12 March 1998
(Inclusiveness and collective security emphasized) (3130) Washington -- Results of a new private poll show that American support for NATO enlargement "is derived more from the principles of inclusiveness and collective security than from a desire to strengthen the military alliance against possible Russian resurgence." The poll, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), indicated that 67% of the respondents expressed support for the NATO-Russia Council; 51% favored including Russia in the alliance now; and 64% favored including Russia in NATO as soon as Russia "has shown that it can be stable and peaceful for a significant period." The data for the poll, gathered most recently on February 14-17, suggests that not only do most Americans support the addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the alliance, but also voice support for including other countries. PIPA is a joint program of the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes and Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. The study, called "Americans on NATO Enlargement," was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., and Steven Kull served as its principal investigator. As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider the NATO enlargement issue, the polling data show that most Americans would support U.S. troop contributions to an effort to defend a new NATO member from attack. Kull released the results of the poll on March 10 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Following is a summary of the major findings of the poll prepared by Kull: (begin text) Americans on NATO Enlargement Overview Now that NATO has formally invited Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to become members of NATO, the U.S. Senate must decide whether to ratify this possible new treaty commitment. This raises a key question: how does the American public feel about this issue? While the question may be remote for most Americans, in the event that the U.S. was ever called upon to act on these new treaty commitments, this would have a highly significant impact on the public. Thus it is important for policymakers to know if taking on such a commitment is consistent with the values of the American public. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) has just completed a new study of American public attitudes on NATO enlargement. The findings of the study suggest: -- The majority of Americans supports enlarging NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Awareness of the issue continues to be low, though rising. -- Most Americans say they would be willing to contribute U.S. troops to an effort to defend a new NATO member from attack. Most Americans do not,however, want to make an unequivocal commitment to use nuclear weapons to defend new members. -- Support for enlargement is derived more from the principles of inclusiveness and collective security than from a desire to strengthen the military alliance against possible Russian resurgence. -- Consistent with the low emphasis on strengthening NATO as a military alliance, the majority opposes spending money to upgrade the militaries of new member states. -- Consistent with their orientation to collective security, most Americans support the new Russia-NATO Council and even support eventually including Russia in NATO. -- Most Americans support the idea of including other countries in NATO in addition to the first three. The study included a nationwide poll of 1,200 randomly selected adults conducted February 13-17, 1998 (margin of error plus or minus 3-4%), and a review of existing polling data. The complete questionnaire is available from PIPA. Findings 1 -- A substantial majority supports expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Awareness of the issue is low, though rising. Responses to popular pro and con arguments suggest that support is consolidating. When asked whether they are "inclined to favor or oppose expanding NATO to include some Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic," 61% said they favored doing so (23% strongly). Twenty-six percent were opposed (13% strongly) and 13% didn't give an opinion. Among Republicans 61% were in favor while among Democrats 54% were in favor. This is approximately the same level of support that PIPA found in September 1996 using the same question (62% favor, 29% opposed). It is also approximately the same as the 63% approval that Pew Research Center found in September 1997 in response to a nearly identical question (18% disapproval). A June 1997 NBC Wall Street Journal poll found only 52% approval of NATO enlargement. However this was in response to a long question that did not mention the countries by name and did raise concerns about financial costs and the potential for antagonizing Russia. Other polls that did not mention the countries by name have also found lower support. Should the Senate Ratify? A slightly different question, asked to a different sample, was whether the Senate should ratify the commitment to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The question clarified that NATO countries, including the U.S., have already agreed to include these countries. In this case, 61% thought the Senate should ratify while 21% favored rejecting the new obligation. Another sample was asked the same question but was also given the information that "This idea has received support from both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress as well as the President. However, some members of Congress in both parties are opposed." In this case, 69% said the Senate should ratify. Admitting Specific Countries In a PIPA question that asked about admitting specific countries to NATO, and in which respondents were asked to "keep ... in mind that the U.S., together with other NATO members, must defend any NATO country that comes under attack," 8 out of 10 countries received majority support. Going from most to least, support for including Poland was 72%, Hungary 70%, Czech Republic 63%, Romania 61%, Ukraine 57%, the Baltic States 54%, Bulgaria 55%, Slovakia 51%, Russia 51% and Slovenia 47%. In August 1997 CNN/USA Today asked a similarly worded question about including specific countries that also mentioned the commitment to defend members from attack. In this case support was a bit lower than the more recent PIPA poll but still fairly high: 65% supported including Poland, 58% Hungary, but only 51% the Czech Republic. Response to Pro and Con Arguments There are signs that support for NATO enlargement may be consolidating. In the September 1996 PIPA poll 10 arguments in favor and 10 arguments in opposition to NATO enlargement were presented. Four of each of these 10 were presented in the current poll. As in September 1996, the pro arguments were rated as more convincing than the con arguments. However, in the current poll all pro arguments were stronger than before, with the majority finding three out of four arguments convincing. All con arguments, on the other hand, slipped substantially with only one out of four receiving even slight majority support. This suggests that a public debate is more likely to increase rather than to weaken support for enlargement, Low Awareness Awareness of the issue of NATO enlargement is low, but it does appear to be rising. Asked how much they have heard about the issue only 8% said "a great deal," but this is up from 7% in September 1996. Twenty-six percent said they have heard some (up from 22%), 34% said "not very much" (up from 33%) and 32% said "nothing at all" (down from 38%). (Support for NATO expansion was significantly higher for those who had greater awareness of the issue than for those who did not.) An overwhelming majority is also poorly informed on the issue. Pew found in September 1997 that only 10% could name any of the countries that are to be new members. 2 -- Most Americans say they would be willing to contribute U.S. troops to an effort to defend a new NATO member from attack. Most Americans do not, however, want to make an equivocal commitment to use nuclear weapons to defend new members. Naturally, a key question is whether Americans would really be willing to send U.S. troops to defend a new NATO member from attack. To explore this question, respondents were presented a scenario in which Poland has become a member of NATO and comes under attack from Russia, and were asked whether they would or would not be ready "to support sending U.S. and other NATO troops to defend Poland." A strikingly high number of 69% said that they would with 23% saying that they would not. This is close to 68% that said they would in September 1996 (25% would not). PIPA's September 1996 poll made further probes to find out how solid this commitment was by presenting the same question as above, but offering a third option which said: "I don't know if I would be ready to support sending U.S. and other NATO troops to defend Poland. But I favor making preparations to defend Poland because this will discourage Russians from even thinking about being aggressive." In this case, a plurality of 45% opted for this position while 37% simply said they "would be ready." Only 13% said they "would not be ready" to send troops. The prospect of risking lives of American troops is troubling to many Americans, but for most it is not a strong enough reason to not enlarge NATO. When presented the argument against NATO enlargement that "this might mean we will have to risk the lives of American soldiers," just 44% found this argument convincing (52% found it unconvincing). This was down from September 1996 when 49% found it convincing. Apparently this support for committing U.S. troops to defend Eastern European countries is greatly affected by the question being premised on these countries being part of NATO. Other polls have not found such support when NATO membership is not mentioned. An October 1994 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations simply asked about using U.S. troops if Russia invaded Poland: only 32% were in favor with 50% opposed. The Nuclear Commitment Apparently most Americans do not want to make an unequivocal commitment to use nuclear weapons to defend new member states from attack. Given three options, only 13% said "the U.S. should commit to defend new members from attack even if it becomes necessary to use nuclear weapons." Thirty-five percent said "The U.S. should not commit to use nuclear weapons." The plurality, 49%, chose the more equivocal option that said: "The U.S. should be somewhat ambiguous about either committing to use or to not use nuclear weapons" and should "keep its options open." 3 -- Support for NATO enlargement is derived more from principles of inclusiveness and collective security than from a desire to strengthen the military alliance against possible Russian resurgence. Asked to choose between two arguments in favor of NATO expansion only 29% chose the one that said: "NATO should be expanded to make NATO larger and more powerful so that it can more effectively deal with the possibility of a threat from Russia in the future." Sixty-three percent chose, instead, the argument that "NATO should be expanded to remove the outdated divisions of the Cold War and help bring Europe together." In the September 1996 PIPA poll, among 10 arguments presented in favor of NATO expansion the most popular argument -- rated as convincing by 77% -- was that "It is better to include Eastern European countries rather than to exclude them because peace is more is likely if we all communicate and work together." In the current poll this argument was again the most popular (of four offered) with 80% finding it convincing. The second most popular argument in September 1996 and in the current poll was based explicitly on the principle of collective security. It read: "NATO should commit to defending Eastern European countries because it is important for potential aggressors to know that they cannot get away with conquering other countries". Seventy-five percent found it convincing in the current poll (69% in September 1996). The most popular argument against NATO enlargement was also based on the theme of inclusiveness. Fifty-three percent found convincing the argument that "Instead of expanding NATO, something new should be developed that includes Russia rather than treating Russia as an enemy." This is down from 62% in the September 1996 poll, perhaps because in the interim there have been steps taken to include Russia by establishing the Russia-NATO Council. Arguments in favor of NATO expansion that stressed the Russian threat and the geopolitical competition with Russia were the most unpopular. The least popular argument was that "Russia is very weak these days and this creates an opportunity for NATO to expand into Eastern Europe and consolidate our victory in the Cold War." Only 35% found this argument convincing with 59% finding it unconvincing. 4 -- Consistent with the low emphasis on strengthening NATO as a military alliance, the majority opposes spending money to upgrade the militaries of new member states. Respondents were presented the following question: Currently there is a controversy about how important it is to spend money toward making the militaries of the new NATO members as effective as the current members. Some people say this is important because it will make sure that these new countries can better do their part in the event of a military conflict. Others say that this would be too expensive, given that NATO is already strong and faces no real threat. Assuming that the U.S. would be paying 25% of the costs, do you think NATO should or should not spend money toward making the militaries of new NATO members as effective as the current members? By almost a two-to-one margin, those opposed (60%) outnumbered those who favored (33%) spending such money. Apparently the willingness to include new members into NATO is derived more from the principles of inclusiveness and collective security than from the idea that there are significant threats requiring a further development of the military aspects of NATO. 5 -- Consistent with their orientation to collective security, most Americans support the new Russia-NATO Council and even support eventually including Russia in NATO. Wariness of Russia as a potential future threat has increased over the last year and a half, but this has not diminished support for being inclusive toward Russia. Respondents were presented the following question: Recently NATO set up a joint council with Russia to have regular discussions of security issues. There is some controversy about whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. Some say that giving Russia a new avenue to press its position gives Russia too much influence and risks weakening NATO. Others say that including Russia in such discussions promotes communication and can help resolve potential conflicts. On balance, do you think that having such a NATO-Russia council is a good idea or a bad idea? An overwhelming 67% said they thought it is a good idea, with just 26% saying it is a bad idea. Consistent with their move away from viewing NATO as a military alliance and toward viewing it like a collective security system, Americans are even friendly to the idea of including Russia in NATO. As mentioned, when Russia was presented on a list together with other countries 57% favored including Russia with 41% opposed. This is almost exactly the same as in September 1996. When a longer time horizon was offered, a strong majority expressed support for including Russia. Given two statements, only 30% embraced the position that "There are too many ways that our interests might come into conflict with Russia in the future and there is always the chance that Russia may go back to being aggressive. Therefore it is not a good idea to include Russia in NATO." Sixty-four percent chose the one that said: "Once Russia has shown that it can be stable and peaceful for a significant period we should try to include it in NATO. This will help assure that Russia will stay stable and peaceful." When asked to rate the likelihood that Russia will become a threat sometime in the future on a scale of 6 -- A plurality favors further enlarging NATO beyond the inclusion of the first three new members. A major controversy within NATO is whether it should expand to include more members than Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Some members of Congress have called for a five-year moratorium on adding new members beyond the first three. However, a plurality (50%) supported the idea that "NATO should enlarge beyond Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and accept other candidates in the next five years." Forty-three percent were opposed. This finding may actually underrepresent the potential support however, because as discussed above, when specific countries are named nearly all receive majority support, with Romania receiving 61% approval, Ukraine 57%, and Bulgaria 55%. 7 -- In general the majority feels that Western nations have an obligation to integrate Eastern European countries, but do not feel that the U.S. should pressure the European Union to speed up their acceptance of new members into the EU. Another controversy within NATO is that the U.S. has put some pressure on the European Union to include Eastern European countries in the EU, before considering them for inclusion in NATO. A modest majority (55%) of Americans does feel that "Western nations have a moral obligation to integrate Central and East European countries into organizations like NATO and the European Union." However, most Americans do not think the U.S. should put pressure on the EU to speed up inclusion of new members. Asked to choose between two statements, 40% chose the one that said "We should put pressure on the European Union to expand because this will help stabilize the Eastern European countries and better ensure peace in Europe." Fifty-three percent chose the alternative that said, "We should not pressure the European Union to include these countries: it is the Europeans' business when they think it is best to do so." (end text)