States relies too much on military force to deal with international conflicts

Simply put, much of the world came to fear and resent the unrivaled power of that worrisome colossus, the United States.


Read the full report at PewResearch.org: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1175/obama-europe-trip-bush-legacy

Friday, March 13, 2009

Pakistan: A Bogus Threat and the Bigger Picture


Scott Stewart and Kamran Bokhari
Stratfor.com
March 11


Global Security and Intelligence Report


On March 5, the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad reportedly received threatening e-mails warning of attacks on Saudi interests in Pakistan. According to English-language Pakistani newspaper The Nation, the e-mails purportedly were sent by al Qaeda and threatened attacks on targets such as the Saudi Embassy and Saudi airline facilities in Pakistan.

When we heard the reports of this threat, our initial reaction was to dismiss it. While al Qaeda has sometimes made vague threats before executing an attack, it does not provide a list of precise targets in advance. Prior to the June 2008 bombing of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, al Qaeda leaders repeatedly threatened to attack European (and Danish) targets in retaliation for a series of cartoons published in Denmark in 2005 that satirized the Prophet Mohammed. When the issue was reignited in early 2008 with the release of a film critical of Islam called “Fitna,” by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Osama bin Laden himself issued a statement in March 2008 in which he threatened strikes against European targets in retaliation. However, in all of these threats, al Qaeda never specified that it was going to strike the Danish Embassy in Islamabad. In addition to being out of character for al Qaeda, it is foolish to issue such a specific threat if one really wants to strike a target.

While we were able to discount the most recent e-mail threat reportedly sent to the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad, it generated a robust discussion among our analytical staff about Saudi counterterrorism and anti-jihadist activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the large number of threatening statements senior al Qaeda members have made against the Saudis and the very real possibility of an attack against Saudi interests in Pakistan.


Threats Against the Saudis


Beginning with some of bin Laden’s early public writings, such as his August 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” al Qaeda leaders have spoken harshly against the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden and others have accused the Saudis of collaboration with the “Zionist-Crusaders alliance” that bin Laden claimed was using military force to impose “iniquity and injustice” on the people of Islam.

However, the verbal threats directed against the Saudi royal family have escalated in recent years in the wake of a string of attacks launched inside Saudi Arabia by the Saudi al Qaeda franchise in 2003 and 2004, and as the Saudi government has conducted an aggressive campaign to crush the Saudi franchise and combat the wider phenomenon of jihadism.

In fact, it is rare to see any statement from a senior al Qaeda leader that does not condemn the Saudi government specifically or in more general terms. In a July 28, 2008, video message, al Qaeda ideologue Abu Yahya al-Libi called on Muslims to act quickly and decisively to kill the Saudi king, reminding them that “killing this reckless tyrant, who has declared himself the chief imam of atheism, will be one of the greatest qurubat” (an act of devotion bringing man closer to God). In a May 2008 message, al-Libi also had urged Saudi clerics to lead uprisings against the Saudi monarchy similar to the July 2007 uprisings at the Red Mosque in Islamabad. Al-Libi never mentioned Saudi King Abdullah by nam e in that message, preferring to call him the “lunatic apostate” because of the king’s call for a dialogue among Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Commenting on this interfaith dialogue in the July 2008 message, al-Libi also said, “By God, if you don’t resist heroically against this wanton tyrant … the day will come when church bells will ring in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula.”

In March 2008, al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri said the Saudi monarchy was part of a “satanic alliance” formed by the United States and Israel to blockade the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. In a January 2009 message, al-Zawahiri said: “Oh lions of Islam everywhere, the leaders of Muslim countries are the guards of the American-Zionist interests. They are the ones who have given up Palestine and recognized Israel … Abdallah Bin Abd-al-Aziz has invented the interfaith dialogue and met Peres in New York, paving the way for the complete recognition of Israel.” Al-Zawahiri continued, “Thwart the efforts of those traitors by striking the interests of the enemies of Islam.” In a February 2009 audio statement, al-Zawahiri declared, “The Muslim nation must, with all its energy and skills, move to remove these corrupt, corrupting and traitorous rulers.”

After a January 2009 video by jihadists in Yemen announcing the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Zawahiri proclaimed in a February statement that the new organization “is the awakening, which aims to liberate the Arabian Peninsula from the Crusader invaders and their treacherous agents. It is escalating and flourishing, with God’s help and guidance, despite all the campaigns of repression, misleading, and deception, and despite all the obstacles, difficulties and hindrances.”


Focus on the Saudis


All these threats raise an obvious question: Why is al Qaeda so fixated on the Saudis? One obvious reason is that, since the launching of a disastrous offensive by the Saudi al Qaeda node, the Saudi government — which previously had turned a blind eye to many of al Qaeda’s activities — has launched a full-court press against the organization. Al-Zawahiri acknowledged this in a December 2005 message entitled “Impediments to Jihad,” in which he said the Saudi franchise in the kingdom had been defeated by collaborators. The Saudi offensive against al Qaeda also played a significant part in the Anbar Awakening in Iraq. Saudi cajoling (and money) helped persuade Iraqi tribal leaders to cooperate with the coalition forces.

One way the Saudis have really hurt al Qaeda is by damaging its ability to raise funds. For example, in March 2008, the top Saudi cleric, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh, cautioned Saudis against giving money to charities or organizations that finance “evil groups” who are known for harming Islam and its followers — a clear reference to al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. We have repeatedly seen appeals for more funds for the jihad, and in a Jan. 14, 2009, message by bin Laden, he noted that the jihadists were under financial “distress” and that it was the duty of the Muslim ummah to support the jihadists “with all their soul and money.”

Perhaps one of the greatest threats the Saudis pose to al Qaeda is the threat to its ideological base. As STRATFOR has long argued, there are two different battlespaces in the war against jihadism — the physical and the ideological. For an ideological organization such as al Qaeda that preaches persecution and martyrdom, losses on the physical battlefield are expected and glorified. The biggest threat to the jihadists, therefore, is not a Hellfire missile being dropped on their heads, but an ideological broadside that undercuts their legitimacy and ideological appeal.

Many Saudi clerics have condemned jihadism as a “deviance from Islam.” Even prominent Saudi clerics who have criticized the Saudi government, such as Salman al-Awdah, have sent open letters to bin Laden condemning violence against innocents and claiming that al Qaeda was hurting Muslim charities through its purported ties to them.

The sting of the ideological attacks is being felt. In a May 2008 speech, al-Libi addressed the ideological assault when he said, “and because they knew that the key to their success in this plan of theirs is to turn the people away from jihad and mujahidin and to eliminate them militarily and intellectually.” Al-Libi recognized that without new recruits and funding, the jihad will wither on the vine.

In addition to financial and ideological threats against the organization, the Saudi assault has also gone after al Qaeda where it lives — in Pakistan.


Deep Connections


Saudi Arabia has long had a strong relationship with Pakistan, based on shared perspectives toward regional and international matters. A key common sphere of influence for the two sides over the past four decades has been Afghanistan. This close Saudi-Pakistani relationship was well-illustrated by the pairing up of Saudi petrodollar wealth with Pakistani logistics (along with U.S. weapons and intelligence) to support the Islamist uprising that followed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

After the Soviet military withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Saudis and the Pakistanis continued to cooperate. Even though the world at large refused to accept the Taliban regime after it took power in 1996, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. (These three were the only countries to do so.) However, while enjoying support from Riyadh and Islamabad, the Taliban also established relations with the transnational jihadist forces led by al Qaeda.

The Saudi and Pakistani relationship with the Taliban was shattered by the events of 9/11. In spite of aggressive negotiations with the Taliban, neither the Saudis nor the Pakistanis could convince Mullah Omar to surrender bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership to the Americans. Because of this, the two countries were forced to end their overt relationship with the Taliban as the Americans invaded Afghanistan, though they obviously have maintained some contact with members of the Taliban leadership.

The U.S. response to 9/11 placed the Saudis and the Pakistanis into a very difficult position, where they were forced to fight jihadists on one hand and try to maintain control and influence over them on the other. As previously discussed, the Saudis possessed the resources to effectively clamp down on the al Qaeda franchise in the kingdom, but Pakistan, which is weaker both financially and politically — and which has become the center of the jihadist universe on the physical battlefield — has been hit much harder by the U.S.-jihadist war.

This situation, along with the ground reality in Afghanistan, has forced the United States to begin working on a political strategy to bring closure to the U.S.-jihadist war that involves negotiating with the Taliban if they part ways with al Qaeda and the transnational jihadists.

Hence the recent visit by Taliban officials to Saudi Arabia and the trips made by Riyadh’s intelligence chief, Prince Muqrin bin Abdel-Aziz, to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, is also rumored to be personally involved behind the scenes in efforts to pressure Taliban leaders to break free from al Qaeda. But as in the past, the Saudis need help from their allies in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, and here is where they are running into problems. A weak and threatened Pakistani state means that before working with the Pakistanis on the Afghan Taliban, Riyadh has to help Pakistan combat its own Taliban problem, which the Saudis currently are attempting. The Saudis obviously have much to offer the Pakistanis, in terms of both cash and experience. They also have the religious cachet that other Pakistan allies, such as the Americans and the British, lack, giving them the ability to broach ideological subjects. However, as is the case with the Afghan Taliban, the Saudis will have to get the Pakistani Taliban to part ways with al Qaeda and are working hard to drive a wedge between Pakistani militants and their foreign guests.

These efforts to divide the Taliban from the global jihadists are happening not only during the plush, Saudi-sponsored trips for Taliban members to conduct Hajj and Umrah in the kingdom. Following a strategy similar to what they did in Iraq, the Saudis and their agents are meeting with Taliban commanders on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan to twist arms and offer cash. They also are coordinating very closely with the Pakistani and Afghan authorities who are leading the campaign against the jihadists. For example, Rehman Malik, the Pakistani adviser to the prime minister on the interior (Pakistan’s de facto terrorism czar), traveled to Saudi Arabia in January at the invitation of Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul-Aziz to discuss improving counterterrorism cooperation between the two countries. Many of the 85 most-wanted militants on the list recently released by the Saudi government are believed to be in Pakistan, and the Saudis are working with Malik an d the Pakistanis to arrest those militants and return them to Saudi Arabia.


A Clear and Present Danger


Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, et al., are well aware of these Saudi moves, which they see as a threat to their very existence. When asked in a November 2008 interview what he thought of the Saudi efforts to mediate between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, al-Zawahiri responded that the Saudi efforts pointed out “the historical role of saboteur played by the House of Saud in ruining the causes of the Muslim ummah, and how they represent the agents whom the Crusader West uses to disperse the ummah’s energy.”

The al Qaeda leadership has nowhere to go if circumstances become untenable for them in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Caught between U.S., Pakistani and Saudi forces, the last thing al Qaeda wants is to lose local support from the Taliban. In other words, Pakistan is their final battleground, and any threat to their continued haven in Pakistan poses a clear and present danger to the organization — especially if the Saudis can play a pivotal role in persuading the Taliban in Afghanistan also to turn against them.

Leveraging its successes against the al Qaeda franchises in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Riyadh also is working closely with governments to combat the jihadists in places like Yemen as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is, in effect, a global Saudi campaign against jihadism, and we believe al Qaeda has no choice but to attempt to derail the Saudi effort in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is not much al Qaeda can do to counter Saudi financial tools, but the militant group is in a position to hit back hard on the ideological front in order to counter any Saudi attempt to moderate and rehabilitate jihadists. As noted above, we have seen al Qaeda launch a sustained stream of ideological attacks in an attempt to undercut the Islamic credentials of the Saudi monarch and the Saudi clerical establishment.

Another avenue that al Qaeda can take to interfere with the Saudi charm offensive is to strike Saudi targets — not only to punish the Saudis, but also to try to drive a wedge between the Saudis and the Pakistanis. Al Qaeda’s military capabilities have been greatly degraded since 2001, and with the remnant of its Saudi franchise fleeing to Yemen, it likely has very little ability to make a meaningful strike inside the kingdom. However, the one place where the al Qaeda core has shown the ability to strike in recent years is Pakistan. Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the group’s operational commander in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad and for the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and we have no reason to doubt his claims.

Also, an attack against a diplomatic mission in Pakistan that represents a regime considered an enemy of the jihadists is not unprecedented. In addition to the Danish Embassy bombing and several attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in Pakistan, al Qaeda also bombed the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad in November 1995. According to al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian Embassy was targeted because it “was not only running a campaign for chasing Arabs in Pakistan but also spying on the Arab Mujahedeen.”

Based on the totality of these circumstances — Saudi activities against al Qaeda in South Asia and elsewhere, the al Qaeda perception of the Saudis as a threat and al Qaeda’s operational ability in Pakistan — we believe there is a very real threat that Saudi interests in Pakistan might be attacked in the near future.


See also:

Pew Global Attitudes Project
www.pewglobal.org


Few in Pakistan Support Extremists -- But Few Favor Military Confrontation


March 12


The March 3rd attack on the visiting Sri Lankan national cricket team in Lahore was the latest in a series of troubling headlines from Pakistan, where extremist groups are increasingly demonstrating their ability to strike throughout the country.

Last September, a Marriott hotel in Islamabad, the nation's capital, was bombed, killing more than 50 people, and overall there have been approximately 60 suicide bombings in Pakistan in each of the last two years.

These headline-making assaults have, however, been perpetrated in a country where public support for extremism has declined sharply in recent years.

Surveys by the Pew Global Attitudes Project have found progressively lower levels of acceptance of suicide bombing as well as waning confidence in Osama bin Laden. There is only modest support among Pakistanis for al Qaeda or the Taliban. And few agree with their widely noted tactic of preventing education for girls.

Nonetheless, while the trends are positive, sizeable minorities still embrace extremism. And while most Pakistanis are worried about religious extremism, polling by the International Republican Institute suggests most would prefer making a peace deal with extremists.



Read the full report at PewResearch.org: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1148/pakistan-little-support-for-terrorists-most-favor-education-for-girls


Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Eastern Europe: A Crisis of Confidence in Capitalism?




Pew Research
March 5


Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany caused a stir at last weekend's European Union summit in Brussels, warning his fellow leaders that they should not allow the current economic crisis to create "a new Iron Curtain" dividing the continent.

Gyurcsany is hardly alone in thinking that the financial meltdown poses a serious challenge to European solidarity, and in particular, many observers are worried about the social and political stability of Eastern European nations, several of which have been hit especially hard by the crisis.

Survey research shows that in recent years support for the free-market system has been on the rise in Eastern Europe, especially in countries such as Poland that have enjoyed impressive economic growth.

However, compared with other regions of the world -- and in particular, compared with their Western European counterparts -- Eastern Europeans embrace free markets somewhat tepidly.


Read the full report at PewResearch.org: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1142/eastern-europe-crisis-capitalism-poll

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Views of Venezuela's Chavez Have Hardened in the Region -- and at Home


Pew Research Center
February 11


On February 15, Venezuelans will head to the polls to vote on a constitutional amendment that would eliminate term limits for the office of president, permitting current President Hugo Chavez to seek a third term.

Since he was first elected in 1999, Chavez has often portrayed himself as a regional leader, at the forefront of a new era of Latin American populism.

However, in many Latin American countries, Chavez fails to inspire much confidence.

In fact, polling by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project suggests that negative views of Chavez are on the rise in several key Latin American nations.


Read the full report: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1114/chavez-venezuela-referendum-popularity-region

Thursday, January 22, 2009

As Obama Takes Office, Global Press Turns to Regional Concerns




Pew Global Attitudes Project
January 22



The celebratory tone that characterized international media coverage of Barack Obama's historic election victory was again pervasive in many of the stories about his inauguration as the 44th American president.

"History was being made up there on the hill," raved Britain's Daily Mail, "and the atmosphere was so electrifying that it took your breath away." "The United States has got its groove back," according to Germany's Der Spiegel.

However, many newspapers noted the more somber tone of Obama's speech, and were themselves relatively somber about the enormous challenges and inflated expectations facing the new president. "Like his new Administration," wrote the Times of London, "his inaugural address faced soaring expectations. It did not quite soar to meet them."

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called the speech "sober," and suggested it was "certainly aimed at dampening the messianic hopes that have been raised by his inauguration."

Beyond warnings about tempering hope with realism, however, international newspapers were focused on regional concerns. As the Obama presidency becomes a reality, newspapers around the world are wondering how the new president will deal with the issues that their readers care about.


Read the full report: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1088/global-press-inauguration-reaction

Saturday, January 17, 2009

European Worries About Reliance on Russian Energy Were Already High


January 15, 2009
Pew Global Attitudes Project


As Russian and Ukrainian leaders squabbled over gas supplies in late 2008 and early 2009, Eastern Europeans farther down the pipeline went without heat.

Both Eastern and Western Europeans are vulnerable to these disputes because they rely heavily on Russian gas supplies, most of which are pumped through Ukraine.

Not surprisingly, the Pew Global Attitudes poll found that majorities in a number of European nations were concerned about their country's reliance on Russian energy.

Just as public concern about energy dependence has become widespread, so too have unfavorable views of Russia and current Prime Minister Putin.

And surveys show a clear linkage between concern about energy dependence and unfavorable views of Russia.



Read the full report: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1083/europeans--worries-about-reliance-on-russian-energy-were-already-high

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Global Public Opinion in the Bush Years

- Pew Global Attitudes Project Release -


When Barack Obama is sworn in as America's new president in January, he will inherit two wars in distant lands, one highly unpopular and the other going badly, along with a worldwide financial crisis that is being measured against the Great Depression.

He will confront the prospect of destructive global climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states.

The president-elect has indicated that he will focus on international cooperation in addressing global problems, but he will have to navigate a world that has grown highly critical of the United States.

America's image gap is the central, unmistakable finding from surveys conducted over the course of this decade by the Pew Research Center's Pew Global Attitudes Project. Since 2002, interviewers have polled over 175,000 people in 54 nations and the Palestinian territories to compare and contrast public opinion around the world on a large variety of subjects.

This report reviews many of the project's key findings on America's image during the Bush presidency, as well as other major global trends, such as tensions between Western and Muslim nations, changes in the global economy, and the rise of China.

Read the full report: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=263