scholarly journals Shared values or shared interests? Arab publics and intervention in Syria

Politics ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 026339572096785
Author(s):  
Lars Berger ◽  
Adrian Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Arab Spring ◽  
Shared Values ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
International Intervention ◽  
Syrian Crisis ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Western Perspective

Analysing Arab public opinion on the international community’s response to the Syrian crisis, we expand existing scholarship by injecting a non-Western perspective into the oftentimes Western-centric debates on intervention. We demonstrate that publics in two prominent Arab Spring countries were quite willing to embrace intervention in Syria in order to depose Bashar al-Assad. More specifically, our analysis reveals that both interests and values shape support for different types of international intervention in Syria. In the context of the distinction between policy-driven and culture-driven anti-Americanisms, we show that Egyptian and Tunisian evaluations of US foreign policy behaviour and, to lesser extent, US culture correlate with support for Western-led intervention in Syria.

Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 107-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Özlem Tür ◽  
Mehmet Akif Kumral
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Agenda Building ◽  
International Intervention ◽  
Syrian Crisis ◽  
Policy Elite ◽  
To Come

AbstractThis article explores the discursive reasons behind the paradoxes in Turkey’s foreign policy since the onset of the Syria crisis. By looking at representation of Turkey’s Syria policy in two prominent pro-government newspapers, Star and Yeni Şafak, the authors highlight the significance of the February 2012 episode, after which Ankara experienced deep discursive dilemmas for three reasons: the uncertain portrayal of the dyadic context, the ambiguous framing of third-party roles, and ambivalent agenda building. Despite the shadow of imminent civil war, Turkey’s foreign policy elite refrained from framing the real risks arising within Syria. Idealistic-normative calls appealed to massacre rhetoric in order to legitimize humanitarian intervention. However, the geopolitical framing of third-party roles did not assist in the building of diplomatic ground for international intervention. Quite the contrary, it led to the shaping of public opinion toward realistic-utilitarian interference. Swinging between intervention and interference, Ankara pushed itself toward a liminal position. Even though the Turkish government’s rhetorical ambivalence helped to sway anti-war domestic public opinion, it did not help to control the spiraling of Syria into civil war. That is to say, the ambivalent agenda building in the critical February 2012 episode perpetuated paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy and left lingering implications for the transformation of the Syrian crisis in the years to come.

Regime Type, Post-Materialism, and International Public Opinion about US Foreign Policy: The Afghan and Iraqi Wars

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-39
Author(s):  
BENJAMIN E. GOLDSMITH
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Regime Type ◽  
Security Cooperation ◽  
Muslim Population ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Several Variables ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Relationship

Previous research (e.g., Horiuchi, Goldsmith, and Inoguchi, 2005) has shown some intriguing patterns of effects of several variables on international public opinion about US foreign policy. But results for the theoretically appealing effects of regime type and post-materialist values have been weak or inconsistent. This paper takes a closer look at the relationship between these two variables and international public opinion about US foreign policy. In particular, international reaction to the wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) are examined using two major multinational surveys. The conclusions of previous research are largely reinforced: neither regime type nor post-materialist values appears to robustly influence global opinion on these events. Rather, some central interests, including levels of trade with the US and NATO membership, and key socialized factors, including a Muslim population, experience with terrorism, and the exceptional experiences of two states (Israel, Albania) emerge as the most important factors in the models. There is also a consistent backlash effect of security cooperation with the US outside of NATO. A discussion of these preliminary results points to their theoretical implications and their significance for further investigation into the transnational dynamics of public opinion and foreign policy.

scholarly journals In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin E. Goldsmith ◽  
Yusaku Horiuchi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mass Publics ◽  
Voting Decisions

Does “soft power” matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of these countries? The authors examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US. They draw their basic conceptual framework from Joseph Nye, who uses various indicators of opinion about the US to assess US soft power. But the authors argue that his theory lacks the specificity needed for falsifiable testing. They refine it by focusing on foreign public opinion about US foreign policy, an underemphasized element of Nye's approach. Their regression analysis shows that foreign public opinion has a significant and large effect on troop commitments to the war in Iraq, even after controlling for various hard power factors. It also has significant, albeit small, effects on policies toward the International Criminal Court and on voting decisions in the UN General Assembly. These results support the authors' refined theoretical argument about soft power: public opinion about US foreign policy in foreign countries does affect their policies toward the US, but this effect is conditional on the salience of an issue for mass publics.

US foreign policy differences to sharpen in 2019

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Terrorism Threat ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
The Government

Significance Trump entered office deeply sceptical of the importance of wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, but his critics say his troop-withdrawal announcements are timed to distract US public opinion from the Mueller probe into his administration and 2016 election campaign. Other critics -- some of them otherwise Trump’s allies, including Republican senators -- fear the troop withdrawals will raise the terrorism threat facing the United States. Impacts A government shutdown tonight would see a further push for continuing resolutions to fund the government, pending further talks. Mattis had been a quasi-envoy to US defence partners in Asia; they will be concerned by his departure. Resurgence of terrorism in Syria or Afghanistan could undermine Trump politically, if the threat facing the United States rises. Republican Senate control should help Mattis’s replacement get confirmed more easily.

11. Media and US foreign policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piers Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Global Media ◽  
Power Projection ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the academic debates over the relationship between US public opinion, media, and foreign policy. It first considers the nature of US media and public opinion, including democratic expectations of mass media and public opinion, before discussing pluralist and elite approaches to understanding the links between media, public opinion, and foreign policy. It then explores the role of propaganda and persuasion with respect to US power projection, with particular emphasis on the ways in which public opinion and media can be understood as a source of power for — and as a constraint upon — US foreign policy. It also reviews contemporary debates regarding the impact of technological developments, such as the emergence of global media like the internet and social media, upon US power and influence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document