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

33–821PDF 2007

GLOBAL POLLING DATA ON OPINION OF

AMERICAN POLICIES, VALUES AND PEOPLE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 6, 2007

Serial No. 110–4

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 

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 

GENELL BROWN, Staff Associate 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

Steven Kull, Ph.D., Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes 

(PIPA) .................................................................................................................... 6

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Steven Kull, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................................ 10

(1)

GLOBAL POLLING DATA ON OPINION OF 

AMERICAN POLICIES, VALUES AND PEOPLE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Delahunt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. The subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight will come to order. This is our 

inaugural hearing, and I really look forward to the active term. I 

look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle, and I am going to take this opportunity to introduce those 

members who are in attendance as well as acknowledge staff. I 

want to particularly thank Genell Brown of the full committee staff 

who is helping out until our staff associate arrives next week. 

Genell, thank you. If you are there, raise your hand, take a bow. 

We would be in trouble without you. 

To my right is Dr. Rossiter, Caleb Rossiter, who will be my staff 

on this particular hearing, and to his right is the vice chair of this 

particular committee, a very valued member of the Foreign Affairs 

Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Russ Carnahan. Russ, it 

is good to have you here, and to his right is a friend and a colleague who has made multiple contributions to the work of not just 

simply this committee but to the full committee as well as to Congress during his many terms, and that is Don Payne from New Jersey. 

I am going to introduce majority staff first. Some are sitting out 

there in the audience. Natalie Coburn. Natalie, would you please 

stand up so folks can recognize you? And Phil Herr, who was detailed with us from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

and where is Cliff? Cliff Stammerman is to my rear. And of course 

Raimer Rezende. How could I? Please stand up. 

I am really looking forward to working with the former chairman 

of this committee, the now ranking member. We had a series of 

hearings during the course of the past term that hopefully prove 

to be of value. He and I have an outstanding personal relationship, 

although on occasion we do disagree on policy issues, and that is 

my friend and colleague from California, Dana Rohrabacher. Dana, 

why do you not introduce your side of the aisle along with staff? 
2

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well thank you very much. I am actually 

looking forward to this session. The last time around there were so 

many words that we had, and I am now looking forward to your 

term, and I am anxious to work with you. Look, sometimes people 

mistake the fact that when there is a disagreement between people 

that we in some way reflect some division among Americans. 

Let me just note that the division among Republicans and Democrats could be maybe 10 percent or 20 percent maybe. In other 

countries the divisions among people are such that they are at each 

other’s throats, and it is life and death, and often it is not a 20 percent difference but it is like an 80 to 90 percent difference. There 

is only a 10 percent that ties people together. 

In our country, we are very, very blessed that we have people 

who come at things differently in terms of Republicans and Democrats that we are all pledging allegiance to the same flag, and what 

is interesting about the pledge of allegiance to the flag, it is pledge 

of allegiance to the fundamental principles that unites all Americans, and that is what it is all about. 

I mean where we have some disagreement I will be fascinated to 

see how that plays out here in this subcommittee, having heard 

those of you for 2 years now, now that you are in charge how that 

plays out. So anyway let me just note the chairman has my respect 

and friendship, and we are the Subcommittee on International Organization, Human Rights, and Oversight for the International—I 

guess it is not the International Relations Committee. It is the Foreign Affairs Committee now. See, there is a big difference, right? 

Right there. There you go back to the future. 

All right. Pardon me. We have two other members of the minority here in this subcommittee and Jeff Flake from Arizona, and, 

Jeff would you like to take 30 seconds or a minute’s worth of what 

you have in mind? 

Mr. FLAKE. I am just glad to be here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. That is good. And Ron Paul from 

Texas. So we have actually two of our most moderate members 

here, Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is duly noted, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Along with your ranking member, of course 

I am noted for my moderation as well. But with that, we have a 

tremendous opportunity here, and so I am looking forward to meeting with you in this subcommittee and making sure we get some 

things done. Phaedra Dugan is our staff appointee here who will 

be our designated driver when we are not around, and who is our 

designated support staff when we are around. So I look forward to 

everything, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. And if I can just 

outline some ideas in terms of the procedure to be followed by the 

committee. I requested the Democratic members to resist the temptation to make opening statements, and I believe that Mr. Flake 

just gave an excellent opening statement. I think the time can be 

of more value in terms of listening to our witnesses. 

What I would suggest, Mr. Rohrabacher, is that you and I, as a 

matter of course, make opening statements. I will make every effort to limit my opening statement to just several minutes. I have 

a more lengthy one today because this is our inaugural effort but 
3

I think the idea of a closing statement is something that could 

prove to be of some value, particularly after we listen to the witnesses. 

It is also my intention to limit the number of witnesses. Today’s 

hearing of course we just have a single witness. I would hope that 

we can accomplish our work by having only a single panel, and it 

is also the intention of the Chair to allow members to inquire as 

much as they want. I will be very light with the gavel. I think we 

can agree that the 5-minute rule on many occasions has proven to 

be a hindrance to a good discussion about issues of consequence. 

So I would anticipate that this particular subcommittee will distinguish itself on procedure. I am sure that at times we will find 

ourselves in matters that are controversial, and I think out of fairness to both majority and minority members that they should be 

able to inquire of witnesses so that they can elicit evidence. They 

can provoke, if you will, on occasion good, healthy exchanges, and 

of course I also wanted to note that we will be very open to suggestions from the minority as to areas that we should explore as a 

committee. 

And I would note for the record that you and I have had a conversation about a subject of particular interest to yourself, and in 

due course—and I mean sooner than later—we will schedule a 

hearing on that particular issue. But let me proceed with my opening statement, and then I will turn to you, Mr. Rohrabacher, and 

then we will hear from our single witness. 

It was just about 2 years ago that the nonpartisan Government 

Accountability Office noted that anti-Americanism is spreading and 

deepening around the world. What I found particularly disturbing 

was the GAO’s conclusion that such anti-Americanism can first increase foreign public support for terrorism directed at Americans. 

Secondly, it can impact the cost and effectiveness of military operations. Third, it can weaken the United States’ ability to align with 

other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and lastly, it 

can dampen foreign public enthusiasm for U.S. business services 

and products. It can have an impact on our commercial relationships. 

Now, there have been multiple polls taken that seem to confirm 

America’s image is suffering and that this decline has the potential 

to harm our national interests. These surveys have been conducted 

in different countries, in different regions of the world, and at different times. Has there been an improvement since this GAO report was released in April or 2005 or as a recent headline proclaimed, ‘‘Has America’s Image Gone from Bad to Worse?’’

Well, today we are beginning a series of hearings to review the 

work product of highly regarded professional pollsters and organizations who were responsible for gathering this data. I would note 

that several of these researchers have worked for executive branch 

departments or have consulted with them on a regular basis, including our witness today, Dr. Kull. Some of the questions we will 

address include: What can these polls teach us? Are there lessons 

that can be learned from this data? Can we determine the causes 

of this anti-Americanism that is so dangerous to our national interest? 
4

Do the factors provoking a negative image of the United States 

vary from region-to-region? Is this negative image because of what 

we are, our values if you will or is it because of what we do, our 

policies? Is anti-Americanism a single unitary phenomenon or are 

there nuances and varieties that we should be aware of? How can 

we improve America’s image? Is it through public diplomacy? 

Former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, 

noted last week—and these are his words—‘‘The administration 

does not appear to have a public diplomacy plan in hand that 

works’’ because if that is the case how can we address those concerns? Does it require a reenergized public diplomacy initiative or 

if it is clearly demonstrable that it is in our national interest to do 

so are substantive policy changes appropriate? Do we need to 

amend existing policies or recommend new strategies to improve 

America’s interest and thereby advance our own national interest? 

These are not rhetorical questions. I am actually asking them in 

the hope that we can get some answers today and over the course 

of the next several weeks. 

Our purpose is to establish an empirical record, to stimulate debate, to identify problems, analyze causes, and craft solutions 

where necessary. The consequences in this area can be so profound 

that I believe it is important to begin with a baseline of how our 

policies are working in terms of global perception. A reality check 

if you will predicated on the facts, not on opinions or anecdotal accounts, and with that and before I call on Dr. Kull, I yield to my 

friend from California, the ranking member, for any comments he 

wishes to make. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman—there 

you go—let me note that I am not a lawyer which was of course 

one of my actually most effective campaign slogans when I first ran 

for office, and vote Dana, at least he is not a lawyer, and I am a 

journalist by profession. I am a writer by profession, and I think 

that communications are an essential part of any successful strategy, whether it is foreign policy or domestic policy. 

As many of you know, I actually worked as one of Ronald Reagan’s speech writers for 7 years at the White House, and I had 

never written a speech. I had been a journalist before that but I 

had never written a speech for anyone prior to writing a speech for 

the President of the United States, and Ronald Reagan they called 

him the great communicator, and he sat down with us, and outlines how to write a speech that he would want and the prerequisites of what should be in the speech. 

One of the prerequisites—interestingly enough—was to make 

sure that we got to the heart of the matter of course. The heart 

of the matter in any speech was—how do you say—was articulated 

in a way that would be, number one, very specific so people would 

understand what your position was but also that it would be easily 

translated. The President, when he sat down with the speech writers for the very first time, made sure these are there. Now look, 

there are people overseas who are not well-educated who have got 

to understand your words and what we are saying. 

They not only have to be understood by the American people but 

you have got to actually—if I can say—well, Dana, you have got to 

make sure that we can translate it so average people overseas can 
5

understand what we are trying to say as well. I think I did that 

okay. All right. And one wonders sometimes the problem is not the 

substance of policy, and sometimes it is the fact that what we do 

does not translate well or we do not take the time to translate well, 

and we have got to make sure that when we are advocating what 

we are advocating that it is put in terms that the people overseas—

whether they agree with it or not—at least they fully understand 

where we are coming from. 

I think that a certain amount of anti-Americanism and a certain 

amount of negative feelings toward the United States will always 

come due to the fact that we are in a leadership position. Great 

Britain had this same kind of animosity when it was the leading 

power of the western world. The United States being a leader in 

and of itself means that you are going to have to take people and 

force them to do things that they do not want to do or at least encourage them to do things that they do not want to do now in order 

to lead them to a situation where things will be better in the future, and it is always difficult to go through uncomfortable moments of changing the way you do things right now in order to 

have a better future. 

That is the definition of a leader, however, is someone who actually encourages people to do that, and thus at the moment—whatever that moment is—the moment where change is happening that 

leader will not necessarily be a very popular leader. Perhaps the 

best example of that is Abraham Lincoln who we have the great 

monument to Abraham Lincoln in this city. He was the most hated 

President of the United States up until the last 6 months of his 

presidency, and there was no President more hated and vilified 

than Abraham Lincoln. 

Well the United States is taking a leadership position as Abraham Lincoln did. Lincoln freed the slaves but he did so at a great 

disruption of the status quo. The United States now to be a leader 

if we are going to defeat evil forces in the world—which seems to 

be our job as leaders of the western world—we will have to create 

the changes of the status quo and all of the irritation that goes 

with that in order to make sure that we end up where we want 

the world to be. 

I would suggest that realizing that people overseas are listening 

and that in listening then in our cause or at least giving them to 

be sympathetic with us, with what we have to do, what our country 

is trying to do should also be an admonition to those of us in public 

life and those of us who are debating the various issues of the day 

that we are mindful that what we say—even during political campaigns but especially during debate in Congress—that what we are 

saying is heard overseas, and that if we do not use prudent phraseology that that will cause much damage to our country when that 

may not be and it is obviously not the purpose of many Members 

of Congress who disagree with this policy or that policy. 

So finally let me note that when we are talking about communication strategy we are not just talking about substance but substance is the most important issue, Mr. Chairman, whether or not 

the substance of American policy is right, is moral, that is the way 

we should go, and we need to focus on what the substance, how 

other people believe the substance but also the polls will indicate 
6

whether or not we are effective at our communication strategy over 

and above whatever that substance is. So, Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for holding this hearing, and as a professional communicator 

instead of a lawyer, I will be very interested in hearing your witness. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Dana. Well we are delighted to have 

Dr. Steven Kull with us today. He has for 15 years been the Director of the University of Maryland and the Center on Policy Attitudes globally recognized program on International Policy Attitudes 

or the acronym is PIPA. So, Dr. Kull, he has an extraordinary resume. Just let me mention that he has conducted briefings on public opinion for various government and international agencies, including the White House, the U.S. Congress, State Department, 

USAID, United Nations, NATO, the German Foreign Ministry, and 

the European Commission. The list goes on and on and on. It suffices to say that Dr. Kull is clearly one of America’s premiere pollsters, and we look forward to your testimony. Dr. Kull. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN KULL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PROGRAM 

ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY ATTITUDES (PIPA) 

Mr. KULL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today 

to speak about world public opinion of the United States. I would 

like to request that my full testimony be entered into the record. 

For some years now at the Program on International Policy Attitude we have been studying world public opinion. We conduct focus 

groups in different countries. We do large multi-country polls as 

well as in-depth polls in specific countries, especially Muslim countries. 

And as often happens in life, I have some bad news, and I have 

some good news, and it is often a good idea to start with the bad 

news which is what I am going to do. Now you probably heard that 

America’s image is not particularly good these days. Our most recent evidence is a poll that we conducted for the BBC World Service, together with GlobeScan, in 26 countries around the world. The 

polling was done November through January, and the question 

asked is whether the United States is having a positive or negative 

influence in the world. 

On average, 30 percent said that the U.S. is having a positive influence, 51 percent said that the U.S. is having a negative influence. In 20 of the 26 countries, the most common view is that the 

U.S. is having a negative influence, four countries were positive, 

two were divided. Views are consistently negative in Canada, Latin 

American and the Middle East. 

They are mostly negative in Europe with the exception of Poland, 

which leans positive, and Hungary, which is divided. Africans in 

this poll and in general have the most positive attitudes toward the 

United States. In Asia, the views are more mixed. Filipinos are 

consistently quite positive. Indians are divided, and sometimes are 

positive but all others are clearly negative. 

Now this reaction cannot be dismissed as something that is necessarily engendered by the fact that we are a powerful and rich 

country. During the 1990s, the views were predominantly positive. 

When we compare 1999 State Department data and more recent 

Pew data, we find that favorable views of the U.S. have dropped 
7

sharply. In the UK positive views or favorable views were 83 percent and that has since dropped to 56 percent. In Germany from 

78 to 37 percent. So you see this majority positive view in all these 

countries dropping: 77 percent in Morocco to 49, Indonesia from 75 

to 30, and so on. Only Russia has held steady. 

Now, these numbers are not simply a reaction to the United 

States decision to go to war in Iraq. The views of the U.S. did go 

down sharply in 2003 but now 4 years later they actually continue 

to move downward. Coming back to the BBC data, we have been 

doing this the last few years and we have 18 countries that have 

been constant, and the positive views of the U.S.—as you can see 

in that bottom line there—have drifted from 40 percent in 2005 to 

36 percent in 2006 down to 29 in 2007, while that top line there 

in dark are the negative views that have risen from 46 to 52 percent. 

Now, there are a few countries that do get lower ratings than the 

U.S. Just this morning we released a BBC poll that evaluated 11 

different countries, and Israel, Iran and by some measures North 

Korea do receive lower ratings. But the United States is rated far 

lower than France, Japan, Canada, China, India and to some extent Russia. 

Now these findings are consistent with other polls but polls that 

ask people to rate their feelings about the U.S. like on a temperature scale from 0 to 100—asking if you feel warm or cold toward 

the U.S.—do elicit positive ratings. For example, 62 percent of Australians say the United States is having a negative influence in the 

world but when asked how you feel about the United States, per 

say, they give a 60 degree response. So they have a warm feeling 

toward the U.S. per se even though they are critical of U.S. activities in the world or its performance in the world. 

The views of the American people are somewhat more positive 

than for the country as a whole, and some countries are very positive. American movies and television get mixed reviews. American 

science and technology engender substantial respect around the 

world as well as the U.S. educational system. But the aspect of the 

U.S. that elicits the strongest negative feeling is U.S. foreign policy. How the U.S. is behaving in the world. 

In a 14-country poll that we just did with the Chicago Council, 

large majorities in 12 of them said that the U.S. is playing the role 

of world policeman more than it should be. That is a theme that 

comes through in our focus groups quite a lot. 

And when we looked in the BBC poll at six foreign policy areas, 

on average across the 26 countries, you find even larger majorities 

than the overall positive/negative number disapproving of how the 

U.S. is dealing with a number of areas: 73 percent disapprove of 

how the United States is handling the Iraq war; 67 percent disapprove of United States treatment of detainees in Guantanamo 

and other prisons; 65 percent disapprove of how the United States 

handled the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon; 60 percent disapprove of United States handling of Iran’s nuclear program; 56 percent United States handling of global warming or climate change; and 54 percent disapprove of United States handling 

of North Korea’s nuclear program. 
8

The United States military presence in the Middle East is also 

quite unpopular. On average, 68 percent believe that U.S. military 

presence there provokes more conflict than it prevents, while on average only 17 percent see it as a stabilizing force. 

Okay. So what is the good news? Well the good news is there is 

an abundance of evidence that the unhappiness with the U.S. is 

not about U.S. values. People around the world say that the problem that they have with the U.S. is about its policies not its values. 

Even large majorities of Muslims say this in polls that we conducted for the University of Maryland START Center. Most Muslims reject the idea that there is a fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the west. Values of democracy and international law are more popular than al-Qaeda. In the focus groups 

that we have done around the world, the complaint we hear again 

and again is not about U.S. values. It is that the U.S. is hypocritical, that it is not living up to its values. 

Now complaining that the U.S. is hypocritical is a kind of backhanded compliment because implicitly what they are saying is that 

if the U.S. were to live up to its values that would be something 

positive. The support for American values has deep roots. It goes 

back at least to the post World War II period. At that time the U.S. 

was so overwhelmingly powerful relative to the rest of the world 

that it really had the option of imposing an American empire. But 

it did not do that. 

Instead it championed a world order based on international law 

and said that it too would be constrained by the system. It endorsed a system built around the United Nations that prohibited 

the unilateral use of force except in self-defense. The U.S. promoted 

democracy and human rights. It promoted a fair and open system 

of trade and free enterprise that did not favor the strong over the 

weak. And through its aid programs it also sought to integrate poor 

countries into the international economy. 

And there is substantial evidence that the values and ideas for 

world order that the U.S. has promoted have been widely accepted. 

Here are just a few quick examples. In 72 countries polled for the 

World Values Survey nearly all agreed that democracy may have 

its problems but it is still better than any other form of government. In 30 out of 32 countries polled for BBC, most said that the 

United Nations is having a positive influence in the world, and in 

19 out of 20 countries polled by GlobeScan a majority agreed that 

the free enterprise system and the free market economy is the best 

system on which to base the future of the world. The Chinese, by 

the way, were the most positive. 

And there is no indication that support for these principles is in 

decline. The problem is this growing perception that the U.S. is not 

living up to the principles. In a recent poll that we conducted there 

were widespread perceptions that the U.S. is actually violating 

international law in its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. The 

U.S. image as a promoter of human rights has diminished, as you 

can see in this slide. In 1998, the U.S. Information Agency found 

that 59 percent of the British and 61 percent of the Germans said 

that the United States was doing a good job of promoting human 

rights. Now 56 percent of the British and 78 percent of the Germans say the United States is doing a bad job. In a recent Pew 
9

poll, 38 out of 43 countries felt that U.S. policies are worsening the 

gap between rich and poor. 

But probably the most fundamental factor is that there is concern about whether the United States is constrained in its use of 

military force, and that is why there is so much concern about the 

invasion of Iraq. The complaint is not really that Saddam Hussein 

was removed. The complaint is that the U.S. did not play by the 

rules, that the U.S. did not get U.N. approval. That has left many 

countries uneasy about whether U.S. military power is constrained 

by the international system. 

Now it might sound strange to Americans but in many countries 

around the world they perceive the U.S. as a military threat. They 

see it as a significant possibility that the U.S. will use military 

force against them, and we need to understand that this military 

power that the U.S. has is really overwhelming to people around 

the world, and they worry about it. 

So in summary, the challenge we face is not convincing people 

of the principles that the U.S. has tried to promote to the world. 

The world is pretty much convinced, and the fact that this is so is 

a tremendous asset for the U.S. and something to really think 

about. 

What the world is looking for is reassurance that the U.S. is constrained by the rules that the U.S. itself has promoted. And were 

people around the world to gain more confidence in U.S. intentions 

and perceive the U.S. as having a kind of renewed commitment to 

the values and principles that we have promoted, there are strong 

reasons to believe that attitudes toward the U.S. could shift rather 

quickly in a positive direction. Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kull follows:]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well thank you, Dr. Kull, for some fascinating 

testimony. I am going to reserve my time, and yield to the vice 

chairman of the committee for his questions, the gentleman from 

Missouri, Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome again. 

To the ranking member, I am going to try to use my communications skills and my lawyer skills here today. So I hope you will not 

hold that against me. I also was hoping that the Doctor would tell 

us that we had hit rock bottom, and part of the good news was that 

we had nowhere to go but up. But when you look at these trend 

lines, it certainly looks like we could continue to slide if things do 

not turn around. 

I guess I wanted to ask your thoughts. When I look at these 

opinion questionnaires from around the world, if you look by region 

you look at our immediate neighbors—Canada and Mexico—large 

negative numbers. You look at our traditional allies in Europe, 

again complete flip-flop in a decade and large negative numbers, 

and the region where our military action has taken us in recent 

years that we are supposedly helping has large negative numbers. 

I guess is there any other historical context—you mentioned post 

World War II where we saw a similar phenomenon—or is where we 

are today unique in history? 

Mr. KULL. It is definitely unique. We have never seen numbers 

this low, and as far as our neighbors and our allies, you know it 

is the ones you love who can disappoint you the most, right? And 

our allies in Europe are particularly those who embrace this model 

of world order, these principles that the United States was promoting. Because of that, there is a more distinct sense of disappointment. Those who were less involved in that process of developing and promoting that order do not have as distinct expectations. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And so what is different about where we are 

today versus say where we were after World War II? What are the 

differences that you see or that this data shows you? 

Mr. KULL. Well I think there are just stronger doubts about 

whether the U.S. is constrained, whether the U.S. has basically 

abandoned the system that the U.S. established in the post World 

War II period. The U.S. garnered quite a lot of goodwill for the 

kind of order that it promoted in that period, and now there are 

questions about whether the U.S. is not just not living up to it but 

whether it is effectively abandoning it, and people are looking for 

reassurance that the U.S. is still with the program that it was 

originally promoting. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. What I am hearing you describe is really in the 

area of our engagement in the international community and the 

very values that we promoted after World War II. You are saying 

there seems to be a disconnect. 

Mr. KULL. Yes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. In where we are today. 

Mr. KULL. Right. The problem is not really anti-Americanism. It 

is not a rejection of what America traditionally has stood for. If 

anything, it is disappointment that the U.S. is not living up to that 

image as much as the people around the world have come to expect. 
17

Mr. CARNAHAN. And the particular American principles that you 

referenced in your chart in terms of democracy, in terms of the 

United Nations and free enterprise system, were there other traditional principles that were discussed beyond that? 

Mr. KULL. Well a sense of fairness, about the U.S. including 

other countries in a singular trading system, encouraging other 

countries, helping them develop, trying to bring them in, and there 

are some perceptions the U.S. is not playing fair as much as it did 

in the past. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. The other thing I would like to follow up on; you 

mentioned there seemed to be a very clear difference between the 

attitude toward Americans versus the attitude toward U.S. policies. 

Is that unique as well? 

Mr. KULL. In terms of history, in the past it was more consonant, 

and Americans and what America represented were more of a singularity. Now it is something you hear very often in focus group 

that we like the people but we do not like what the government 

is doing. This distinction is something they really underscore, and 

it does come through in quite a few polls. It is not that in polls 

large majorities say they like the American people. But it is overall 

a more mixed picture and definitely more positive. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Is your polling also indicating a personification 

of this in our President or the Bush administration? 

Mr. KULL. Yes. A lot of it is directed toward the President, the 

image of the President, which is not real popular. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I call on the ranking member, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. During the 1980s, let 

us say mid 1980s, 1983 to 1985, I just noticed there is a poll here 

that suggests, a Newsweek poll showed that 25 percent of the 

French approved us. It may not be the best country to use the example. Was that reflected in other people’s disapproval as well? 

Mr. KULL. There has really been no time for which we have data 

that shows the broad level of dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy that we find today. Certainly there are going to be specific 

countries in specific cases that——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is just that I do remember that during the 

height of the Cold War—I was working at the White House at the 

time—that there were demonstrators, and every time we tried to 

counter any move by the Soviet Union whatsoever, public opinion 

in Europe, in particular western Europe, was being manipulated, 

and a huge effort by—as we all remember that the Communists 

really understood communications. If they knew anything, they 

knew about propaganda. 

And you had America being portrayed as the war monger during 

the 1980s—I remember that very well—at a time when we were 

simply trying to counterbalance the intermediate range missiles 

that the Soviet Union had just put in place in eastern Europe, and 

everybody remembers the nuclear freeze movement which was 

what? The Soviets dramatically increased their intermediate range 

weapons, and then called for a freeze which would have of course 

put them at a dominant position. 

However, public opinion I do not believe—and I think this is 

what this Newsweek poll is all about—public opinion in Europe did 
18

not recognize that at all. So again does not leadership in some 

way—and the tougher the moment—does it not lead to at that moment in history a very negative view of what history in the end 

might consider it to be a very important leader and an important 

stand? 

Mr. KULL. Yes. There have definitely been times when people 

around the world have been frustrated with certain aspects of U.S. 

foreign policy. However, throughout those periods when you actually looked at all the polling data and got the general public’s point 

of view, it tended to produce a response of, Oh gee, it is not as bad 

as I expected, when you took the world public as a whole. But that 

has changed. Before it was really more focalized in certain critical 

subgroups that may have resonated more broadly but now you 

have something that is more broad based. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note that during the Reagan years 

when he decided that we were going to push to defeat Communism 

rather than just try to get by while he was in office—which all our 

other Presidents had done—during that time period President 

Reagan was vilified and his poll numbers were extraordinarily low 

in western Europe until of course the Berlin wall came down, and 

Ronald Reagan became deified, and now he probably has one of the 

highest levels of approval of any of the Presidents we have had except for John Kennedy who of course was cut short but was able 

to remain an ideal in people’s mind. 

So maybe is it possible that if we are successful in this war 

against radical Islam—which again is creating all sorts of uncomfortable feelings because you are having to go through a crisis that 

you did not necessarily want to go through. That is what leaders 

do. They put you in a crisis moment to make sure the future is better. Do you not think that perhaps our poll numbers might go up 

if for example radical Islam is defeated or if after 5 years from now 

we see a shift in Islamic countries toward a more democratic process rather than toward radical Islam? 

Mr. KULL. Nothing succeeds like success. No question about it. 

There is though a persisting question that people have about 

whether the U.S. is constrained. So even if the U.S. uses its force 

effectively, people can still have nervousness about who is next, 

and whether that could lead to action that might produce instability in the region and that kind of thing. 

So there is a kind of ongoing question about what is the modus 

operandi in the U.S., not just the outcome of its efforts. But certainly if the U.S. succeeds in any way, that is going to have a positive impact. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. In terms of a negative view in some 

countries of course—or not just some countries—but many countries do not have a free press, and do you think it is really possible 

for us to impact on public opinion in countries where the news 

media is controlled by the government, and the government may be 

hostile to American objectives? 

Mr. KULL. Yes, that certainly makes it considerably more difficult, though people in many countries know how to interpret their 

press to some extent. Certainly North Korea would be an example 

of one where that control is rather complete. But with the Internet 

now, information flows considerably more freely. 
19

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Which is interesting again back to a historical analysis. While during that time period Ronald Reagan was 

very unpopular in Western Europe, I might add that in Poland and 

in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary and all of these eastern European countries that had a controlled press by the Communists, the 

public opinion was actually more positive for the United States. 

Mr. KULL. And it continues to be the case. Poland consistently 

leans positive toward the United States. That has drifted downward recently but they are still on the positive side and Hungary 

is divided. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note I think your polling data is fascinating, and I think it is accurate of course. You have done a good, 

professional job at this, and we appreciate you stimulating the discussion. 

Mr. KULL. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A couple things like historically what happens during times of change and crisis leaders do get blamed. 

Abraham Lincoln got blamed. But also what do you think is the 

possibility that a lot of public opinion overseas is based on what I 

call the perfect and ideal spouse concept? You know when you live 

with someone every day and you love your wife or your husband, 

after awhile you begin just focusing on maybe some of their bad 

parts and forget some of their good parts, and then you begin comparing them. I do not know if that ever happens in your family. 

Mr. KULL. Yes, I can imagine. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But what about the fact that America now is 

so much part of everybody’s life around the world that they are 

comparing us to an ideal rather than what may be a real alternative, and what someone you know ends up with is not going to 

be an ideal spouse anyway? 

Mr. KULL. Right. This kind of complaint about the U.S. is a perennial that has been going for decades. The U.S. holds out such 

high ideals that yes, it always to some extent falls short but that 

has been a constant for some decades. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I see. 

Mr. KULL. And something has happened more recently that is 

sharper where people are showing more genuine nervousness about 

again whether the U.S. is not just living up to its ideals but whether it has actually begun to depart from them, and is actually following some new model of its role in the world. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well thank you very much. I appreciate this. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, and now I will yield to Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. It is amazing to find out that 

other countries will fear the United States and all the other countries in the world including China and Israel and all the rest 

maybe and maybe 10 or 15 all put together so that the tremendous 

amount of money that we are spending, $600 billion annually on 

defenses is something that is kind of surprising me. 

Back in 1967, I traveled through Russia in the back parts down 

the Don River and Volga River and way back in the rural parts on 

a boat, and every place we were able to find kind of literature. The 

Russian people had this—the people, the government evidently 

forced it on them—that this imperialistic group was going to come, 
20

and it was so surprising to me because you know being a good 

American citizen I had this very positive image of us, and those 

poor Russian people were scared to death of the United States coming in because they had lost so many people in World War II. 

And that was the first time I saw the other side of how people 

feared us because we were always the ones that are uplifting the 

world and helping everybody, and we are truth and so forth. I just 

have a couple of questions. I wondered do the average person—evidently they do know something about Kyoto and climate change 

and our refusal to have shared sacrifice and that kind of thing. You 

know we still have got to have the air condition. Do not care what 

about the ozone layer. 

But do they know also about agricultural subsidies, for example? It really does a job on say farmers in other countries with the $300 

billion that is subsidized annually by United States and Europe so 

that countries in developing worlds they cannot sell anything because our subsidies keep our prices at a level where they cannot 

compete. Does that kind of get into it too or do they know much 

about the Doha rounds and the Uruguay rounds and that? 

Mr. KULL. We do not really know. I wish we did but we do find 

evidence that there is a perception that the U.S. policies increase 

the gap between rich and poor. That there is some kind of lack of 

fairness, and I would imagine that some of that feeling is related 

to the agricultural subsidies because that has been one of the most 

high profile complaints about U.S. trade policy. 

Mr. PAYNE. The other things that——

Mr. KULL. On the climate change too I might add when we did 

an analysis attitudes about climate change in terms of U.S. foreign 

policy were a powerful driver in affecting the overall attitude about 

U.S. role in the world. To an extent that surprised us. I do not 

know how many people know about Kyoto, but there is some kind 

of perception that the U.S. is not doing its part in addressing the 

climate change issue. 

Mr. PAYNE. There is also you know some of these international 

positions that we want just for America for example, and I wonder 

if that has a way of working itself down. For example, the International Criminal Court we say no, it should not be only because 

you know we do not want to fall under ICC indictment for example 

or even in more particular Article 98 which is the article of Rome 

where United States wants our military to be excluded from the 

rest of the world, and if you do not sign a waiver to Article 98 in 

countries you cannot have U.S. training or military or other kinds 

of assistance. 

And so a number of our best friends like the Barbados and Jamaica and South American countries, even Kenya which has the 

most positive policies to the United States than any country in the 

world, American military planes can land in Kenya. Just say we 

are coming in. No place in the world you can do that. 

Yet and still Kenya is restricted under this Article 98 where they 

cannot get parts to planes that they bought from the United States, 

and the U.S. is really hampering their ability to defend themselves 

even in the area where you have so-called rising of Islamic fundamentalism. Somalia is right next to Sudan. We want Kenya. I 

mean Somalia is right next to Kenya. We want Kenya to keep an 
21

eye on them but we will not sell them the parts because they will 

not sign Article 98. 

Now some of these policies are just you know create one last one 

like that is in the Caribbean now. You know you could go to Bermuda and those places with just showing you know a driver’s license or whatever. Now the U.S. is requiring a passport to go to 

their country because they want you to have a passport to come 

back. These are U.S. citizens. 

So they are saying you know we have got all these regulations 

now. Our ports and we have got to spend all this money building 

up the ports. We have no terrorists. So we are the recipient of the 

hatred of the United States, and it is costing us tourists now. They 

got to have a passport to come. We do not care if you have a passport or not. Just come and go back where you came from. Just 

leave you know some money. 

But now it is hampering all those things. So I guess collectively 

these little things kind of a little thing over here, a little thing over 

there, the United States sued Britain on bananas because they said 

that Chiquita banana, an American company, did not want the 

Lome treaties. They gave a preference to these little teeny islands 

that all they do is sell bananas. So Britain said, well we will buy 

them at the same price that we buy Chiquita you know even 

though they are not as pretty. 

The United States sued the Caribbean countries. So now they 

have got no more banana trade because Chiquita just wants to sell 

them all. They are in South America you know. So I just wonder 

if a little bit here and a little bit there I guess is the question because these policies really when a low guy who used to grow some 

bananas, that is all they can do in that country, and now they do 

nothing, and now drugs are coming in, and you know they are losing out. I guess these kinds of the things you are talking about 

rather than the values of American people. 

Mr. KULL. Right. I do not know what the specific attitudes are 

on the banana issue, but, again, we find this perception that the 

U.S. plays a kind of hardball, that the U.S. does not always take 

into account the needs of other countries that may not be as strong 

as the U.S. The U.S. not participating in the International Criminal Court goes along with this image that the U.S. is not willing 

to be subordinate to the rules that it has promoted for others to 

be subordinate to. 

And so this theme of a lack of reciprocity comes up in polls and 

in focus groups, a perception that the U.S. sees itself as a kind of 

special case that the rules do not apply to it the same as to other 

countries. This bothers people. And it is the kind of thing that just 

spontaneously comes out of them in focus groups. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. I have just got two quick questions. It is only 

going to take a half a second. One, the age bracket, do you find 

more anti-Americanism in the younger people or the older people 

like in Korea the old people know we saved Korea from the Communists? Younger people are saying well you know we are Koreans, North and South, why can we not all get together. Have they 

been able to find a divide? 

Mr. KULL. The short answer is no that there are not really distinct differences. The younger people are more responsive to Amer-
22

ican culture and outside influences in general but there is not a 

real sharp difference in terms of attitude or general U.S. foreign 

policy. 

Mr. PAYNE. And just finally the places where you have the most 

positive attitudes toward the United States is really the places that 

we really ignore the most like Africa. You know I have been trying 

to get you know the United States to look at Africa, its potential 

and all that, and still people love America. They really wish we 

would pay some attention. I mean we have not built a school in Africa in I do not know when. So the Saudis go in, and they will build 

them, and they will put their teachers in, and then we wonder. 

And even in spite of all that stuff that is being done by some of 

the people who are anti-U.S., we still cannot get you know two 

wooden nickels rubbed together. I have to agree that in HIV and 

AIDS I have to commend President Bush and the PEPFAR program that we pushed him to do but he could have resisted it. So 

that helping HIV and AIDS is helpful, and we are certainly far 

from enough but it is much more than what we saw before the 

PEPFAR program. 

Mr. KULL. Well these numbers in Africa do show how much foreign aid can be helpful because that is a significant part of how Africans perceive the United States. Also corporations coming in and 

setting up companies and stimulating the economy. All that has a 

positive association in Africans and polls say that they have these 

positive views, and it seems that is their image of the United 

States more than how it uses military force or what its trade policies are at a more abstract level, and they know about some jobs 

that have been created by some efforts by the U.S., and that is 

definitely a positive. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Payne, and I now go to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow-up on 

the African question. Have you seen other polling—I know this 

only includes Kenya and Nigeria—but is this shared common wide 

in the sub-Saharan? 

Mr. KULL. Yes. We have done some polls of 8 to 10 African countries, and this general sentiment does come through throughout 

sub-Saharan Africa. 

Mr. FLAKE. You mentioned that trade is more abstract. That people do not see that as much as foreign aid but——

Mr. KULL. And investment. 

Mr. FLAKE. In this case though we through AGOA and AGOA II 

have created more of an atmosphere where trade and investment 

can take place. I mean I am not suggesting——

Mr. KULL. Yes. And I think that probably contributes to the positive view. 

Mr. FLAKE. Let me just move briefly to we do have some programs over at State, some of which are authorized. Authorization 

has gone out. Boards and commissions to help the U.S. craft a better image across the world. What is your opinion on commissions 

like these, on advisory boards and others from the private sector 

to come in and advise our Government agencies on what in terms 

of both policy and style I guess to better our image? 
23

Mr. KULL. Well I think probably any reflection on the problem 

is helpful. I would just encourage those commissions to include 

some information about general public opinion as well because the 

information that passes through governments or the kinds of elites 

that many American leaders, corporations and so on deal with may 

or may not be truly representative. 

Mr. FLAKE. But is all of this so much on the margin basically trying to put a better face on policies that countries may not like or 

they do like already or can that make a substantive difference? 

Mr. KULL. Well I think the key thing is to include that information about the public diplomacy implications in the policy making 

process. It is not something that you do public diplomacy over here 

and you do policy over here. I think you need to take into account 

the cost and benefits of particular policies to public diplomacy as 

part of the general calculation of the pluses and minuses of any 

specific policy. 

Mr. FLAKE. With regard to our refusal in some areas to meet and 

even have dialogue in the past it has been with North Korea, Iran, 

Syria, Cuba, how much does this—in what you have done and studied—how much does this weigh on these numbers? Does the world 

see that as simply arrogance on our part or do they see that as values that we hold that we are not compromising by meeting with 

governments that do not share our views that way? How does that 

go? 

Mr. KULL. The theme that comes through repeatedly is that the 

U.S. does not regard itself as like another country. That the U.S. 

dictates. That the U.S. imposes, and so any effort to enter into dialogue would presumably have a positive affect and offset that perception, and the refusal to have a kind of unilateral you know directional stance contributes more to the negative image. 

It comes back to again the world order model that the U.S. promoted in the post-World War II period with the development of the 

United Nations and so on. The idea that countries get together and 

work out their differences and do not use military force and so on. 

That is an ideal that was well embraced by the world, and when 

the U.S. refuses to enter into dialogue or use diplomacy and then 

implicitly is perceived as implicitly using military threats, then 

that contributes more to this negative image. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And now I yield as much time as you may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question deals 

with the way you did the polling only to help me understand it better. On page 3 you have that chart that shows an average of 18 

countries. Would that be the same 18 countries in the BBC poll? 

Mr. KULL. Yes. That is the BBC poll. We have 18 countries that 

we do every year, year after year, and then we change out some 

of the other ones to get——

Mr. PAUL. And they are widespread? That is just not Arab countries? 

Mr. KULL. No, no. It is very much worldwide. 

Mr. PAUL. Okay. So at the bottom of that page when on average 

75 percent disapprove of how the United States is handling the 

Iraq war, that is part of that? 
24

Mr. KULL. No. That is 26 countries. 

Mr. PAUL. That is 26. 

Mr. KULL. Right. It is only for that trend line that we have to 

limit it to the countries that we asked both in 2005, 2006 and 2007. 

Mr. PAUL. Okay. Was the trend line only started in 2005? We do 

not know what is——

Mr. KULL. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. PAUL. Would you——

Mr. KULL. For this series of questions. But like the favorable/unfavorable question that was asked by the State Department in the 

1990s and that has since been asked by PEW, we have that as a 

trend line that goes back even further. That goes back even decades. 

Mr. PAUL. Could you give me a rough idea what it was like in 

2000 versus like right before the war started and right after the 

war? Was it pretty flat or did it change dramatically from 2000 up 

to 2005? 

Mr. KULL. Well in 1999 it was really pretty positive, and there 

was some downward movement in the run-up to the Iraq war but 

it was really after the Iraq war that it was——

Mr. PAUL. So it got much more negative? 

Mr. KULL. There was a sharp downward movement, and that has 

since continued downward. 

Mr. PAUL. You know it is generally understood by many—and especially if you look at what Osama bin Laden actually said—one 

of the motivations you know behind the attack on 9/11 had to do 

with our policies over there. Was that a policy held by a very narrow number of radicals or was that a consensus of the Arab people, 

and you know he was annoyed because our bases were there, and 

we were propping up secular governments, that sort of thing? 

Mr. KULL. To the extent that we have data on it, those critiques 

do resonate with people in the region. There is a negative view of 

U.S. military presence there. Views of U.S. support for regimes in 

the region, we have found, is more mixed. It is not quite as negative as the perceptions or attitudes about the general military presence. That is more divided in different countries. 

Mr. PAUL. So if the real cause and the real motivation behind 

Osama bin Laden was you know our policies there, it would not 

have necessarily reflected the large majority view of Arabs of those 

countries? 

Mr. KULL. Well Osama bin Laden is not popular. Now shortly 

after 9/11 he was sort of a popular figure as somebody who sort of 

stands up to America but the more people found out about him the 

less they like him, and there is right now no country that has a 

majority that has a positive view of him. 

Now there are some people who do and so it is important to remember that, and you do not need all that many people to have 

a positive view to create an important movement but his general 

orientation in terms of the use of the terrorism or attacks on civilians, that combination of that method in conjunction with those 

points of view are not popular. But a fair number of the things that 

Osama bin Laden says do resonate and the opposition to U.S. military presence is probably one of the strongest. The Israeli/Palestinian issue, support for Israel of course is very big as well. 
25

There is also a resonance with the general view that the U.S. is 

in some way trying to weaken and divide Islam, even that the 

United States is trying to promote Christianity in the Middle East. 

These arguments do resonate, and the U.S. really does have work 

to do to counter some of these perceptions. 

Mr. PAUL. Now the polling shows that 75 percent disapprove of 

how the U.S. is handling the war which sounds more like a tactical 

problem rather than a strategic or overall policy problem. Does it 

ever show up that people even think about the fact that we got engaged in Iraq as a preemptive war rather than a defensive war? 

I think it shows up that they do not like our inconsistencies. That 

you know we are hypocritical. But does the subject of preemption 

ever come up or is that sort of too vague for the general population 

to understand that? 

Mr. KULL. There was polling before in the run-up to the Iraq war 

that found that majority saying that if the United States got U.N. 

approval that would make it all right, but not without U.N. approval. The perception was that the U.S. did not have the right to 

do it. The United States did not have the right to act preemptively 

relative to Iraq. 

Mr. PAUL. So it seems like that large number of people, the majority are very interested in the rule of law. Today it seemed like 

the rule of law would be satisfied worldwide more if we followed 

international law and U.N. law. Of course to me sometimes that is 

disappointing that we look for the authority at the United Nations 

rather than the proper authority here where Congress is supposed 

to make those decisions. But that I think is beyond the scope of 

this particular discussion but in many ways I think that gets to the 

heart of the problem about how we go to war, and it is interesting 

that they did want the rule of law to work. 

At the same time now they seem to be concentrating if we had 

only won it we would not have worried too much but I do think 

eventually that we as a country and as a Congress have to concern 

ourselves more with our process. Just as the general population we 

are concerned about the process in the use of the United Nations, 

I would like to emphasize that some day we emphasize that here 

in the Congress as well, and I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me just inquire of the members. Does anyone 

have any additional questions that they would like to pose to Dr. 

Kull? Seeing none, with the concurrence of Mr. Rohrabacher, the 

ranking member, I am going to permit staff to ask a few questions. 

Again this is a divergence somewhat from the normal practice but 

I think it can be very productive. 

But before I turn first to Dr. Rossiter, and then if minority staff 

wishes to inquire, then clearly we welcome that. Dr. Kull, I read 

a recent product I think of PIPA that was released back in September regarding attitudes of Iraqis, vis-a`-vis the United States, 

and I found it fascinating. Number one, at some point maybe within the next several months I would extend an invitation to you to 

return to this hearing room and focus specifically on Iraq. 

Mr. KULL. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. With reference to al-Qaeda, can you just give us 

a snapshot of the Iraqi people’s attitude about al-Qaeda? 
26

Mr. KULL. Yes. That is an encouraging bit of data. Their views 

of bin Laden are exceedingly negative in every group, Kurds, Shias, 

Sunnis. It is almost universally very negative. The only group for 

which that it is not nearly universal is the Sunnis. But even among 

the Sunnis three out of four have a negative view. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would like to just touch on some news accounts 

that occurred within the course of the past several months, and if 

you could comment in terms of the impact on public opinion in 

other nations. Recently the Italian Government indicted a number 

of CIA agents for these so-called extraordinary renditions, and if 

my memory serves me correctly, Germany is considering doing likewise. Have the actions of the United States related to these socalled extraordinary renditions, have they had an impact in terms 

of foreign public opinion? 

Mr. KULL. We have done some polling in Europe and a few other 

countries on the subject, and the answer—at least in regard to 

those countries—is yes. That the extraordinary renditions are negatively perceived, and there is a negative attitude to the extent 

that their own governments have in any way cooperated with that. 

When those governments do charge Americans that is probably a 

popular move. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I do not know if this is a question that you are 

capable of responding to but earlier in my opening statement I referenced the concerns by the GAO in terms of our national interests. 

There were four items that they indicated could impair not just 

simply our status in the world but our foreign policy concerns. Any 

comment? 

Mr. KULL. Well I think it is really clear that when this situation 

exists it makes it more difficult for other governments to cooperate 

with us, even if they want to. It just increases the political cost for 

them to work more closely with the U.S., and obviously that consideration is not going to dictate policy but it is a fact that needs to 

be considered. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you provide us specific examples if any come 

to mind? 

Mr. KULL. Well in general right now throughout the Middle East 

governments are uneasy about the situation in Iraq, and Iran, 

Syria. They are uneasy about that situation, and it is probably in 

their interest to in some way work with the United States, and 

they may be willing to do so. We do not know really how far they 

are willing to go but they do have some limits or it becomes to 

some extent a problem for them if they are perceived as being too 

cooperative. 

Saudi Arabia would probably be a key example. So that they 

have to in some way keep some distance from the U.S., and that 

does not necessarily make it impossible to move forward but it 

makes it more difficult. It is just a factor that just keeps entering 

into the equation, and in periods where the U.S. is perceived more 

favorably it is less of a hindrance. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Dr. Kull, and with that I turn to 

Counsel Rossiter. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Rohrabacher for allowing this practice of counsel being involved. I 

worked very closely with Mr. Rohrabacher back in the 1990s on the 
27

Arms Trade Code of Conduct bill with our colleague, Senator Hatfield and Ms. McKinney. It is great to see him again. When I was 

running for Congress in 1998 I always wanted to sit up here, but 

not in this role. What can you do? 

I would like to start with some of your polling techniques. How 

sure are you about your findings? Let us take, for example: You 

have got 72 percent of Nigerians saying mainly positive influence. 

How large a sample do you typically take? How sure can you be 

that you are representing overall opinion in a country like Nigeria 

where the government cannot even count how many people they 

have? How do you do a random poll to let us know whether this 

number comports with reality? 

Mr. KULL. Right. The sample size is generally 1,000 which gives 

a margin of error plus or minus 3 percent. In some of the developing countries, we are limited to polling in the urban areas. I cannot remember particularly about Nigeria. What we find is when we 

do have urban and rural that the rural are not fundamentally different from the urban but the views are not as strong. The majorities are smaller. You have more do not knows, that kind of thing. 

So with polling in general try to always think of it that it is a 

fuzzy image you are dealing with. It is not a sharp image, and in 

developing countries because of some of the limits of our capacity 

to get to all parts of the country assume that it is even a little 

fuzzier. But if you have got a clear majority in one direction or another, you can be quite confident that that is representative of the 

general population. It is just a question of what your margin of 

error is. 

If it is 50–50 then maybe you should not; or 52–48 then maybe 

it is possible it could swing in a different direction if you had more 

accuracy or precision. In the developed countries the precision is 

higher. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Now your plus or minus 3 percent is a band 

around any of these numbers up here of 6 percent. 

Mr. KULL. Right. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Total. 

Mr. KULL. And with the developing countries you should probably add a little more in your thinking. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Okay. So we have to keep that in mind. 

Mr. KULL. Right. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Is that the classic 95 percent certainty that you 

found the proper opinion in there? 

Mr. KULL. That is right. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Now the beauty of polls is that they shake our 

perceptions that we see on the television. I am stunned, frankly, 

having lived in Africa just a year ago, for a year, to see those high 

numbers, since walking in slums you would see children run up 

and make the symbol of the Abu Ghraib prisoner with his hands 

spread out as soon as they knew you were an American. It was 

quite common, and yet you find tremendous positives here. Does 

this relate do you think——

Mr. KULL. But I might add that on the numbers in dealing with 

Abu Ghraib you get a larger majority saying that they feel dissatisfied with how the U.S. has dealt with prisoners at Guantanamo 
28

than the numbers that say that the U.S. is having a negative influence in the world. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Okay. 

Mr. KULL. So some people say we disapprove of how the U.S. is 

dealing with that situation but still say on balance probably the 

U.S. is having a more positive than negative influence in the world. 

There is a kind of underlying positive feeling there that has some 

historical roots but it is when you get into the specific policies that 

you get the really big numbers where people are saying that they 

disapprove. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Okay. So Mr. Payne’s point is well taken that 

there may be individual policies, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, renditions, lack 

of foreign aid funding that Africans may disagree with the United 

States on, and Europeans may, but the Africans have a much deeper store of a positive attitude nonetheless, while the Europeans 

more quickly jump into the negative on these things? 

Mr. KULL. The Europeans are more disappointed, more surprised 

that the United States is not doing what they have expected it to 

do. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Okay. Now like Mr. Paul, I would like to go back 

to the chart that shows the trend lines separating, if we could. I 

know you can only guess at these numbers but I am concerned that 

we may be misled here just a little bit, and want to make sure we 

understand this. The numbers in 2001, the level that you are at 

there for 2002, was that a bit of an artifact of sympathy? 

Mr. KULL. Are you looking at the one on the right here? 

Mr. ROSSITER. Yes. 

Mr. KULL. That is 2005, 2006, and 2007. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Right. Well, what I am saying is you are at a certain level. You are at about 46 percent, well, let us say the favorable, 40 percent unfavorable. What I am asking is, is it just a long 

steady decline since after the bump up that I am sure we received 

after the attacks of 9/11? That is, did the number go up to a high 

point in about 2001 with a sort of rallying around America, and 

really what we are just seeing is a long general decline? How would 

it look going back, just guessing, that gray line, to 2000 year-byyear? 

Mr. KULL. Well as I was showing in the 1999 numbers, those 

numbers would cross if you went back to 1999 or 2000. 

Mr. ROSSITER. But the 1999 was a different poll. 

Mr. KULL. Right. 

Mr. ROSSITER. So my question is I am wondering——

Mr. KULL. We do not have this on a long-term trend line. 

Mr. ROSSITER. But just the way that you feel about it you think 

they would cross somewhere around 2002, 2003? 

Mr. KULL. Yes. 

Mr. ROSSITER. But had they been quite high artificially—not artificially—driven up by the events of 9/11, and so we are just coming 

down from that? 

Mr. KULL. It was a blip upward, and it was not long lasting. 

Mr. ROSSITER. My last question has to do with phenomenon that 

I also perceived living in Africa. I was stunned always to find people from all walks of life agreeing that the United States might invade them, and it was a reason for their military budgets. The 
29

South African Government would say, ‘‘We need to buy these new 

modern weapons because you never can tell,’’ and I would say, ‘‘Are 

you crazy?’’ But what do you see about that? Are there real perceptions around the world that we could be perceived as a threat even 

to allied countries, particularly in the former colonial world? 

Mr. KULL. Yes. Again, I find that a surprising finding as well 

that even in Kuwait, even in Turkey majorities say that they perceive the United States as a military threat to their country, and 

in a way this is just a kind of existential reality that the U.S. is 

so powerful militarily but looking at all the numbers and what I 

hear in focus groups, it is more than that. There is just an uneasy 

feeling. 

Now it is like if we are in a restaurant and somebody walks into 

a restaurant and they are carrying an AK–47, we all get nervous. 

There is no reason why they should necessarily use the AK–47 

against us but we still get nervous, and that is I think to some extent how it is for people around the world that the U.S. is just so 

powerful it makes people uneasy. Thus, they need to hear reassurance. 

Mr. ROSSITER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well thank you, Dr. Rossiter. Mr. Paul, do you 

have any desire for any closing remarks? Well this was a very informative hearing. Dr. Kull, your testimony had tremendous insights that I know that I appreciate and for the committee let me 

say we look forward to seeing you again. 

As I indicated, I have read your work as it relates to Iraq and 

maybe in a matter of weeks we will ask you to come back with I 

think some very interesting observations about attitudes on the 

part of the Iraqi people, vis-a`-vis the United States. I think it is 

very, very critical to understand those so that we can take that information, form our own opinions and possibly make adjustments. 

Mr. KULL. Thank you for having me. It would be a pleasure to 

return. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. If you would just bear with us for a moment. We are adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ