U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–482PDF 2007

AFRICAN OPINION ON U.S. POLICIES, VALUES

AND PEOPLE

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 28, 2007

Serial No. 110–9

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

ROBERT R. KING, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 
(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

OVERSIGHT

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CLIFF STAMMERMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

NATALIE COBURN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

PHAEDRA DUGAN, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ELISA PERRY, Staff Associate

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

NOELLE LUSANE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

HEATHER FLYNN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

SHERI RICKERT, Republican Professional Staff Member 

FAY JOHNSON, Staff Associate 
(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

Devra Coren Moehler, Ph.D., Scholar, Harvard Academy for International 

and Area Studies, Harvard University .............................................................. 6

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Devra Coren Moehler, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................... 13
(1)

AFRICAN OPINION ON U.S. POLICIES, VALUES 

AND PEOPLE 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m. in Room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Delahunt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We will begin. I understand Mr. Payne is on his 

way. My name is Bill Delahunt, and I chair this particular subcommittee. This is being done in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and the committee will 

now come to order. To my left substituting for the ranking member, 

Mr. Rohrabacher, is Mr. Tancredo from Colorado, and on my right 

at the very end is the gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. 

I would like to inform my friends from the Africa Subcommittee 

that this is one in a series of hearings that we have been holding 

on the implications of a report by the Government Accountability 

Office that was issued back in 2005 that found that recent polling 

data found or show that American—let me rephrase that—that 

anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. 

That is the language that was in the report. And that this antiAmerican sentiment threatened American national security for four 

reasons. First—and again, this language is excerpted from that 

GAO report that I alluded to. 

Number one, it increased foreign public support for terrorism directed at Americans. Secondly, it impacted the cost and effectiveness of our military operations. Third, it weakened the United 

States’ ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives. And fourth, it dampened foreign public’s enthusiasm 

for American business services and products. 

By the way, we had a very informative hearing just recently on 

the decline of international visitors to the United States, which has 

had a very deleterious impact on our travel and tourism industry. 

We heard in previous testimony globally and in many European 

and Latin American countries support for United States military 

actions and favorable ratings for Americans in general have fallen 

even more precipitously since the GAO report was issued. However, 

we have also heard some hints that something is different in subSaharan Africa. So I tasked my staff to set out and find the rank-
2

ing expert in this field to bring us up to date, and I believe that 

we have found that particular individual, and it really wasn’t all 

that hard because leading Africanists were all aware of her unique 

work, and I am tremendously pleased that Professor Devra 

Moehler of Cornell and Harvard Universities has flown in from 

overseas just to be with us today. As you will see from Dr. 

Moehler’s testimony, she is the only scholar to have analyzed the 

opinions of Africans as individuals toward the United States systematically, not just at a country level, but at the individual level 

with statistical techniques that enable her to testify to the characteristics that tend to make Africans be more or less favorable toward our country. 

Before I formally request her testimony, let me turn to my good 

friend, Chairman Don Payne, for his opening statements. Or if he 

would prefer, I will turn to my left. He just arrived, and I welcome 

him. But let me—if you would prefer, I would turn to my left and 

ask the ranking member of the day, Mr. Tancredo, for any remarks 

that he would like to proffer. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

the hearing today on the opinions of the African people toward the 

United States, part of a series of hearings on global opinions and 

attitudes toward the United States. I certainly look forward to 

learning about the factors that are shaping our image in Africa. 

I think countries in Africa, like other regions of the world, are 

at a pivotal time in their history, struggles between freedom and 

totalitarianism, Islamic extremism and tolerance playing out all 

over the continent. In the last few decades, many regions in Africa 

have experienced war and bloodshed over homegrown coups 

against communist regimes. In many cases Muslim extremists are 

stepping in to fill the vacuum. The Soviet backed dictators have 

fallen, leaving lawless and genocide in their wake. An extremist 

Wahhabi form of Islam has stepped in to restore order. If these 

struggles continue, the people of Africa will no doubt have to make 

historical decisions about the direction they wish to go. They will 

continue to be influenced not only by the United States but also by 

Russia and China, two major players on the African continent. 

Encouraging that in light of this historic struggle, the African 

people see our way of life as we do, as a representation of what can 

be, given the right circumstances, as a beacon of freedom and democracy allowing all human beings to be free to pursue their own 

destinies. However, regardless of what opinion polls say, it is my 

hope that the United States continues to be the world’s leading 

voice for an end to the genocide and tyranny that plagues parts of 

Africa. Even in the face of Chinese and Russian opposition due to 

their financial interests in the region and the continent, we should 

not subside in these efforts to put an end to the atrocities taking 

place in the Sudan and other regions of Africa. 

Chairman, I realize that like many other regions throughout the 

world, many of the citizens being surveyed in Africa do not live in 

societies with a free or competitive press. All polling data in less 

than free societies we must take this information with a grain of 

salt and, as we all know, opinions, whether positive or negative, 

are always subject to changing times. It is my hope that in this 

Congress we continue to make our decisions toward Africa not by 
3

opinion polls, but by the guiding principles that continue to make 

us an example for our press people throughout the world. We make 

decisions based upon what is right, and that will stand the test of 

time. While polling data in public opinions are subject to change, 

the principles which allow freedom and democracy to flourish are 

not. 

Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing what Dr. 

Moehler has to say. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo, for that very eloquent 

statement. And as I introduce my good friend, the chairman of the 

Africa Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey, I would be 

remiss if I did not note his leadership and the leadership of Mr. 

Tancredo on the issue of Sudan and Darfur. They have truly been 

leaders in bringing to the attention of the American people the 

tragedy that is occurring in that part of the world, and which I believe while it is a tragedy for Africa, it is a moral imperative for 

the United States, and these two individuals have been leaders in 

that effort. 

Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

those kind remarks, and I concur with you in regard to Mr. 

Tancredo, who has been a real stalwart and supporter on the question of Darfur. We traveled to south Sudan when he first came to 

Congress, now it is probably a decade ago. Time flies, I guess. 

Mr. TANCREDO. It does. You were my mentor. 

Mr. PAYNE. His first CODEL was in south Sudan in a tent with 

mosquitoes and everything else, and he thought that that was a 

typical CODEL. I didn’t tell him it wasn’t. But it has been invaluable and even on tough issues like capital market sanctions, where 

we had Wall Street coming and saying you can can’t do it, he stood 

fast even in opposition to members of his own party and said that 

this is the right thing to do. So I really commend Mr. Tancredo for 

being such a good ally. 

Let me commend the chairman and the staff of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and 

Oversight for calling this very important hearing with the Africa 

and Global Health Subcommittee, African Opinions on U.S. Policies, Values and People, which is part of a series of important and 

thought-provoking hearings on foreign opinions on American policies, values and people that Mr. Delahunt has been conducting, 

and I think that a tremendous amount of data and information is 

coming forth. And hopefully we will be able to then take this information and move forward. 

We no longer live in a world where the U.S. is seen as the standard bearer of freedom and morality. The question we must ask ourselves is, why? Why now has there been a change? For what reasons? The series of joint hearings speak to the necessary practice 

of taking stock of our foreign policy and of the ways that these policies impact on the lives and therefore opinions of people around the 

world. It is a practice long ignored, and I again commend Chairman Delahunt for exercising oversight of this neglected area 

through these insightful hearings. 

With top pollsters and researchers today, we continue in that 

venture of having expert personnel at this joint hearing, and we 
4

look specifically at the African opinions. And of course as already 

mentioned, the expert witness is Dr. Devra Moehler, and she has 

found through her analysis of public opinion polls that Africans are 

generally more pro-American than not and that Africans have more 

favorable attitudes toward the United States than do people in 

other regions of the world in spite of the fact that we do ignore 

them quite a bit. But I won’t editorialize. I will just try to get the 

facts straight. We have enough facts without the editorial. 

These are interesting findings, considering the level of United 

States foreign assistance sub-Saharan Africa receives. United 

States aid to Africa reached the peak in 1995 when global competition with the Soviet Union was at a high point. As the Cold War 

eased, security assistance levels for Africa began to drop despite repeated promises from wealthy countries to provide the 0.7 of their 

GDP for development assistance. 

The United States ranks at the bottom of all donor countries for 

official development assistance worldwide. Sub-Saharan Africa receives about 24 percent of United States foreign aid. What has carried significant favor for the U.S. of late is the President’s Plan for 

AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, and people know about PEPFAR. It is something we had a pandemic going around the world. We waited too 

long to move on it, but finally we have gotten an initiative going 

to people in Africa. Wherever I go, the countries that are participating, they know about PEPFAR, which all together will total 

more than $15 billion over a 5-year period. The program has received widespread recognition for its efforts to combat HIV and 

AIDS, TB and malaria also. 

Additionally, the Millennium Challenge Account, which also 

promises new funds for Africa and other regions over several fiscal 

years, have been lauded by some and criticized by others because 

it bypasses our traditional foreign assistance and is only available 

to a select few, and that was a decision made we will just concentrate on a few, do what we can there, and the rest we will have 

to fend for themselves. 

There is also the President’s Malaria Initiative, as I mentioned 

before, which is a relatively new initiative. I must point out, however, that these programs that would certainly have a positive intention were supposed to be funded by new money. But instead 

what we have seen is that the funding for PEPFAR and the MCC 

has dipped into the core development program, such as child survival, maternal and child health, and funds used to fight other infectious and preventable diseases such as polio. 

The President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request shows a significant increase of about 52 percent for Africa over 2006 levels. But 

when you look closely, that increase is solely in the PEPFAR and 

MCC. In fact, if you remove those two programs, there is an 11 

percent decrease in the request for Africa. There are significant decreases in health programs, core development assistance, including 

education, agricultural, water, things of that nature, the basic 

things that you need to do. 

We need to capitalize off of the positive image the United States 

has in Africa by making real investments toward development. 

While the fight against HIV and AIDS needs every dollar we can 

spare, people cannot take anti-retroviral drugs on an empty stom-
5

ach and then wash the pills down with contaminated water, because the results are going to be disastrous. We are fighting a losing battle if we fund AIDS drugs but we don’t provide assistance 

to ensure their effectiveness. This is an example of our often inconsistent policies. 

So I look forward to hearing the testimony. I think that this 

hearing will certainly provide us with a great deal of insight on 

why Africans view the United States so positively despite the relatively low attention they received, and I believe that the discussion that will be generated will help us as we move forward, trying 

to develop a new Africa policy. Once again, let me thank you, Mr. 

Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Payne. And we are joined by another colleague from California, former Ambassador, Congresswoman Diane Watson, and I don’t know whether, Lynn, you or 

Diane wish to make an opening statement. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an opening statement. 

I just wanted to say that I am particularly interested and concerned in learning how the attitudes in Africa and their opinions 

of the United States affect humanitarian aid and efforts and where 

does respect end and need take over. 

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank Chairman Delahunt. I think it is 

very, very important that you convene these joint subcommittees so 

we can get a feel on the attitudes. I was recently in South Africa. 

In fact, it was November-December of last year, and I felt the attitudes, and not necessarily toward me as an African American, but 

toward the leadership of our country, and it showed a great deal 

of misunderstanding. So why is it important for foreigners to like 

us? Is it more than just a question of vanity? And we did not win 

the Cold War by conquering land or bombing cities. We won because we convinced millions of people to vote with their feet and 

to join the policies of the West. 

So it is today unless we can convince people around the world 

that democracy, human rights and free market economics works for 

them, we will always be at a disadvantage in making our country 

safe. 

I would like to make one more point, and that is there are no 

quick fixes to improve foreigners’ impression of us today. Some in 

the administration seem to think this is marketing, that all they 

need is to find the right message and the world will love us again. 

Now, I followed on the heels of Karen Hughes, and I was taken 

by our American consulate to Soweto Township. I have been there 

many times in the past. But they wanted me to go to the Rosa 

Parks Library, and they said they were getting ready to close it because the Cold War was over and that libraries and informational 

centers had been opened to really promote Americanism. And so 

they were going to close it. Well, of course the local staff complained, the people complained, and they gave them dispensation 

and they kept it open. But they told me that on any given day 

under the apartheid era there would be 200 or 300 of the native 

people there. This is the only place they can see a book, the written 

word, or really get communications from the outside world. And 

they begged me to keep it open. I said, not only am I going to keep 

it open, but since I represent Hollywood, I am going to see if we 
6

can get some American movies in on loan and put them in other 

missions around the globe, those that really express who we are as 

a country, what our values and our principles are, and also that 

we are a nation of laws. 

So my point here is that we have to live with what we preach 

to other countries, and what they are seeing today is quite a hypocritical way of behaving because we preach one thing and we do 

something else. And so I am very anxious to hear from you and to 

see what you are getting because my own polling as I travel the 

globe is that we are not in favor at the moment but we can regain 

it by our actions and standing with the people, for the people, and 

being sure it is by the people. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this time. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Ms. Watson. Now let me introduce 

our witness. Dr. Moehler is a noted scholar in the field of African 

public opinion. 2005, she received a prestigious 2-year appointment 

as an academic scholar at Harvard. Her Ph.D. is from the University of Michigan, where she wrote a dissertation on citizen participation in the drafting of the Ugandan Constitution. Her current 

academic work on the effect of media on African public opinion is 

supported by an award from the United States Institute of Peace. 

A former Peace Corps volunteer herself in Eritrea, Dr. Moehler 

currently serves as a consultant to both USAID and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Her publishing record on 

African public opinion includes numerous articles in the Journal of 

Modern African Studies and in Foreign Affairs. 

Welcome, Doctor, and please proceed to enlighten us. 

STATEMENT OF DEVRA COREN MOEHLER, PH.D., SCHOLAR, 

HARVARD ACADEMY FOR INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Ms. MOEHLER. Thank you very much for inviting me to address 

this committee. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak 

with you about how Africans view the United States, its people, its 

policies, and its values. 

I understand that in previous hearings on this topic you have 

been hearing some relatively negative news about a growing wave 

of anti-Americanism in much of the world. Well, it is my pleasure 

to be able to bring some relatively better news because I am talking about Africa, and in Africa the public opinion data shows that 

Africans are generally pro-American rather than anti-American in 

their attitudes. While there has been a lot of attention to the antiAmerican attitudes, the positive example of Africa has received relatively little attention from either scholars or from policymakers, 

and I am hoping that my testimony today and my research more 

generally can help assisting in the preservation of these positive attitudes within Africa and perhaps even shed some light on what 

might help boost attitudes in the rest of the world. 

So what is responsible for the relatively pro-American attitudes 

in Africa? Well, the analysis of polling data suggests that attitudes 

about the U.S. depend less on how much people hear about the 

U.S. and more on who they hear it from. More diversified sources 

such as radio and Internet seem to reduce support for the United 

States while television, which is still largely government controlled 
7

in Africa, and international news programs, along with personal 

contacts with friends and family in the United States or travel to 

the U.S. expands support. The data is also consistent with the argument that Africans approve of the United States because they 

view it as a source of economic and political opportunity and because of its enticing popular culture. Surprisingly, to me at least, 

it seems that the United States does not benefit relative to Europe 

from its historical image as an anti-colonial power or its image as 

a multi-racial society. If anything, former colonial powers seem to 

benefit from their greater involvement, historical or present, in Africa, so that Africans tend to support their former colonial powers 

more so than they do the United States, or even other European 

countries. 

So the statistical results imply that greater access to American 

goods, business opportunities, cultural exchanges, development resources and democracy assistance would be welcomed by Africans 

and that it would help to ensure that the United States maintains 

its relatively positive image among the African mass public. 

So in the rest of my testimony I am going to show that Africans 

are generally pro-American in both absolute and relative terms. I 

am then going to discuss some of the characteristics at the individual level that are associated with pro as opposed to anti-American attitudes. Then I am going to propose five hypotheses for these 

relatively pro-American attitudes in African and, to the extent possible, evaluate those hypotheses against the data. Then I am going 

to conclude by summarizing my results and talking a little bit 

about the future impact and trajectory of African attitudes. 

Let me start out with a brief caveat here. The public opinion 

data from Africa is limited and it is also disproportionately from 

former British colonies, from wealthy, developed, democratic African countries, and from urban areas. So we are not getting a full 

picture of Africa here. But having said that, it is quite clear from 

the data that we do have that African expression of approval for 

the United States, first, exceed expressions of disapproval, second, 

are more prevalent than pro-American attitudes in other regions of 

the world. Third, Africans tend to support different facets of American society and, fourth, that positive attitudes persist over time 

and across polls. 

So to move to the first point, this is a figure of data from the 

2002 Pew Global Attitudes Project of 42 countries that were polled, 

10 of which were sub-Saharan African countries. And you can see 

the green, dark green and light green indicate favorable attitudes 

to the U.S. and the dark red and light red are unfavorable attitudes. The colors don’t show up wonderfully but the ones on the 

right are the red and the ones on the left are the green. In what 

you can see every single African country that was polled there is 

a majority positive attitude or approval of the United States. And 

that the negative attitudes, or the red side, are as low as 9 percent 

in Ghana and never exceed 34 percent that was recorded in Senegal. So pretty positive incidence of support. 

In the bottom you can see that Africans are more favorably disposed to the United States than any of the other regions of the 

world for which we have data and by quite a lot. So if you look at 

the dark green, the very favorable support, 34 percent far exceeds 
8

any other region. And if you look at the negative, the two reds, you 

will see that there is also less anti-American sentiment in Africa 

than in any other region. 

Third, African approval for the United States extends beyond 

just general support for the United States to support for different 

parts of American society and for its people. So if you see here, the 

top bar with the people and red and the green are African attitudes, and below that, the gray and the black are the rest of the 

world. And what you can see is the red—I am sorry, the green or 

the positive attitudes exceed the gray for all of these different facets of American society. And the red again is less, the negative attitudes in Africa are less than the black or the negative attitudes in 

the rest of the world for all of these different facets of society. 

Let me say that if you look at the bottom two bars, you will see 

that more Africans think that the United States is decreasing in 

equality in the world rather than increasing it, and more Africans 

think that American—let me get the exact words here, sorry. More 

Africans think that the spread of American ideas and customs is 

bad rather than a good thing in Africa. But these negative sentiments are less severe in Africa than in other parts of the world. 

And among all other aspects, looking at our policies on terrorism 

or our culture or our science, Africans have majority favorable attitudes. 

Fourth, I want to say that African expressions of affection for the 

United States are not simply a legacy of 9/11 during the summer 

of 2002 when this data was recorded or the particular Pew poll 

that we are looking at. In 2004 Voice of the People Annual Survey 

by Gallup International Association, Africa is the only region where 

a larger percentage of citizens responded that American foreign 

policy has a positive effect as opposed to a negative effect, and BBC 

World Service poll of 33 countries in 2005 and 2006 also indicated 

that Africa is the region of the world with the most positive assessments of the United States. So this positive attitude spans from 

what we can tell three different surveys, each conducted by different organizations including more than a dozen African countries, 

and those all clearly depict pro-American attitudes in Africa. 

So what accounts for these relatively positive views of the United 

States among Africans? Well, I begin to answer this question by 

comparing individuals that reside within Africa to gage why some 

Africans have higher opinions of the United States than others. I 

have investigated whether certain traits distinguish individuals 

who approve of the United States from those who disapprove of it. 

And I use statistical analysis that helps me to evaluate the independent effect of each of these different attributes while holding 

the other attributes constant. And I am again relying here on the 

2002 Pew Global Attitudes Survey because it is the most complete 

survey that we have on Africa. 

So from this table you will see that the effects—the first column 

represents the direction of the effect or the relationship between 

these traits and attitudes about the United States. So a positive 

sign indicates that there is a positive relationship and a negative 

sign indicates a negative relationship, a zero sign indicates that 

with 95 percent confidence we can’t be sure there is any relationship there at all. So for example, if you look at age that has a nega-
9

tive sign; it means that as people get older they become less supportive of America. Gender or rural, from what we can tell, with 

95 percent confidence we can’t be sure there is any difference between men and women and their attitudes about the United States 

or between urban residents or rural residents and how they feel 

about us. But if you look at wealth, you can see a positive relationship. So that wealthier individuals have a significant positive association with being supportive of the United States. So wealthier individuals tend to like the United States more. 

The second column shows the size of the effect, and a higher 

number indicates a stronger effect. So this number can be thought 

of as how likely an individual is to become more or less approving 

of the United States for each comparable increment of change. So, 

for example, the estimated effect of Muslim religion, which is 27.6, 

is three times as strong as the effect of wealth, which is 9.2. And 

from these standardized numbers, it indicates that religion has the 

largest effect on attitudes about the United States, wealth has the 

next largest effect, and followed by that is where people get their 

news, and finally demographic traits and personal contacts have 

the least strong effect. Going back again to the positive and negative, you will see that age has a negative effect, wealth has a positive effect, watching international news is a positive effect, television has a positive effect, radio has a negative effect, Internet 

users has a negative effect, contact with the United States and 

travel to the United States are both positive, Muslim is negative 

and Catholic is positive. 

So how can we make sense of this information? What does that 

really tell us about what is causing Africans to like or dislike the 

United States and why African attitudes are more positive than 

other regions of the world? Well, I evaluate and I use this information to evaluate several hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that Africans have less access to news that is critical of the United States 

and this hypothesis does receive support in the data. So while information per se does not seem to affect relative attitudes about 

America, let me go back again and show that education and knowledge do not seem to have a significant effect. What we do know is 

that certain types of media resources have a positive effect and 

other ones have negative effect. 

Africans who get their news from television or international news 

sources are significantly more inclined to say good things about the 

United States. Television viewers in Africa are likely to be watching state-owned television channels, especially when it comes to 

news programming. Since most African governments are dependent 

on Western donors, it seems logical that they would be wary of 

publicly criticizing their benefactors in their public television. 

Thus, television viewers may be faced with a more restrictive 

and positive portrayal of the United States than individuals who 

get their news from more diversified sources such as radios, newspapers, and Internet. So radios, there has been a large increase in 

private radios, the Internet there is obviously the same as the 

Internet here, much more diversified, whereas television is still 

largely controlled by the state. 

Furthermore, information from friends and relatives in the U.S. 

has a very positive effect, as does personal experiences of travel to 
10

the United States. Those all tend to boost support for the United 

States. So in sum it seems that Africans are more positively disposed toward the United States because many people in Africa get 

their news from state-owned media outlets, which probably portray 

the United States in a positive light. 

Going on to the second hypothesis is that the United States represents a place of economic and political opportunity and hope for 

many Africans. And if this hypothesis was correct, we would expect 

those Africans who are best able to take advantage of the educational employment and business opportunities to be most positively disposed toward the United States. And indeed that is what 

we seem to find here. So that younger men who are urbanized and 

educated, wealthy would tend to be—are tending to be more proAmerican as well as those who watch television are likely to see 

soap operas from the United States or other U.S. programming, 

and those especially who have personal contacts with the United 

States should feel positively about America according to this hypothesis, and they do. 

In addition, other analysis I have conducted, I found a strong relationship between pro-American sentiment and support for the 

American way of doing business, support for American ideas about 

democracy and support for globalization within Africa. So those 

things tend to be linked, and Africans tend to rank higher along 

those three dimensions, a fondness of United States business, ideas 

and globalization, than in other regions of the world. 

So it appears that within Africa pro-American attitudes are 

closely tied to perception of the United States as the land of political and economic opportunity and, furthermore, Africans are more 

likely to hold these perceptions of the United States than are people from other places in the world. 

Let me say this is not to say that Africans are entirely satisfied 

with the way the United States is conducting business or other 

kinds of activities abroad. A 2004 PIPA survey of eight African 

countries found that 60 percent believe rich countries are not playing fair in trade negotiations with poor countries. It appears that 

Africans’ main complaints are that they are being left out of the 

globalization trend and that they are not benefiting from the American wealth and democracy rather than a feeling of not wanting 

those things. 

The third hypothesis is that America’s image in Africa benefits 

from the close ties and cross-fertilization between American and 

African culture, and this is particularly so with respect to popular 

culture. The hypothesis here is that because there has been a lot 

of sharing between Africa and the United States, the popular culture that is transmitted to Africa promotes a sense of sharing rather than a sense of cultural imposition; the presence of African 

Americans in music videos or movies and in magazines or the hearing of familiar beats in our music tends to promote a feeling of 

shared benefit rather than one of animosity. It also seems that culture provides a less salient mobilizing agent for Africans vis-a-vis 

the West than it does in more culturally homogenous areas of the 

world. So the ethnic and religious plurality in Africa means that 

leaders have not tended to use a single type of identity, such as a 

religious identity or a cultural identity, to mobilize Africans against 
11

the West or that leaders have been less successful when they have 

tried to do that. 

In evaluating this hypothesis, it is many of the same kinds of individual traits that we found would be associated with support for 

our business economic and political opportunities from the previous 

hypothesis are also associated with support for popular culture, so 

that again, young, wealthier individuals who watch television and 

have a chance to travel to the United States or who have friends 

and family in the United States, we would expect those to be more 

supportive of American attitudes—of America if this hypothesis 

was correct, and indeed they are. But we can’t really distinguish 

between this hypothesis and the previous ones. So the most we can 

say is it seems that both our economic and political opportunities 

and our popular culture seem to be contributing to the pro-American attitudes. 

Before I move on though, I do want to emphasize again the 

strong effect of religious culture on attitudes about the United 

States within Africa, that the largest effect seems to be coming 

from the Muslim religion. From other analysis I have done, it 

seems that with respect to Muslims within Africa, their attitudes 

are primarily shaped by United States policies rather than attitudes about U.S. democracy or our popular culture or other kinds 

of things. Primarily Muslims in Africa are more negative because 

of our policies. 

The final hypothesis is that the United States continues to benefit from its historical anti-colonial stance and its reputation as a 

multi-racial society, especially when compared to major European 

powers that had colonies in the region. This hypothesis did not receive much support from what we can tell. Again I want to stress 

the limited ability given the data we had to evaluate these. But if 

anti-colonial stance was generating support for America, we would 

expect older individuals to be more pro-American since they lived 

through the period of decolonization. That is not the case. Even 

more convincingly, if we look at data from another survey and we 

look at attitudes about other countries; namely, Britain and 

France, we will see that those colonies—those countries today who 

are former British colonies tend to approve of Britain more so than 

the United States while non-British colonies tend to approve of the 

United States more than Britain, and we only have in this data set 

one French colony but that French colony approves of France much 

greater than it approves of the United States while the non-French 

colonies that includes both British colonies and a Belgian colony, 

they tend to approve of the United States slightly more than they 

approve of France. So the main point here is just that contact, 

whether it be historical or current contact, tends to boost support 

for a country rather than detract from it. 

I also want to say that other evidence has found that attitudes 

about the United States tend to be closely linked to attitudes about 

Europe. So it is not that we gained when the race-related riots in 

France occurred. Instead, attitudes about both Europe and the 

United States tend to move together. So what is good for us is good 

for the Europeans and what is bad for the Europeans also tends 

to be bad for us, in terms of Africans’ opinions. 
12

So let me conclude. Why are Africans so approving of the United 

States and why are pro-American attitudes so prevalent in Africa 

than elsewhere in the world? My analysis of public opinion data revealed several tentative conclusions. First, I think Africans are exposed to positive images of the United States in their media. African governments are dependent on foreign aid and are wary about 

criticizing foreign powers, and news programming created by statecontrolled media houses as well as international programs that 

come primarily from places like the VOA, BBC and CNN, primarily 

from Western sources, those are likely to deliver positive images, 

flattering images of the United States and such sources still dominate Africa’s media landscape. 

Contrary to my initial expectation, knowledge per se about 

United States foreign policies does not seem to affect African attitudes about America, but the tone of sources does seem to matter. 

Television, international programs, personal contacts and travels to 

the United States expand support and radio and Internet use reduce it. 

The evidence is also consistent with the second and third hypothesis that the United States seems to benefit from its image as a 

source of economic and political opportunity as well as from its desirable popular culture. America is admired as a land of milk, 

honey, Hollywood and hip-hop. And it seems that approval of 

American business, democracy, popular culture is higher in Africa 

than in other regions. The evidence at hand contradicts the notion 

that Africans favor the United States relative to Europe because of 

its anti-colonial stance, but I lack the evidence to evaluate this last 

hypothesis to a full extent. 

So how are African attitudes likely to change in the future? Well, 

let me say that most of the data I presented was from 2002, before 

the Iraq war. But it seems that there hasn’t been a steady precipitous decline throughout Africa since that time. The recent data, although it is quite limited, doesn’t show a sizable trend as it does 

in other regions of the world. Nevertheless, it is clear that 

unilateralism and the present administration are viewed quite negatively in the region, particularly by elites. As citizens of poor countries, Africans are more likely to believe in the central importance 

of multilateralism and to oppose foreign policies which systematically undermines the U.N. 

The U.S., I find, can counter negative attitudes with several 

things. The first is public diplomacy campaigns via the media seem 

like they would have an effect based on the evidence at hand. However, I want to stress that this alone; in other words, public diplomacy alone, is not going to maintain positive images. As African 

media diversifies, as it seems to be the trend these days, we won’t 

be able to control it, and that Africans are more likely to see a plurality of news about the United States that they are not getting 

now. So other ways that we can improve or counter negative attitudes is by increasing points of personal contact, by increasing the 

access to American goods, business opportunities, cultural exchange and development resources and democracy assistance, with 

more emphasis on multilateral institutions and policies and by 

working together with our European powers. 
13

1When I present evidence on the views of ‘‘Africans,’’ I am referring to Africans living in those 

countries and sub-national areas that are represented by survey evidence. The public opinion 

data comes disproportionately from former British colonies: relatively wealthy, developed, and 

democratic African countries and urban areas. The representative nature of each survey is detailed in subsequent footnotes. 

With respect to Africa, it seems that there is not a contradiction 

with what is better for public opinion about the United States and 

what actions are consistent with our ideas and our best interest. 

It seems that at least for Africa, we can achieve both by doing the 

same kinds of things. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moehler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEVRA COREN MOEHLER, PH.D., SCHOLAR, HARVARD

ACADEMY FOR INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

I. INTRODUCTION

Thank you for inviting me to address this Committee. I am delighted to have an 

opportunity to speak with you about how Africans view the United States, its people, its policies and its values. 

Much of the world has experienced a growing wave of anti-American sentiment 

in recent years. Various polls and attitudinal surveys appear to discern growing hostility to American foreign policy as well as to American society and culture. Yet, in 

Sub Saharan Africa, attitudes about the United States are generally positive. While 

anti-Americanism in the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America has attracted considerable attention, scholars have largely ignored the positive example of Africa. My 

research examines causes of African pro-Americanism, in hopes of assisting in the 

preservation of positive sentiments in Africa, and as means for discovering what 

might help improve America’s image elsewhere. 

My analysis of public opinion polls suggests that Africans1 are exposed to positive 

images of the United States through their media. African governments dependent 

on foreign assistance have a lot to lose from publicly criticizing western powers. 

News programs created by state-controlled media houses, as well as international 

programs from western sources, are likely to be especially flattering of the U.S. (and 

Europe). Contrary to my initial expectations, knowledge of U.S. foreign policies does 

not seem to affect attitudes about America. However, the tone of specific sources 

does appear to matter—with television (still largely state-controlled), international 

programs, personal contacts and travel to America expanding support for the United 

States and radio and internet use reducing it. 

The data is also consistent with the argument that Africans approve of the U.S. 

because they view it as source of economic and political opportunity as well as being 

the focus of an enticing popular culture. Interestingly, the U.S. does not seem to 

benefit relative to Europe from its historical image as an anti-colonial power or its 

image as a multi-racial society. If anything, former colonial powers seem to benefit 

from their larger historical or current involvement in Africa. The statistical results 

imply that greater access to American goods, business opportunities, cultural exchanges, development resources and democracy assistance would be welcomed by 

Africans, and would help to ensure that the U.S. retains its many friends among 

the African mass public. 

This testimony proceeds as follows: First, I establish that Africans are generally 

pro-American in both absolute and comparative terms. Second, I determine the 

characteristics that are associated with pro and anti-American individuals in Africa. 

Third, I describe five hypotheses for pro-American attitudes in Africa. To the extent 

possible, the hypotheses are evaluated against available public opinion data. I conclude by summarizing my main results, and then questioning the impact and future 

trajectory of African attitudes about the United States. 

II. PRO-AMERICAN ATTITUDES IN AFRICA

Public opinion polls show a robust positive picture of African attitudes about 

America. African expressions of approval for the United States: 1) exceed expressions of disapproval; 2) are more prevalent than pro-American attitudes in other regions of the world; 3) extend to support for different facets of American society; and 

4) persist over time and across polls. 
14

2The regions are as follows: 1) Sub Saharan Africa includes Angola, Ghana, Ivory Coast, 

Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda; 2) Eastern Europe includes 

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; 3) The industrial west includes Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy; 4) Latin America includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela; 5) Asia 

includes Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam; 

and 6) the Middle East and North Africa includes Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. 

First, the majority of survey respondents in Africa are positively disposed towards 

the United States. Between July and October 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes 

Project conducted survey interviews with more than 38,000 individuals living in 42 

countries, including 10 Sub Saharan African countries. Figure 1 shows the percent 

of respondents who answered that their opinion of the United States was ‘‘very favorable,’’ ‘‘somewhat favorable,’’ ‘‘somewhat unfavorable,’’ and ‘‘very unfavorable’’ for 

each African country and for each region of the world.2 The middle category represents those respondents who refused to answer the question or said they do not 

have an opinion. While there is some variation within Africa, the majority of respondents in every single African country included in the survey expressed favorable attitudes about the United States. Furthermore, the proportion of citizens who 

expressed unfavorable attitudes is as low as 9 percent in Ghana and never exceeds 

the 34 percent recorded in Senegal. 

Second, Africans are more favorably disposed towards the United States than respondents in other regions of the world. Figure 1 shows that highly enthusiastic 

United States supporters are most prevalent in Africa (at 34 percent). Along with 

Eastern Europe, Africa has the largest proportion of pro-American respondents: 

those who say they are somewhat or very favorable. Africans also espouse the least 

anti-American sentiment of the six regions.

Third, African approval of the United States extends beyond favorability for the 

country in general, to support for different aspects of American society and for its 

people. Table 1 shows the percentage of positive and negative opinions, out of the 

total number of respondents by region, for the ten different questions about the 
15

3 Note that the percentages of positive and negative responses do not total 100 because of nonresponse.

United States that were asked in the 2002 Pew Survey.3 The third column, the approval index equals the percentage of positive opinions minus the percentage of negative opinions, which can be used to judge the overall level of opinion about the 

United States. A positive number indicates a plurality of pro-American sentiment 

and a negative number indicates a plurality of negative perceptions. These data 

show that more Africans think that U.S. policies are increasing rather than lessening the gap between rich and poor countries, and that the spread of American 

ideas and customs is a bad rather than a good thing (although the magnitude of 

critical opinion was less severe in Africa than in other regions of the world). On all 

other fronts, more African respondents say they are pleased rather than dissatisfied 

with American behaviors, policies, qualities, products and accomplishments. 
16

4 In other words, the approval index (the percentage of positive responses minus the percentage of negative responses) is more positive (or less negative) in Africa than in other regions. 

Table 1 also indicates that Africa is the most approving region for seven of the 

ten dimensions quantified.4 African respondents expressed more pro-American than 

anti-American sentiments as compared to citizens in other regions when asked if 

they: 1) have favorable opinions about the United States; 2) like American ways of 

doing business; 3) like American ideas about democracy; 4) admire the United 

States for its technological and scientific advances; 5) think the United States takes 

into account the interests of other countries when making international policy deci-
17

5 Nationally representative surveys were conducted in all eight African countries: Democratic 

Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. In 

a report on the survey, the authors note: ‘‘The poll of 39,435 people was conducted for the BBC 

World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 33-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed between October 2005 and January 2006’’ (PIPA 2006). 

In analyzing and presenting the evidence, I exclude the responses from the United States. I also 

exclude the responses from a country if the question under consideration is about that country. 

For additional information about the survey see: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/. 6 In Africa, 34 percent answered that American foreign policy has a positive effect and 32 percent said it has a negative effect. In West Asia, 39 percent said that it has a positive effect and 

37 percent said it had a negative effect. However, for Asia as a whole, positive attitudes are 

much lower than for Africa because only 29 percent said that it has a positive effect and 50 

percent said it has a negative effect in Asia-Pacific (Gallup International Association 2004). 

Within Sub Saharan Africa, national surveys were conducted in Nigeria and South Africa. 

Urban areas were sampled in Ghana, Kenya, and Cameroon. For more information see: http:/

/www.voice-of-the-people.net/ 7The dependent variable, Pro-American Attitudes, is based on a question that asks ‘‘Please 

tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States.’’ This measure provides a four point scale of general orientation towards the United States. The national and regional distributions are depicted in Figure 1, however the middle category, no opinion, is excluded. Those individuals who did not answer the question are dropped from the analysis. 

sions; 6) think the United States’ policies lessen the gap between rich and poor 

countries; and 7) believe the spread of American ideas and customs is a good thing. 

Africa is second only to the industrial west when it comes to liking American popular culture (music, movies, and television). Africa is third of the six regions in expressions of positive opinions about the American people, and in favoring U.S.-led 

efforts to fight terrorism. The industrial west and Eastern Europe outrank Africa 

on these two dimensions, although Africa is still well above the figures for the world 

as a whole. In sum, Africans express greater approval than other regions of the 

world with respect to most facets of American society. 

Fourth, African expressions of affection for the United States are not simply a 

product of the Pew survey or lingering effects of 9/11 during the summer of 2002. 

A BBC World Service poll of 33 countries conducted between October 2005 and January 2006 also indicates that Africa is the region with the most positive assessment 

of the United States as compared to other regions of the world.5 In each of the eight 

African countries where the poll was conducted, more citizens responded that they 

thought the United States was ‘‘having a mainly positive influence in the world’’ 

than said it was ‘‘having a mainly negative influence.’’ Furthermore, the approval 

index (the percentage of positive responses minus the percentage of negative responses) was higher for Africa than for Eastern Europe, the industrial west, Latin 

America, Asia, and the Middle East. Additionally, in the 2004 Voice of the People 

annual survey by Gallup International Association, Africa is the only region where 

a larger percentage of citizens responded positively as opposed to negatively in response to the question ‘‘Generally, do you think American foreign policy has a positive effect on your country, a negative effect or does American foreign policy have 

no effect on your country?’’ 6 Three surveys spanning two years (each conducted by 

a different organization and including more than a dozen African countries) clearly 

depict Africans as especially pro-American. In sum, opinion polls record widespread, 

robust, multifaceted, and persistent support for the United States within Sub Saharan Africa. 

III. INDIVIDUAL TRAITS AND PRO-AMERICANISM IN AFRICA

What accounts for these relatively positive views of the United States among Africans? I begin to answer this question by comparing different individuals residing 

within Africa in order to gauge why some Africans have higher opinions of the 

United States than others. I investigate whether certain traits distinguish individuals who approve of the United States from those who disapprove. Statistical analysis allows us to evaluate the effect of a single trait while holding other attributes 

constant. For example, to evaluate the independent effect of gender on attitudes 

about the United States we can imagine comparing a man and a woman who are 

the same age and religion, and who have the same education, wealth, media habits, 

and so on. The model is estimated with a commonly used statistical technique: ordered logistical regression. 

For the statistical analysis I use the 2002 Pew Global Attitudes Project Survey, 

which is the most comprehensive and readily available data on African attitudes towards the United States (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 2002).7
18

8 I construct an index variable for wealth from four questions asking whether the respondent 

owns a cell phone and if their household has running water, a flush toilet, and a car 9The Pew survey did not include questions designed to gauge awareness. Therefore, I constructed an index variable, as a proxy for knowledge, based on ‘‘don’t know’’ responses to ten 

questions about various international issues such as terrorism, international trade, and the 

United Nations. For each survey question, the respondent received a point if they offered an 

answer, and they did not receive a point if they answered ‘‘don’t know.’’ 10 International news channels such as the BBC, CNN, Sky News, and CFI were mentioned 

as suggestions in the survey question. 11This variable records whether the respondent said they have friends or relatives living in 

the U.S. with whom they write, telephone, or visit regularly. 12Statistical significance is measured with a 95 percent confidence interval. 13The number is the absolute value of the standardized percent change in the odds ratio.

I consider the separate influences on pro-American attitudes of: demographic and 

socio-economic characteristics (age, gender, rural location of residence, wealth,8 education, and knowledge9); media exposure (international news channels,10 television, 

newspapers, radio, and internet); personal contacts (friends or family in U.S.,11 and 

travel to the U.S.); and religion. 

Table 2 displays the results of the analysis. In the first column, a plus sign indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between that trait and approval of the U.S. A minus sign indicates a significant negative relationship between 

that trait and approval of the U.S. A zero indicates that there is no statistically significant relationship between the trait and attitudes about the United States.12 For 

example, men are just as likely as women to approve of America. The second column 

provides a way to compare the strength of the influence.13 A higher number indicates a stronger effect. This number can be thought of as how likely it is that an 

individual will become more (or less) approving of the United States for each comparable increment of change. For example, the estimated effect of Muslim religion 

on approval of the United States (27.6) is three times as strong as the effect of 

wealth (9.2). 

Table 2: Ordered Logit Analysis of Pro-American Attitudes in Africa 

Direction of

Estimated Effect 

Standardized Size of 

Estimated Effect 

Age — 7.4

Gender (male) 0

Rural 0

Wealth + 9.2

Education 0

Knowledge 0

Watch intl. news + 7.9

Television + 8.4

Newspaper 0

Radio — 7.7

Internet user — 8.4

Contacts in U.S. + 5.6

Traveled to U.S. + 5.3

Muslim — 27.6

Catholic + 9.8

Source: Pew Research Center for People and the Press. 2002. ‘‘Global Attitudes Project 44-Nation Survey.’’
19

14 It is possible that U.S. support for democratic activists could provoke authoritarian leaders 

to demonize foreign governments in their attempts to discredit their domestic opposition. This 

has already happened to varying degrees in places like Zimbabwe and Uganda. However, demonization of the U.S. exacts great economic and political costs for leaders and most will be 

deterred from taking such a stance. 

Age has a negative estimated influence on approval of the United States. Older 

respondents are less pro-American than younger respondents. Wealth on the other 

hand is positively related to pro-American sentiments. Africans who possess consumer goods and creature comforts in their homes are more likely to express positive views of the United States. 

Individuals who watch international news channels and get their news from the 

television are more likely to be pro-American, as are Africans who communicate regularly with friends and family in the United States or are among those few who 

have traveled to the United States. However, individuals who get their news from 

the radio and who use the internet are less likely to report positive assessments of 

the United States. Gender, rural residence, education, knowledge, and newspaper 

readership are not significantly related to attitudes about the U.S. 

The standardized numbers in the second column of Table 2 indicate that religion 

has the largest effect. In particular, the effect of being Muslim is nearly three times 

as large as the effect of any other trait. Just as the Muslim religion has a strong 

negative estimated effect on attitudes about the United States, Catholicism has a 

strong positive effect. Wealth has the next largest effect followed by the measures 

of where people get their news. The demographic traits and personal contacts seem 

to have less effect on how Africans view the United States. 

IV. EVALUATION OF HYPOTHESES

What can this statistical analysis tell us about the phenomena that generate pro 

and anti-American attitudes? To gain a greater understanding I evaluate whether 

five different hypotheses about African attitudes are consistent with the evidence 

at hand. 

Media Exposure and Knowledge of U.S. Policy 

The first hypothesis is that Africans may be more pro-American because they are 

exposed to less information about U.S. policies than people who live elsewhere in 

the world. Dissatisfaction with American foreign policy seems to be one of the main 

causes of anti-Americanism elsewhere in the world. Africans tend to be less well informed about American policy due to lower media exposure and the limited range 

of media sources in Africa. The media landscape in Africa is still dominated by the 

government outlets. Furthermore, only a small minority of Africans have access to 

satellite TV, in contrast with the Middle East, Europe, and parts of Asia. Those who 

do have access to international news broadcasts usually tune in to programs from 

the United States and Europe rather than from other African countries. In essence, 

‘the CNN effect’ is more limited in Africa and ‘the Al Jazeera Effect’ is non-existent. 

As a result, Africans probably have less access to information about American foreign policies, especially those policies which might detract from the U.S.’s positive 

image abroad. 

The assumption underlying this hypothesis is that knowledge about U.S. foreign 

policies is associated with negative attitudes about America. If this were the case, 

then I would expect my proxy for knowledge of foreign issues to be negatively related to pro-American attitudes. I would also expect those Africans who are most 

exposed to information about the U.S. policies to be the least pro-American. Education, male gender, urban residence, watching international news channels, reading newspapers, using the internet, maintaining contacts in the United States, and 

travel to the United States should be negatively related to pro-American attitudes 

if the hypothesis is correct. 

Strangely, the empirical evidence is not consistent with this hypothesis. Except 

for internet use, all of the estimated relationships are zero or the opposite of what 

the hypothesis would lead us to expect. It seems African support for the United 

States exists regardless of how much individuals know about U.S. policies. 

While information per se does not seem to be related to attitudes about America, 

a person’s chosen source of information does seem to matter. Africans who get their 

news from television are significantly more inclined to say good things about the 

U.S. Television viewers in Africa are likely to be watching state-owned channels, especially when it comes to news programming. Since most African governments are 

dependent on western donors, it seems logical that they would be wary of publicly 

criticizing their benefactors on television.14 Thus, television viewers may face a 
20

15 It is true that the majority of Africans get their news from radio, but even Africans who 

are radio listeners are more pro-American than citizens in other regions of the world. Although 

radio is becoming more diversified in Africa, government broadcasts are still more widely available and popularly trusted than private stations. It may also be the case that private stations 

also portray a largely positive image of the U.S.. So, though radio broadcasts in Africa may be 

more diversified and critical of U.S. policies than television broadcasts, even Africans who listen 

to radio are probably exposed to more restricted and pro-American news programming than people who live in other regions. 

more restricted and positive portrayal of the United States than individuals who get 

their news from more diversified sources such as radio, newspapers, and the internet. Broadcasters on private FM stations and newspapers might feel less constrained, not only about criticizing their own governments, but also about criticizing 

foreign powers.15 It appears that particular news sources deliver different messages 

about whether or not U.S. policies are beneficial or harmful. As noted earlier, individuals who acquire information from personal contacts in America, and who travel 

to the United States, are also more pro-American. 

In sum, it seems that Africans are more positively disposed towards the U.S., not 

because they know less, but because many people in Africa get their news from 

state-owned media outlets, which probably portray the United States in a positive 

light. Others found similar results in the Muslim world where exposure to different 

sources of information (most notably CNN versus Al Jazeera) have divergent effects 

on peoples’ opinions about the U.S.. In Africa and the Muslim world—and possibly 

elsewhere—it seems that what people hear about U.S. policies matters more than 

how much they hear, at least in terms of shaping attitudes about America. 

The United States as the Land of Milk and Honey 

The second hypothesis is that the United States represents a place of economic 

and political opportunity and hope for many Africans. The public image of the 

United States in Africa tends to be one of immense wealth, educational and employment opportunities, political freedoms, and democracy. This image is reinforced by 

the media and cultural materials, as well as by Africans who have traveled abroad 

and by Americans who visit Africa. Views of the U.S. are certainly more complex 

than this, and resentment as well as admiration can also result from the perception 

of American wealth and power. However, it is plausible that ‘the United States as 

the land of milk and honey’ acts as a symbol of what many Africans hope to achieve, 

a place to which some hope to travel, and a source of benefits that can improve their 

lives in Africa. 

If this hypothesis were correct, I would expect that those Africans who are best 

able to take advantage of educational, employment, and business opportunities 

would be most positively disposed towards the United States. Younger men who are 

urbanized, educated, and wealthy and plugged into the World Wide Web would be 

expected to be the most pro-American according to this hypothesis. In addition, people who have close friends and relatives in the United States and who have traveled 

here would be more likely to benefit directly or indirectly from U.S. wealth and political freedoms. These personal contacts, along with government and privatelyowned television stations that screen American soap operas and television programs, which typically portray the most opulent sectors of American society, would 

be assumed to be the most influential sources for promoting the U.S. image as a 

land of great wealth and opportunity. If the second hypothesis is accurate, then Africans who watch television and have personal contacts with the U.S. should feel 

positively about America. 

The empirical evidence presented in Table 2 is generally consistent with these 

predictions. Youth and wealth are significantly associated with pro-American attitudes, although gender and rural residence are not. Internet use has the opposite 

effect. Television viewers are more pro-American, as are individuals with contacts 

in the U.S. and those who have traveled to the U.S.. In addition, in other analysis 

I found a strong relationship between pro-American sentiments and support for 

American ways of doing business, support for American ideas about democracy and 

support for globalization. Furthermore, Africa ranks higher along these three dimensions (fondness for U.S. business, ideas about democracy, and globalization) 

than any other region of the world. It appears that, within Africa, pro-American attitudes are closely tied to perceptions of the U.S. as a land of political and economic 

opportunity, and that Africans are more likely to hold these perceptions than nonAfricans. 

This is not to say that Africans are entirely satisfied with globalization or with 

U.S. business practices. A PIPA (2004b) survey of 8 African countries revealed that 

‘‘while they show considerable enthusiasm for globalization, strong majorities of Africans (60% overall) believe that rich countries are not playing fair in trade negotia-
21

tions with poor countries.’’ Similarly, in the Pew survey (2002), 71.1 percent expressed positive opinions about the U.S. and at the same time, a plurality of 40.7 

percent said that U.S. policies increase the gap between rich and poor countries. 

However, it appears that Africans’ main complaints are that they are being left out 

of the globalization revolution and thus not benefiting as much as others from world 

trade and U.S. wealth. In general, Africans seem to desire more not fewer interactions with western powers. African animosities are thus very different from those 

that find expression in the ‘‘globalization backlash’’ that has swept through other 

regions of the world. 

The United States as Cultural Icon 

The third hypothesis is that America’s image in Africa benefits from the close ties 

and cross-fertilization between American and African culture, particularly with respect to popular culture. Africans and Americans of African descent have profoundly 

shaped American culture. Conversely, hip-hop culture is reflected in popular African 

dress and music, Hollywood films provide entertainment for millions in Africans, 

and Coca-Cola and hamburgers serve as refreshment even in the remotest locations. 

The visible presence of African-Americans in the music videos, films, and fashion 

magazines that are distributed in Africa promotes a feeling of cultural sharing rather than one of cultural imposition. It reinforces the image of the U.S. as both multiracial and as a land of opportunity for Africans. 

It also seems that culture provides a less salient mobilizing agent for Africans visa`-vis the west than it does in more culturally homogeneous areas of the world. The 

ethnic and religious pluralism within countries as well as between countries in Africa means that no single cultural appeal is likely to attract a majority of the population. Those who sought to unite Africans around the notion of a shared ‘African’ 

identity in order to counter the power of external forces have not found fertile 

ground in the same ways that Arab Nationalism or Islamic brotherhood might have 

appealed to large sections of the population in the Middle East. 

Many of the same individual-level traits mentioned in the previous section are 

also expected to be associated with those who would have the most access to and 

enjoyment of American popular culture: young wealthy city dwellers who watch television, use the internet, have contacts in the U.S. or have traveled there themselves, 

are more likely to have access to and enjoy American popular music, movies, television, food, and fashions. 

As mentioned above, the data are generally supportive of these predictions. However, from the evidence presented in Table 2, I am unable to distinguish between 

the previous hypothesis and this one. From additional analysis, I found that the estimated influence of opinions about U.S. business (or democracy) is significantly 

greater than the influence of opinions of U.S. popular culture, although both effects 

are strong. This suggests that while both hypotheses may be correct, the former 

seems to be slightly more influential. Nevertheless, it seems likely that perceptions 

of America as a land of opportunity and affinities for American popular culture are 

mutually reinforcing orientations that together bolster pro-American attitudes. 

Before I move on, I must also note the strong effect of religious culture on attitudes about the United States. Muslims are significantly more likely than non-Muslims to express anti-American attitudes and to reject American music, movies and 

television. The effects are the opposite for Catholics. The size of the estimated effect 

of being Muslim dwarfs the effects of other individual level traits, and approaches 

the estimated effects of the attitudinal variables. It is difficult to say whether the 

greater anti-Americanism among Muslims results from of a clash of culture or a difference of opinion on foreign policy, but it seems to be more the latter. When considering only Muslims respondents in Africa, the estimated effect of U.S. international 

policies is significantly greater than the effect of U.S. popular culture (whereas they 

were indistinguishable for the full sample). 

The United States as an Anti-Colonial Power 

The fourth hypothesis is that the United States continues to benefit from its historical anti-colonial stance, especially in comparison to the major European powers 

that had colonies in the region. In Africa, one might expect such resentments to be 

directed at former colonial powers in Europe rather than at the United States. Historical resentments may also be sustained by patterns of post-colonial involvement. 

American military interventions have been less visible in Sub Saharan Africa when 

compared to the campaigns of European powers. To be sure, the U.S. government 

did provide substantial financial and technical assistance to anti-communist 

insurgencies in Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique in the 1980s. The United States 

was also involved in many covert operations, often with serious negative consequence, but most Africans are probably not well informed about these activities. 
22

16These results are based on the approval index for attitudes towards the U.S. (percentage 

of positive minus percentage of negative responses), minus a similarly constructed index for attitudes towards the other country. This tells us the degree to which the excess of positive attitudes towards the United States exceeds (or lags behind) the excess of positive attitudes towards 

the other country. 17The former British colonies surveyed include Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. The survey also included the Democratic Republic of Congo and Senegal. 

The results reported here are the same regardless of whether South Africa is included in the 

list of former British colonies or not. 18The PIPA survey was conducted in the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, 

Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. 

By comparison, the Portuguese army fought long colonial wars well into the 1970s, 

and the French intervened militarily in the region in an often overtly partisan manner until the mid 1990s (including, notoriously, on behalf of the Hutu regime in 

Rwanda in 1994). Strikingly, the U.S. has refused involvement in any of the violent 

civil conflicts that have torn West Africa apart over the last two decades. In sharp 

contrast with other regions of the world, in Liberia today, it appears to be the absence of an American military intervention that is resented. 

If colonial and anti-colonial historical legacies are at play, then I would expect 

older individuals to feel more positively about the United States. Older individuals 

would have been alive during colonial rule and may have been involved in, or at 

least aware of the independence struggles of anti-colonials. They would also be more 

likely to remember action taken by the U.S. in support of nationalist self-determination on the continent. However, this is not the case. Africans from earlier generations are significantly less inclined than the African youth to say positive things 

about the United States. If anything, greater historical perspective is damning rather than flattering for America’s image. 

The data from two other public opinion polls also contradict the hypothesis that 

the U.S. derives support from its anti-colonial stance in Africa. African resentment 

of foreign powers does not appear to be focused more on their former colonizers in 

Europe than on America. In general, African respondents from the eight countries 

surveyed in the 2005/6 BBC World Service poll reported that Britain, England, and 

Europe were having a more positive influence on the world than the U.S.—although 

this was also true in every other region of the world (PIPA 2006).16 More tellingly, 

Africans in each of the former British colonies rated Britain higher than did Africans in former French or Belgian colonies.17 Former subjects of the British crown 

also rated Britain better than the U.S. on average, while Africans who were not in 

former British colonies were more approving of the U.S. than Britain. Respondents 

in Senegal, the only former French colony surveyed in Africa, had a higher opinion 

of France than any of the African countries. Senegalese respondents also viewed 

France more positively than the U.S., while respondents in other countries rated the 

U.S. higher than France on average. Evidence from additional African countries, especially former French colonies, is necessary to draw firm conclusions. Nevertheless, 

it seems that Africans feel most attracted to their former European rulers. Contrary 

to the hypothesis, the United States looks less, not more, favorable in comparison 

to former colonial powers. 

Last, individual-level evidence from an additional opinion poll conducted by PIPA 

at the end of 2003 implies that Africans form attitudes about the U.S. in conjunction 

with rather than in contrast to their attitudes about Europe. In a report on the survey of 7,556 Africans in seven Sub Saharan African countries,18 the authors write: 

‘‘Perhaps most interesting, views of Europe are very positively correlated with positive views of the U.S.. Africans do not appear to be making a distinction between 

Europe and the U.S..’’ The same process seems to generate attitudes about Europe 

and attitudes about the U.S.. 

In sum, the thesis that support for the U.S. is a function of its anti-colonial stance 

(in contrast with Europe) is at odds with evidence from three different public opinion polls: 1) those with greater historical perspective are less, not more, supportive 

of the U.S.; 2) to my surprise, Africans seem to prefer their former colonial rulers 

more than the U.S.; and 3) those who disapprove of former colonial powers are also 

more likely to reject the U.S.. America does not look better because, historically, it 

was less involved in Africa, and any antipathy towards Europe is likely to generate 

condemnation of the U.S. as well. 

The United States as a Multi-Racial Society 

The final hypothesis is that the image of the United States in Africa is bolstered 

by a perception in Africa that America is a multi-racial society. The presence of African-Americans in positions of power and importance is viewed as evidence that U.S. 

society is open to men and women of African origin. To be sure, Africans are aware 
23

19Leaders who lose the favor of Western governments may be more willing to publicly act 

against the interests of the U.S. thereafter. 

of the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S.. Nonetheless, one might expect that 

the United States is viewed in a favorable light in comparison with the European 

countries on this front as well. The fact that a French or British equivalent to Colin 

Powell or Condoleeza Rice is at present more or less inconceivable, is important to 

shaping attitudes about the United States as a society which offers greater possibilities to men and women of color. 

Unfortunately, the available evidence is insufficient to evaluate the hypothesis 

and what little I can glean from the data presents a contradictory picture. Those 

who get their news from television would be most likely to know about AfricanAmerican leaders such as Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice. As expected, television 

has a positive influence on attitudes about the United States, although this can be 

for alternative reasons mentioned earlier. On the flip side, I have already noted that 

the African respondents do not like the United States better than Europe as this 

thesis also implies. There is no evidence that the image of Europe suffers relative 

to America due to a perception of more restricted opportunity for Africans or African-Americans. Support for American ways of doing business, ideas about democracy, and popular culture may be enhanced by the presence of African-Americans 

in American movies, television, videos, and magazines, but I do not have the empirical evidence to test this hypothesis. 

V. CONCLUSION

Why are Africans so approving of the United States and why are pro-American 

attitudes more prevalent in Africa than elsewhere in the world? My analysis of public opinion data yields several tentative conclusions. First, I think that Africans are 

primarily exposed to positive images of the United States in their media. African 

governments dependent on foreign aid are especially wary of criticizing western 

powers. News programs created by state-controlled media houses, as well as international programs distributed by western sources, are likely to be especially flattering to the United States. Such sources still dominate Africa’s media landscape. 

Contrary to my initial expectations, knowledge of U.S. foreign policies does not seem 

to alter attitudes about America. However, the tone of particular sources does appear to be important. Television, international programs, personal contacts, and 

travel increases support for the United States and radio and internet use reduce it. 

The evidence is consistent with the second and third hypotheses. The United 

States seems to benefit from its image as a source of economic and political opportunity, as well as from its desirable popular culture. America is admired as ‘a land 

of milk, honey, Hollywood, and hip-hop’ and approval of American business, democracy, and popular culture is higher in Africa than in other regions. 

The evidence at hand contradicts the notion that Africans favor the U.S. relative 

to Europe because of its anti-colonial stance, and I lack the evidence to evaluate 

whether Africans appreciate America because it is seen as a multi-racial society. 

However, I can say that racial tensions within Europe do not seem to make the U.S. 

look better in comparison. 

What effect does the abundance of popular support for the United States within 

Africa have on political outcomes? My contention is that the direct effects of public 

opinion on government policies are likely to be somewhat muted in Africa where 

leaders have little leverage vis-a`-vis the United States. African governments are 

heavily dependent on foreign assistance and face potentially devastating expected 

costs for acting against U.S. interests on important issues, even if their publics support them.19 Eritrea and Ethiopia joined the ‘‘coalition of the willing’’ in order to 

curry favor with international power brokers and donors, not because of demands 

from their populations. 

In contrast to the effect of foreign policy, mass attitudes are likely to be far more 

important for U.S. programs aimed at mobilizing African publics for state-building, 

democratization, development, and anti-terrorism. Increasingly, U.S. agencies are 

bypassing national governments to work with non-state actors and local-level leaders. It is precisely in these arenas that popular opinions matter most. Furthermore, 

the success of these grass roots mobilization campaigns are more important for securing U.S. interests in the region than whether or not African governments lend 

their (usually verbal) support to U.S. military campaigns or sign favored international agreements. In short pro-Americanism among the mass public enhances 

U.S. soft power in the region thereby facilitating the achievement of U.S. policy 

goals 
24

20For example, in a PIPA public opinion poll conducted in July and August 2004, a plurality 

of survey respondents in Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania claimed that: ‘‘the foreign 

policy of President George W. Bush made them feel worse about the United States.’’ Respondents in these same countries said they preferred to see John Kerry, rather than George W. 

Bush, win the U.S. presidential election. Only in Nigeria did more respondents say that Bush’s 

policies made them feel better. A larger number Nigerians said they preferred Bush to win the 

election than Kerry (PIPA 2004a). For additional survey results on African attitudes about recent U.S. foreign policies see Howard (2004). 

How are attitudes likely to change in the future? This exercise is necessarily speculative and depends on assumptions about the continuity of causal processes over 

time. Nevertheless, I can make a few observations about future trends. First , it is 

important to note that the individual-level analysis in this paper employed Pew survey data that was collected prior to the 2003 Iraq War (Pew Research Center for 

the People and the Press 2002). It is possible that things have already changed. It 

is very difficult to determine exact trends over time from the available data for Africa. Comparisons across different surveys are fraught with difficulty because question wording and survey sampling procedures vary from one polling agency to another. Perhaps there was some slippage in the standing of the U.S., especially just 

after the war began, but it is fair to say that within Africa as a whole, there was 

not a dramatic or ubiquitous secular decline in positive attitudes about the U.S. as 

a result of the war. 

The best comparable trend data from a single pollster comes from the Gallup 

Voice of the People surveys; though they only collected data over time for five countries and the data is limited to a one or two year spread (Gallup International Association 2004). From January to May 2003, South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya 

showed a decline in approval of American foreign policy, possibly as a result of the 

Iraq War. However, by December, South Africa and Uganda had bounced back to 

higher levels than in January. Nigeria and Kenya continued to slide in their approval of U.S. foreign policy. Cameroon was the main exception. Attitudes towards 

U.S. policy rose from January to May and then fell between May and December 

though they remained higher than in January (Gallup International Association 

2004). We can also look at self-reported change in attitudes. In a 2003 poll commissioned by the State Department’s Office of Research, respondents in six African 

countries were asked whether their view of the United States had changed in the 

past year. Pluralities in Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon, Kenya, and Tanzania reported 

that their opinions had not changed. In Ghana a plurality of 35 percent said that 

their opinions were more favorable. Of those who said their opinions had changed, 

a majority said that their opinions were less favorable in Senegal, Cameroon, 

Kenya, and Tanzania, while a majority said their opinions were more favorable in 

Ghana and Nigeria. Nationally representative samples were acquired in Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon, and urban samples were taken for Senegal, Kenya and Tanzania (Howard 2004, 4). Finally, the 2004 Gallup Voice of the People Survey and 

the 2005/6 BBC World Service poll record that, long after the war began, African 

support for the U.S. remains both widespread and higher than in other regions (Gallup International Association 2004; PIPA 2006). 

Nonetheless, it is clear that the unilateralism of the present administration is 

viewed negatively in the region, particularly by elites.20 As citizens of poor countries, Africans are more likely to believe in the central importance of multilateralism 

and in the United Nations, and to oppose a foreign policy which systematically undermines that institution. It is difficult to tell whether the increasingly negative attitudes towards the present administration and its policies will translate into a 

more permanent shift in attitudes towards the United States. I suspect the answer 

to this question depends in large part on the evolution of American policy over the 

next decade. The U.S. retains a positive image because of general factors described 

in this testimony which have demonstrated lasting influence. But the U.S. may 

come to be viewed in a sharply different light in the coming years if current administration policies are sustained. 

Furthermore, it does seem that selected Muslim populations have lost much of 

their faith in America. Polling data suggests that Muslims in Africa, especially in 

homogeneous Islamic areas within countries, are more likely to oppose this administration’s current policies in the Middle East. However, it seems that non-Muslim 

populations (notably in countries such as Nigeria where there are religious tensions) 

may have adopted a more positive view in reaction to Muslim attitudes (Howard 

2004, 7–8). So even if average levels of support for the U.S. are stable, opinions may 

become more polarized over time. 

Moreover, if sympathy to the U.S. is based on lack of exposure to critical media, 

this may change in the future as media diversifies. It is important to recognize that 
25

growing media penetration or familiarity with the U.S. will not necessarily alter 

opinions of America. Attitudes will depend on what kind of media and contacts Africans are exposed to in the future. Televisions are becoming more prevalent, which 

would suggest a growth in pro-American attitudes. Yet, at the same time, privatelyowned and foreign media are attracting larger audiences in Africa. The growth of 

private broadcasters may spell the decline of flattering U.S. images that Africans 

currently see on their television sets, just as it has already begun to change the 

messages that Africans hear on their radios. For example, if Africans tune in to the 

new Al Jazeera English-language service, watching television and international 

news channels may generate negative rather than positive changes in attitudes towards the U.S. 

Our analysis suggests that the United States can counter these potentially negative influences with public diplomacy campaigns via the media, as well as by increasing points of personal contact. Work or travel visas and educational scholarships seem to have lasting positive influences on those individuals who spend time 

in the U.S. More importantly, they also increase support for America among the 

many friends and family who remain in Africa. Additionally, if more Africans are 

able to enjoy the economic, political, and cultural benefits of globalization, support 

for the United States should increase. The statistical results imply that greater access to American goods, business opportunities, cultural exchanges, development resources and democracy assistance would be welcomed by Africans, and would help 

to ensure that the U.S. retains its many allies in the African mass public. 

Finally, I want to reiterate that the images of the United States and Europe are 

linked in the minds of most Africans. Rather than making the U.S. look better in 

comparison, the anger and resentment of immigrant populations in Europe (that 

boiled over into riots in Paris last November) may soil the image of the U.S. as well. 

Likewise, unpopular U.S. actions abroad could impact Europe’s standing in Africa 

even if it does not support such actions. Definite conclusions must await additional 

data, but it seems that the fates of western countries are linked when it comes to 

their soft power in Africa. Thus it behooves western governments to work together 

on public diplomacy rather than in opposition to one another. 

CITED WORKS

Gallup International Association. 2004. U.S. Foreign Policy Effect: An Overall Negative Opinion across the World [Voice of the People Survey 2004]. [cited April 17 

2006]. Available from http://www.voice-of-the-people.net/ContentFiles/files/

VoP2004/US%20Foreign%20Policy%20Effect%20-

%20An%20Overall%20Negative%20Opinion%20Across%20the%20World.doc. 

Howard, Jonathan P. 2004. ‘‘Opinion of the U.S. In Sub-Saharan Africa.’’ Paper read 

at Cornell Workshop on Anti-Americanism in Comparative Perspective, April 

22–25, at Ithaca, NY. 

Katzenstein, Peter J., and Robert O. Keohane, eds. 2007. Anti-Americanisms in 

World Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2002. Pew Global Attitudes 

Project: Summer 2002 44-Nation Survey [cited April 17 2006]. Available from 

http://people-press.org/dataarchive/. 

Pipa. 2004a. Global Public Opinion on the US Presidential Election and US Foreign 

Policy, Questionnaire and Methodology Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland in conjunction with GlobeScan [cited April 

17 2006]. Available from http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/sep04/USElection—

Sep04—quaire.pdf. 

Pipa. 2004b. Poll of 8 African Nations. Program on International Policy Attitudes 

of the University of Maryland in conjunction with GlobeScan [cited April 17 

2006]. Available from http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brafricara/

138.php?nid=&id=&pnt=138&lb=braf. 

Pipa. 2006. Bbc World Service Poll: Global Views of Countries, Questionnaire and 

Methodology. Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of 

Maryland in conjunction with GlobeScan for BBC World Service [cited April 17 

2006]. Available from http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb06/

ViewsCountries—Feb06—quaire.pdf. 
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, thank you, Doctor. And I am going to call 

on Mr. Payne to inquire. But before I do, I just want to make one 

observation. In all of the previous testimony that we have elicited 

in the course of these hearings, it appeared to me that public diplomacy really had, at least our current efforts in terms of public diplomacy at best was on the margins, but given what you described 

as the media outlets in Africa that it would appear to make sense 

to give special emphasis to public diplomacy as it relates to the 

continent. That was one observation. 

Another observation in the first graph that we saw, I noted 

where I think it was the Ivory Coast had a much larger percentage—thank you. Yeah, the Ivory Coast had this very large, 41 percent very favorable, as opposed to Tanzania, which was 17 percent. 

Why? And why don’t you pose that question and then I will go directly to Mr. Payne. If you can answer that question in terms of 

the the disparity between the Ivory Coast and Tanzania. And if you 

would respond just to my own observation about public diplomacy 

being—or at least a well thought out public diplomacy as it relates 

to Africa has the potential to be more effective than anywhere else 

that I can contemplate given what we have heard, you know, from 

others that testified about world opinion and regional opinion elsewhere. 

Ms. MOEHLER. First, in terms of between the different countries, 

the short answer is I don’t have a conclusive answer to that. However, I do have some ideas about what it might be, and with respect to Ivory Coast at the top and Tanzania at the bottom and 

some of the countries that are toward the extremes, I think a lot 

of it might have to do with historical images of those countries and 

what leaders have told their publics about the West in the past. So 

that would be my somewhat speculative answer, but I think that 

has something to do with it. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is there a larger percentage of the population in 

Tanzania Islamic? 

Ms. MOEHLER. Than the Ivory Coast? I believe so, but I don’t 

think that is solely responsible for those differences. Because you 

have other countries like Nigeria with a sizable Muslim population 

which are more toward the top. With Tanzania in particular, my 

speculative answer would be it has to do with a legacy, of a more 

go-it-alone strategy in the past, a more socialist strategy in the 

past, and that influenced public opinions about the West more 

broadly, but again that is not conclusive. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Payne? 

Ms. MOEHLER. I would like to address the other point about public diplomacy that you raised. First, I want to stress that the effect 

of the media was not the strongest effect of the different factors 

that I mentioned. So the effect of Muslim religion was stronger, the 

effect of wealth was stronger. So it is not the most significant. 

The other thing I want to say is that what we are finding here 

is the effect of being able to cut out a diverse source of information 

rather than, for example, the source be an effect of the U.S. delivering good information. Those might not be the same thing. So people who are watching African TV are not getting a diverse source 

of information, plus United States public diplomacy campaigns. 

They are getting only the positive image. So whether or not in 
41

other parts of the world delivering positive images on top of what 

is largely negative images in the media might not do much. That 

is my answer to that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. Thank you very much. Your testimony has two 

main sections. One, defining on a country-by-country level of 

favorability toward the United States and findings using statistical 

analysis of individual background characteristics of factors that influence African attitude. Taking the country findings first, could 

you tell us what countries were included, how large the samples 

were and whether they included a fair share of rural as well as 

urban residents? And are you comfortable generalizing the results 

of Africa as a whole? 

Ms. MOEHLER. Yeah. So if you will look at the image that we 

have up there, I put a star next to the countries that were urban 

samples. So that would be Ivory Coast, Mali, Senegal and Angola. 

Having said that, we didn’t find a sizable influence of being urban 

or being rural on attitudes about the United States. So I am not 

sure that a countrywide or a national survey would deliver different results had we had those in those countries. 

I do want—I mean I started out by saying the data on Africa is 

limited. And so we have to treat this as tentative, the conclusions 

that I am making, as tentative. Having said that, they don’t seem 

to be fragile, meaning that we get the same results across polls, 

across time and across countries for the most part. So while there 

is some variation, if you compare Africa to the rest of the world, 

it really stands out as being different. 

I do want to make the additional caveat, though, we do not have 

data from very poor, failed states, authoritarian or seriously authoritarian regimes. I don’t believe so, again, we are getting a picture of a part of Africa. 

Mr. PAYNE. In Africa, in general, you know, believe it or not, of 

all the immigrant groups coming into the United States, African 

immigrants are the best educated immigrants that migrate into the 

United States. Do you believe that—you mentioned something 

about the relationship back and forth between African and people 

who were in the United States. How much of a factor—one, the fact 

that you have so many highly educated, you know, Nigerians, I 

don’t know, 20,000 or 30,000 doctors, I mean just some tremendous 

number, accountants, and believe it or not, in a hospital in Harlem 

over 50 percent of the—this is not Africa, but about 50 percent of 

the doctors at that hospital are Haitian doctors in the United 

States. So what relationship of the positiveness do you think is 

weighted in that? 

Ms. MOEHLER. Well, what I can say is having friends or family 

in the United States or having traveled oneself to the United 

States does definitely boost attitudes about the United States. So 

what we see is not just an effect on those who come to work in the 

United States, but there is a multiplier effect because all of their 

friends and family, which tends to increase by, you know, 30- or 

40-fold, are also benefiting in terms of their attitudes about the 

United States from the presence of one family member here in the 

United States or even one family member who might travel to the 
42

United States. So that really, I think, has the potential to be very, 

very important for African attitudes about the United States. 

And as was mentioned earlier, travel to the United States in general is declining, and I think that would bode quite ill for attitudes 

about the United States more generally. I also want to say that—

I mean, I can’t say whether or not it is a factor of educated people 

being here or non-educated people being here, but just that the influence of having those personal contacts really is a positive thing 

for public opinion. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Just finally, I think you did touch on it a bit, 

but I ask as an African American to American and cultural instead 

of music, that beat, you know, we have the same beat, you know, 

but how much of an impact—I will give you an example. In the 

early days when there was a referendum in southwest Africa, Namibia actually was getting its independence maybe 20 years ago, 

and they were strongly under the Soviet domination, you know, all 

the independence groups like NC got support from the Soviets because the United States supported the colonialists in Western Europe primarily, and I was asked to represent the United States in 

a debate with a Soviet parliamentarian about which way Namibia 

should go, whether it should have ties with the United States or 

should it remain friendly with its former Soviet, you know, they 

were using words like patriots and all of that stuff. And really, I 

didn’t have very much ammunition. This Soviet guy was eating me 

up, you know, talking about the bombs that fell in Namibia that 

were made in the United States and so on and so forth. And I don’t 

like to lose debates, so I finally came up with a trump card and 

I said, well, let me tell you something, do you think he can—he understands you more than me? You know, I come from—I am the 

brother, right? So the poor Soviet guy. What do you say about that? 

So it was about the only trump card I had. I think I might have 

been a draw maybe at the end of the day with that. 

But how much do you feel that still is kind of a strong kind of 

relationship? 

Ms. MOEHLER. Yeah. I mean we do—the evidence does indicate 

that that is a factor. So if we look at what the relationship is between people who say they like American popular culture in Africa 

and people who say they like the United States more generally, 

there is a pretty strong relationship there. So it does seem that 

those two are going together. But let me say that people’s attitudes 

when they say that they like American ideas about democracy or 

American economic—American ways of doing business, the democracy and the business trump culture for Africans. So it seems that 

our ideas about democracy and our economic opportunities are 

more important to them than our popular culture, but all three do 

seem to matter. 

Mr. PAYNE. And finally this cultural tie between the former colonial power and the African country. You said there is still a stronger relationship between——

Ms. MOEHLER. Yeah. I mean, it was a big surprise to me to find 

that. And thinking about it more, my sense is that it has to do with 

the continued involvement of those countries that—what the data 

seems to indicate is that Africans look favorably upon more contact 

with the United States or with Europe and they want more from 
43

us, they want us to do more in terms of economic development, in 

terms of democracy promotion, in terms of cultural exchanges, the 

opportunities to visit other places, and to the extent that former colonial powers have stronger ties in all of those areas than the U.S. 

does, that those might be responsible for what we saw there in 

terms of a stronger feeling of positiveness toward your former colonial power. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick question actually is all I have. But that is the data are fascinating and 

really grist for a lot of good analysis. But the one thing I was curious about was going back to this issue of the culture, how it is perceived, how American culture is perceived, and the fact that apparently it is a positive, generally speaking in Africa, where—I would 

like you to be—are you able to tell us where that 27 percent—or 

not 27 percent of Hispanic, I mean Muslim. It wasn’t just 20 percent Muslim. That was the highest percent negative. In other 

places throughout the world of course, in other Muslim countries, 

the culture is the issue or at least that is what is stated over and 

over again, including by bin Laden and others, who say that the 

reasons they hate us as much as they do is because of the decadence of our culture and what it is doing to them, how it is seeping 

into the Muslim world. Were those people similar in their observations, and did that separate them out from the others who said culture, American culture is fine? 

Ms. MOEHLER. There is, among Muslims, there is a lower appreciation for American culture than among non-Muslims in Africa, 

but what is also striking is, as I was saying, the relationship between ideas about democracy, United States way of doing business 

and United States popular culture all seem to have some influence 

for Africans in general. When we look at just Muslims, the first two 

pop out as much stronger. 

So the relationship between popular attitudes about American 

popular culture and attitudes about America at large are much 

weaker for Muslims, and what really seems to be influencing the 

Muslims is whether or not they like our ideas about democracy and 

whether or not they like our ways of doing business, which seems 

to indicate to me that perhaps it is more our policies than it is our 

culture that they are acting against. 

But I made the point that there isn’t a single cultural device that 

has been—has worked in terms of mobilizing all Africans against 

the United States, but it does seem that the mobilization of Muslims from other parts of the world might be influencing African as 

well. And what you see within Africa is really part of what is sustaining this positive attitude is that Muslims’ attitudes about the 

United States have declined, it seems. Again, this is based on very 

limited data, but it seems that Muslims within Africa have had a 

decline in their attitudes about the United States in the last 3 

years, and Christians have had an increase in support for the 

United States in 3 years in countries that have sizable portions of 

both. 

So, for example, in Nigeria, you see the Christians becoming 

more favorable, which counter balances the effect of the Muslims 
44

becoming more negative, so you get a stable line but really a polarization of attitudes about the United States. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thanks. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask, you mentioned the effect of media, and you 

mentioned the effect of other things. There are a lot of NGOs from 

the United States in Africa, and I am an optometrist, I was in a 

practice with an optometrist, my brother is an opthamologist, and 

I was visiting with one of my partners when I was home, and turns 

out one of our partners who has been active in Africa was in Africa 

at that time. My daughter went to Tanzania for 3, 4 weeks and had 

a tremendous experience, really a life-changing experience. What 

effect are our NGOs having? When an American team comes into 

a village and drills a well, guys have cataract surgery and literally 

the blind can see stuff, seems that would have an effect compared 

to what we are doing in Europe. 

Ms. MOEHLER. Two responses to that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. You are a good example. You were in the Peace 

Corps. 

Ms. MOEHLER. Two responses to that. I think my sense is that, 

because we know that Africans who have friends or family in the 

United States are more pro-American, my sense is that also Africans who come into contact with Americans working in Africa 

might also have more pro-American sentiments, though we don’t 

have data on that specifically. 

The other thing that I want to say is that there was evidence or 

there is evidence that Africans say that the U.S. is not doing 

enough to generate equality within the world and that they want 

us to do more in that respect. So my sense is that the more activities we have from NGOs and other things, the better off it would 

be for the United States. But, again, there isn’t specific data evaluating exactly those points. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. That might be something that, again, as you delve 

into this in the future, that might be something. It would be interesting to know the impacts. I have a feeling it is very positive. The 

other thing, and I have had an opportunity to be in Africa several 

occasions, the last time with Chairman Payne. I really do think 

that that is a very, very positive thing. The other thing is it seems 

like right now our NGO’s and things are rediscovering Africa and 

seems to be more of a feeling that we do need to do more over there 

and again with the HIV/AIDS and just a whole host of things. Like 

I say, that is something you might think about. 

One last question, you mentioned that there wasn’t as much critical news media, maybe Aljazeera, and they get BBC and CNN. 

CNN in Europe is not exactly pro-American all the time. Again, 

they are not touting the American whatever. 

Ms. MOEHLER. Until just recently, they were getting Aljazeera 

only in Arabic, which is a language that most people just don’t 

speak. So now there is an Aljazeera English language broadcast to 

Africa that we will have to wait and see what the impact of that 

is, but certainly research elsewhere has shown that exposure to 

CNN has a positive effect on attitudes about the United States; 
45

whereas exposure to Aljazeera has a negative impact. So CNN does 

present some negative news, but by and large, my contention would 

be there is still a pro-American slant there. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. Thank you for your research. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Now we can make this a real conversation in the 

sense of only the diehards are left. Let me just follow up with what 

Mr. Boozman was asking you. He referred specifically to the Peace 

Corps and NGOs. I think that this country has had a tradition of 

missionaries that have over the years played a continuing presence 

in Africa. Clearly, we have a substantial African American population in this country that of course is generational in terms of its 

direct nexus to Africa. There are some questions that maybe Mr. 

Payne can respond to. 

In terms of our illegal immigration, if you know, what are the 

numbers of Africans that are admitted to the United States on an 

annual basis? And clearly, I would suspect that, in terms of illegal 

immigration to this country by Africans, it is minimal as compared 

to other nations. But if you know that number, it would appear 

that that is something we ought to be looking at given the positive 

impact that I think you described it as a multiplier effect that Africans have that live here, that eventually become citizens in terms 

of attitudes back in their original homeland. 

Ms. MOEHLER. I am afraid I don’t have that information for you 

about how many. I do know that illegal immigration from Africa 

is larger to Europe than to the United States. It is easier to get 

to, quite frankly. Much, much larger to other countries in Africa 

than it is to either Europe or the United States. So most refugees 

end up in neighboring countries, not over here. 

Definitely the evidence shows that increasing the number of people that we give political asylum to or that we admit to universities 

for a period of time or even other kinds of activities, they don’t 

have to be even permanent activities. The evidence shows that just 

travel alone can have that effect, and again, as you said, it has this 

multiplier effect because all the friends and family back home also 

get this boost in attitudes about the United States. 

So that definitely does seem to be a quite significant and relatively easy thing that the United States can do to boost its image. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, when we talk about public diplomacy, 

within the ambit of public diplomacy, I would suggest, falls the efforts to attract students into this country. And clearly, in terms of 

the previous hearings we have had, we have noted that there has 

been a leveling off or a return to 9/11 or pre-9/11 in terms of the 

numbers of students that are coming here, but by comparison purposes, while there might be an increase of 5 or 6 percent in terms 

of the past 5 years, elsewhere in this world, European, Middle 

East, in terms of Asia, the numbers are remarkable as far as the 

spike, the uptick in terms of students. 

We talk about preserving these positive attitudes. I cannot imagine, particularly given the realities of Africa, that a more aggressive recruitment and programs, scholarships for Africans to attend 

American universities would not be an important aspect of the public diplomacy initiative. 

Again, I don’t know the numbers. You don’t know them. Maybe 

we could task you to report back to Mr. Payne and myself in deter-
46

mining those numbers, particularly in terms of immigration. I am 

doing a stream of consciousness at this point in time, but there are 

reports now of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and spinoffs 

from al-Qaeda viewing Africa as a haven. I think it is very, very 

important in terms of, again, our national interest, not only serving, I hope, an American sense of altruism but our crass national 

interest to preserve those current attitudes. 

Ms. MOEHLER. If I could respond, I completely agree with you 

about the positive benefits we would get from boosting educational 

opportunity for Africans in the United States, especially because 

those Africans tend to be ones to become elites in their own countries. They become the political leaders, the business leaders, the 

NGO leaders. And so we not only have an impact on one person 

and all of their friends and family, but we have an impact on the 

potential for a minister or the potential minister of trade or the potential owner of a major corporation within Africa, so that definitely is the case. 

I would also like to speak a little bit about the impact of public 

opinion within Africa because I didn’t get a chance to do that in 

my testimony. I do not expect that public opinion in Africa has a 

direct effect or much of a direct effect on the foreign policies of the 

leaders of those countries. For the most part, leaders of Africa are 

very constrained by the dependencies on the United States or on 

other countries in terms of what they do in the foreign realm, and 

they might not have the luxury, for example, of listening to their 

public and what they do. 

But what I do think the public opinion is critical for is in terms 

of United States activities within Africa to address AIDS, for democracy promotion, for businesses. As far as I can tell, those are 

the kinds of U.S. interests that matter most or those are the ways 

that U.S. interests are served most, or not by what our country 

signs onto the coalition of the willing or a certain treaty but whether or not their public responds to our democracy promotion campaigns or they respond to economic opportunities and other things 

like that. 

So in those ways, I think the public opinion in Africa is absolutely crucial for serving United States interests. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I still have a lot of questions, but let me give Mr. 

Payne an opportunity to see if he has any further questions. 

Mr. PAYNE. I think you are absolutely right about the scholarships. During the height of the—before the decolonization began, 

there were scholarships through the U.N. that the United States 

used to contribute to and other Western countries for African students to come to the United States to study, which really most of 

the early leaders studied in the United States, the Nigerian President. And many of them came to the U.S. for their education. 

Unfortunately, once there was the independence movement in Africa, the scholarship programs ended. I think that it is a mistake. 

I think that Africans are still probably in a relative sense poorer 

as a continent, as an entity, than they were under colonization. 

However, the scholarship program is gone. We don’t hear about it 

at all. 

That may be something that we can look into, suggest again, because many people that came here really did go back to their coun-
47

tries and became leaders. There is certainly another question 

though; the United States has a program of bringing in refugees 

from parts of the world, but very rarely are refugees—Africa has 

more than all the other continents put together, however, the number of people coming in under refugee status in the United States 

is almost nil, which is another flaw in our program where we could 

if we looked at that, we probably also would even improve the 

image. 

There is also interestingly a close tie between African refugees—

for example, there were two incidents that happened, the killing of 

Amadou Diallo in New York. It was just as much disgusted in their 

country as it was here. People followed up and stayed in close ties 

back and forth. The mother came to New York. 

Then, more recently, there was a fire in New York where four 

children, twin children, and the mother died. They went back for 

the burial. The father is going to come back to the United States. 

So there is this connection it seems between Africa and their community back in Africa as you mentioned in your testimony and 

what happens here. 

So I think there could be—also on the whole question of the alQaeda type extremists, even though there are attempts, for example, even currently there is a lot of discussion about Somalia and 

al-Qaeda in there and all that and supposedly but I talked to the 

Islamic Courts Union leaders. They would like to come and testify 

before the committee, but our people don’t want to hear that, but 

talking to them just like talking to you, and they are not going to 

succumb to al-Qaeda, not Somalis. They are fiercely independent; 

they are certainly not controlled by outside forces. That is one of 

their problems; they can’t get along too well with each other. But 

our State Department feels strongly that al-Qaeda is controlling 

Somalia, which is 1,000 percent incorrect. 

So one of the problems is trying to have the truth come out and 

the T word gets thrown out there, terrorism. Everybody says, if 

they are Islamic, they are terrorists, which is absolutely ludicrous. 

Ms. MOEHLER. I would just like to make two comments about the 

immigration issue. The first one is that we talked about the benefits as they go back to their country, that there are also significant 

benefits of them while they are here. Remittances are more important in Africa than aid is in terms of the amount of money getting 

sent back. That has a significant effect. 

The other thing I want to mention is that I don’t mean to imply 

that everything is rosy when Africans come to the United States. 

Certainly they encounter prejudices and other difficulties while 

they are here, but what the evidence clearly shows is that what 

gets communicated back home is by and large positive and what 

they take back home with them after they leave is by and large 

positive so that those things do have a positive effect on public 

opinion about the U.S. 

Mr. PAYNE. One other incident about Somalia, when people make 

remittances, it is difficult in a place like Somalia. Our Government 

decided 2 or 3 years ago—remittances—to close down these almost 

store-front kind of places where the only way that transmissions 

can go on, and they turned around and seems like some terrorist 

scheme, so let’s shut down this remittance process where you can’t 
48

walk down the street in downtown Mogadishu. You have got to get 

the money in the best way you can. 

So sometimes a lack of understanding on the part of our policy 

makers that become alarmed because they just don’t understand a 

custom or a situation or difficulty that people have in a simple 

thing like remittances. It is not a postman delivering mail downtown or in the villages. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. The only thing I would cite, Mr. Chairman, again 

in a very bipartisan way, I would agree with you totally about the 

student programs. I think that is how you change the world. I 

think we have to work with the State Department, work with 

Homeland Security, because their job is to protect us and so we 

need to give them the ability to protect us and yet let those students that should be coming in here. 

One last thing, Dr. Moehler. In your question, the unfavorable 

opinion of the United States, I guess my experience has been, when 

you travel in these countries and you are out and about and stuff, 

they will have an unfavorable opinion of the United States, but 

they like Americans. You understand what I am saying. 

Ms. MOEHLER. People seem to be able to make a distinction between the people and the government in a way that I find most 

Americans are not able to make that distinction. Perhaps because 

many of them, their governments don’t terribly represent them 

very well. 

So, yes, I do find that, to the extent that people don’t like the 

United States Government, they often still find very favorable attitudes about myself. 

I want to mention, it is not just about Africans coming here but 

as you mentioned earlier I think Americans going there is very important. When I was in the Peace Corps, I was the first Peace 

Corps group back to Eritrea after it became a country, and it had 

been many years before Peace Corps volunteers had been there, as 

when it was part of Ethiopia, maybe 20 years or something like 

that, maybe even more than that. I was shocked by the number of 

people who said, oh, Peace Corps, I remember Peace Corps. I mean, 

it really struck me that that kind of personal contact really has a 

very lasting and positive effect. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Well, I appreciate your study. Again, I think that 

gives us good ammunition that, as we go forward to these very important programs, that certainly your research indicates that, as 

we mix in a variety of different ways, it seems to be very beneficial. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would just point out that you indicated that 

governments there are obviously restrained by their needs and 

their dependence on the United States, but what I found particularly interesting was, I don’t think that there was any African Nation that was serving on the U.N. Security Council at the time that 

backed the Iraq invasion, which indicates to me that public opinion 

is a factor in terms of the latitude that governments have. It always serves as a restraint. Clearly in the United States, it can be 

the singular deciding factor. We are polling every day and opining 

by the hour and influencing public opinion and that is the way a 

democracy works. But I don’t think we can underestimate the significance of public opinion in terms of impact as far as Africa. That 
49

is why it is so important to preserve, if you will, the status where 

we are now and to not retreat from that. 

Listening, ruminating for a minute in the bipartisan comments, 

I just want Chairman Payne to know that I would be very supportive particularly of any legislation or initiative to authorize specifically for the continent of Africa an increased number of scholarships, grants that be made available to Africans. I think that is 

where we ought to be spending our money because, as Mr. 

Boozman said, we have got to be concerned about our security, but 

the long view is, as you say, we are talking 10, 20, 30 years out. 

If we allow ourselves to fall behind other nations that may or may 

not have adversarial relationships with us, we continue to attract 

the best and the brightest if you will from among societies in Africa, then we will not have those relationships with the foreign minister and the CEO of the major corporation and what have you. 

This is a very, very important investment, and I dare say that with 

the leadership that Don Payne has exhibited and his ability to recruit from members on both sides of the aisle, if he makes it a priority, I am on board because I think this exchange of ideas, re-energizing the Peace Corps, advocating for scholarships, more peopleto-people contact, that is the direction that we have to go, particularly where, in Africa, the conditions are not as depressing, if you 

will, as they are in other regions of the world. 

I mean, if we could just craft foreign policy here in this body, 

maybe we wouldn’t be seeing the rather unsettling and disturbing 

results of the polling data in other places of the world. 

Mr. PAYNE. On that issue, too, you mentioned you were in Eritrea, a country that, as you mentioned, separated, really got its 

independence from Ethiopia. The way that when the Peace Corps 

was there and things were working in a positive sense, they had 

policies which pushed Eritrea now into supposedly an enemy of the 

United States almost, where they have been branded as being antireligious when they have religions co-existing for thousands of 

years, Muslim and Christian and others. There might be some opposition to some of these new kinds of fervor, kind of evangelical 

religions coming in and there might have been a part on the part 

of the President that said these are divisive, we have got all the 

major religious here right now, why don’t we just have that continue to work its way out? They ended up getting branded as being 

the most anti-religious country, I mean over China and Burma 

where they don’t allow anyone to practice religion. However they 

label Eritrea, you can walk down the street, see a synagogue here 

or a Catholic church there or a Muslim mosque there, but they get 

a brand, where in countries they don’t even allow people to practice 

religion and they are not on the same list of where Eritrea is put 

on. So a lot of times our policy is somewhat flawed. And if we 

worked at it, we could eliminate some of the problems that we create by virtue of this hard line that we pick, and Eritrea could certainly be a real friend. Very proud people, hard-working country, 

but we have isolated them just about. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are joined by our colleague from Texas who 

I would call on to see whether she has any questions. But before 

I do, I would like to take this opportunity to task you again with 

doing some research which you can report back to Chairman Payne 
50

and myself about this idea of having students—give us your recommendations, give us something specific that maybe we can do as 

a committee; I am talking about the whole committee. Because I 

think this is something that we all embrace and we see this as obviously one small piece in terms of a strategy to this continent for 

all too long has been ignored. I always use it in terms of Latin 

America, but here we have in Latin America a foreign assistance 

budget, $1.2–1.3 billion, and yet we are providing Egypt with military assistance in excess of $2 billion. This just is, in my opinion, 

Alice in Wonderland. Up is down, and down is up. There is no longterm benefit. We ought to be doing this investment now to secure 

our national interest. This is not about altruism but to secure our 

national interest in the long term. So if you can communicate with 

Mr. Payne and his staff and my staff. Since you are such a valuable resource, we take advantage of everything that comes for 

nothing. 

Ms. MOEHLER. My pleasure. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sheila. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank Mr. 

Delahunt and Mr. Payne for having this meeting. I am sorry for 

my delay. We are in the midst of two committee markups, but I 

thought this was such an important hearing. 

I would just like to follow up on questions that may have already 

been answered, but I will say that this is a powerful display that 

you have up, particularly the final number 61 percent combination 

of very favorable and somewhat favorable for Africa, which is very 

competitive, but on the countries that are noted, and certainly that 

doesn’t represent all of the 53 countries on the continent, but it is 

a good sampling. 

My question is: Is that a sampling? And could we take from the 

Africa number that it does reflect that Africa overall is about a 61 

percent favorability, is that not correct? 

Ms. MOEHLER. This is not a scientific sampling by any sense. I 

had mentioned earlier that these are the countries for which we 

have data, and they tend to be by and large British colonies. They 

tend to be wealthier, more democratic and slightly more urban 

than the general population. So we don’t have a real picture of 

what Africa as a whole looks like. The Africa there is a representation of those 10 countries, not Africa as a whole. 

Again, the other regions of the world are also not scientific 

samplings either, although there tends to be more countries in 

other regions than there are in Africa surveyed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me make these few remarks and then let 

you answer them in their conclusion, and that is what I sense from 

both Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Payne, certainly it is worth our investment, and from visiting countries that are not listed there, I think 

we have a great opportunity. We did some work with the African 

Open Opportunity Act, but that also was I think more directed toward countries that had commerce and trade. 

One of the problems that I faced over the years is the very difficult challenge for visas. I heard students being mentioned as I 

came in. But on the whole question of family reunification—family 

visiting, because that is a legal term—but visiting. I just worked 

on a visa for medical care, and it was a horrific case, a child that 
51

was burned in the plane crash that occurred about 2 years ago in 

Nigeria. So appreciative, so devastating in her injuries that she 

needed to come, but it required any number of persons to work on 

it to get her a visa. 

I hear it often. There is a question of over-stays. So I guess I 

would, if you are repeating it again, forgive me, to have you comment on this whole question of visas for visiting and juxtapose that 

against the whole issue of terrorism and that. We know that Africa 

is at the low level, and even in the last debate on immigration, 

they wanted to eliminate the diversity visas, which is one of the 

ways to get underserved countries. This question of the exchange, 

it has become more and more difficult after 9/11 and puts a bad 

taste in doctors and researchers and students and families that 

simply want to visit Disneyland or Disney World. So that is part 

of it. 

I would also say that you indicate that television is a source of 

information. Is it a true source or—or because it is controlled by 

the state, do they make it more favorable than they should, and do 

we have other ways of communicating with the continent? 

Ms. MOEHLER. I would like to respond to both. I think you are 

absolutely right about the visa issue. It strikes me, as you were 

talking about educational scholarships, it is not just a matter of 

scholarships; it is ensuring they are given visas to arrive here. I 

know that my own institution, Cornell University, provides scholarships to a number of African students every year, and it has gotten 

more difficult since 9/11 to continue to get those students in the 

country. So that is part of the package. If we increase scholarships, 

we should also pay attention to the visa issue for students. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Could you yield? That may be something these 

committees could have an impact on because there is an issue used 

as hard line immigration. That is a key element of our foreign policy that upsets people and undermines any commitment that we 

have to the exchange of the relationship. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentlelady will yield, I concur. I think we 

have got a consensus here. Maybe you know, as the former ranking 

member of the subcommittee, what are the number of—what is the 

allocation for the continent, if you know, for Africans to immigrate 

into the United States? Because what we are hearing is it is these 

immigrants that serve as a multiplier effect in terms of a positive 

view of the United States back in the continent. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They do. I might remind, Mr. Chairman, my 

memory serves me, somewhere 20,000, 30,000 visas, which was 

very low for the continent. And we never reflect on the students 

that actually come and go back to their homeland and do outstanding things. My own university educates pharmacists in huge 

numbers who go back to their own country. 

The visa under diversity is a very small number and comes to 

mind 20,000. That may be smaller than it is, but it is very small. 

One amendment in the Senate was to either eliminate it or lower 

the numbers even lower. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would suggest, as Sheila Jackson Lee and myself serve on the Immigration Subcommittee on Judiciary, these are 

things that we should be aware of. I know she is; I have to learn. 

But we should be advocating vigorously to increase the allocation 
52

of this because that is totally inadequate. If we want to compete 

in terms of world opinion, we have got to be talking not 10,000 or 

20,000 but 100,000 and bring people to us so that they learn about 

us, they know our values and they don’t—that has that multiplier 

effect, and we enhance our national security and our vital national 

interest. 

Ms. MOEHLER. As I said earlier, the data really shows that contacts with people in the United States, friends or family or travel 

to the United States, has a really significant effect on positive attitudes about the United States. So I definitely agree with that. 

I would also like to briefly talk to your point about TV. First of 

all, I want to say that, within Africa, radio is really the primary 

source of information for most people, and as I—the evidence shows 

that radio actually has a somewhat negative influence; although I 

still think that if we compare African radio to radio outside of the 

continent, you would find African radio is more positive about the 

United States. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Must be talk radio. 

Ms. MOEHLER. They have talk radio as well actually—TV is gaining on radio. But I think there is a much more limited diet of what 

people hear on the TV, which is still largely controlled by government, as opposed to the radio, which is now quite liberalized. In 

most places in Africa, there is a fair number of private radio stations, where that is not quite the case for TV. The government still 

dominates TV. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just on the radio, we are trying to work with an entrepreneur who has a satellite and the possibility of very low cost 

radio transmitters, $5, $6, and to try a program to really try to get 

them disbursed especially in rural areas and to really have some 

re-programming or some—they don’t have any programs going 

now, but those kind of things. I think we are going to have to start 

looking at our country as post-Iraq. That mistake has got to be 

coming to an end, and we have got to determine how we start to 

prepare, try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, which 

means we want to end up with people having once again positive, 

at least stop the sinking of the image of the U.S. 

So things of that nature to start the post-Iraq reconstruction 

worldwide on our image, on our behavior, what we do, and I think 

programs like the scholarship program, like the whole question of 

radio being transmitted throughout sub-Saharan Africa, programs 

of that nature to just start back; maybe we could take the peace 

dividend and start back on hundreds of billions of dollars of spending on that and use a teeny percentage of that to start to make 

America whole again. I think it is essential for our future, for our 

children, our grandchildren. And so I really appreciate Mr. 

Delahunt agreeing to have this joint hearing. 

Second, this information that you have, as you already heard 

him, he asked you to look into some additional areas so we can possibly come up with this, and we will hear someone say there is a 

college in South Africa or Kenya. The purpose is not only for an 

education but for those other kind of things that they gather when 

they come here to go back to their places. 

Once again, thank you for your contribution, Ms. Jackson Lee, 

and thank you, Mr. Chair. 
53

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Dr. Moehler. You have been a great 

witness. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]

Æ