Last month’s Pew Global Attitudes Project included an interesting item on public opinion towards the European Union. This is one of the few surveys which offers a snapshot of world opinion towards Europe, as Eurobarometer surveys typically extend only to the European neighbourhood, and global opinion surveys tend not to ask about the EU.
The enthusiasm of South Korea for the European Union makes sense given the country’s geopolitics, as I wrote in June. Yet other results are puzzling. Who would have thought that Russians would be among the EU’s most enthusiastic supporters outside the member states? And why is opinion so unfavourable in emerging democracies such as Argentina and India?
One theory may be that support for the European Union reflects realism versus idealism. The supporters of the European Union are peaceful multilateralists, such as Canada, Japan and South Korea; hard-power realists treat the EU with disdain, regardless of whether they are democratic (India) or not (China). If America is from Mars, and Europe is from Venus, then perhaps Europe’s satellites are similarly lily-livered lilliputians.
Another theory is that people favour Europe to the extent that they share the continent’s secular values. It is notable that all of the most pro-European countries – Korea, Canada, Russia and Japan – are societies in which, according to the recent World Values Surveys, a substantial proportion of the public do not believe in God, and many people share Europe’s liberal views on abortion, homosexuality, and women’s rights. To the extent that Europe is identified with headscarf bans, Danish cartoons, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research, these could be the decisive factors shaping global views of the continent.
Finally, in this regard it is significant that no Muslim country sees the EU favourably – while some see Europe very unfavourably indeed. Was Samuel Huntington right after all?
#1 by Ulrich Speck on September 1, 2009 - 6:24 pm
I’m not sure whether a majority in Pakistan, China, Lebanon or South Korea really knows what the European Union is. In so far the results make little sense.
#2 by Ben on September 2, 2009 - 3:55 am
That’s quite an inflammatory comment, Ulrich. Quite inflammatory.
What is striking is just how much the Turkish population despises the EU. I suppose fifty years of being ignored, shunned and attacked by various parties will do that. It should be a lesson to the Commission.
#3 by Gavin Renwick on September 2, 2009 - 3:35 pm
Personally I boubt the accuracy of that poll 50% of British people looking favourably at the EU is ridiculous. The UK’s results in the last European elections had 1st place; the Euro-sceptic Conservative party that is opposed to the Lisbon treaty, loathed the NICE treaty that preceeded it 2000 and while in power only passed the Maastricht treaty as the then Prime Minister said it would transfer powers bk to the UK. Second place was the United Kingdom Independence Party that has no seats in Parliaments lower house but was formed to take the UK out of Europe. The most pro European party the Liberal Democrats has finished 4th for the last two European elections. One commentator during the elections said that “Tony Blair was determined to end British ambiguity toward Europe, well he did, they don’t like it”.
#4 by Blaat on September 2, 2009 - 5:16 pm
Except you know 2/3 of the British electroate didn’t bother to show up. Effectively speaking 6.8% of the British population voted for the conservatives, 4.1% for the UKIP and 1.5% for the BNP. Combined that’s nowhere near 50%.
#5 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on September 3, 2009 - 2:00 pm
I suspect the relative hostility of countries like Argentina or India, with similar political views, are opposed to the EU mostly in so far that they are opposed to its economic policy (and maybe the environmental one). These are the two main policies where the EU actually does something and where it is in direct opposition to these countries.
I am of course not surprised by the Russian position. While there may be some bad blood between the Russian government and the EU leadership (or absence of), the Russian leaders by no mean truly represent the population. Russia is no democracy. I suspect that Russians themselves would be quite happy to reinforce their links with the EU and, why not, participate in the future. Don’t forget the EU is also their biggest customer.
For the rest, it is really no surprise. Britain is not really interested in the project, having the same rate than Indonesia (a country which has little relations with the EU). China sees the EU as a meddler. As for public opinions in the Middle-East, they are extremely volatile, easily manipulated, and based on massive bias by corrupt media and politicians.
#6 by Patrick on September 3, 2009 - 2:23 pm
Except that Blair underestimated the power of the small clique which controls British media, a small group of billionaire Europhobes who will stop at nothing to pump out anti-EU propaganda of the sort that makes Pravda look like the Beano.
If there was anything like an objective and fair press in the UK, the figures would be quite different.
#7 by Roberto Foa on September 4, 2009 - 12:46 am
Ulrich, perhaps in Pakistan or China knowledge of the EU is fairly limited, but I’d say a fair number of Koreans and certainly most Lebanese know about the EU. But even in cases where respondents give their view on ‘Europe,’ rather than the EU per se, I still think the results are quite interesting.
Jean-Baptiste, I think you have an excellent point on Argentina and India. To the extent that the EU is known in such places, it is for tough trade negotiations, and not for any positive record on aid, scientific collaboration, or foreign policy. This seems to me to highlight an important deficit in the current external relations of the European Union and the need to make more visible partnership and cooperation agreements.
You are probably also right on Russia. I suspect many Russians do after all see their country as part of the European family of nations (stretching from ‘the Atlantic to the Urals,’ as de Gaulle once put it), and their country will one day play this role again, as it has in centuries past. Alas, for the time being Russia’s superpower complex is inconsistent with its reality as a middleweight European power. But this will change. Ideology, as Marx wrote, lags reality.
#8 by Kronion on September 4, 2009 - 10:27 am
The Russian position, the 4th with 69 %, is absurd. IMO, the poll is a dump, the sympathy for the EU in Russia is very low, the figure is ridiculous. Russia is a 100 % european country but it shouldn’t join the EU, it would be brainier to ally with China, the next world hiperpower, and turns its back on the EU.
#9 by Taek on September 4, 2009 - 11:10 am
Kronion, I’m sure that if you think twice you’ll see that to turn one’s back on the EU is ridiculous. Russia is an European country alright and I agree it should not enter the EU. But the EU holds about 30 per cent of the global GDP. Russia just cannot and will not turn its back on such a huge market nextdoor.
#10 by henk houweling on September 4, 2009 - 12:22 pm
Regarding Pew Research-findings
In addition to the idealism-realism hypothesis [ which is one for scholars] and agreement on declaratory values, a 3rd hypothesis could be:
- the distance between declaratory policy regarding values and behavior of EU major member states and their
-close cooperation with America’s security agenda within Europe and in the Greater Middle East.
Henk Houweling, Netherlands
#11 by Kronion on September 4, 2009 - 12:28 pm
Taek, Europe is a continent doomed to the economic irrelevance. Maybe EU holds 30 % of the world GDP now, but this figure will fall dramatically in the near future, whereas China will have an unbelievable economic power. Russia has the option to choose between Europe and China due to geography. Its culture and history is european, but it would be an idiocy to bet on a lossing horse.
Regards
#12 by Taek on September 7, 2009 - 3:38 pm
Kronion,
The figure may fall in the future, but ‘dramatically’ is a strong word. China experienced an economic boom, no doubt about it. Or at least before the global financial turmoil. However it was hurt as badly as anyone. And despite the attempts of its leaders to make it look like China has left it all behind, the crisis is still there.
Russia is a country of unique geographical situation. A vast territory, rich of resources and very suitable access to enormous markets like the EU and China. It really does not have to choose. The country will just take advantage of both. But one of its biggest assets is its oil and gas resource. No wonder why it tries to hasten South and North Stream projects and puts Ukraine under pressure for its only current gas pipeline to Europe. EU needs, Russia provides. Given the blurry future of Nabucco, Russia has quite a strong position and is immensely interested in its trade with EU.
Regards
P.S. Why so grim about the EU future?
#13 by Victor on September 7, 2009 - 3:51 pm
I don’t think God has anything to do with it.
#14 by Marcel on September 7, 2009 - 8:01 pm
People who don’t vote should be counted as opposed to the EU. Apparently, they don’t think that the undemocratic EU is worth bothering to vote for. And they are right.
Only politicians and bureaucrats have profited. The lower middle class and lower classes have not profited at all.
Maybe South Koreans don’t know how undemocratic the EU is and how university educated elites hate democracy over here and want to destroy it and replace it with rule by decree by a mutually appointed political elite.
If they did, the result would be radically different.
#15 by Marcel on September 7, 2009 - 8:11 pm
Oh, and keep Turkey out, at all costs.
If the politicians won’t listen to the people, we’ll go out ourselves and insult Turkey to the hilt to make them withdraw their application. It is regrettable to have to do it that way but the undemocratic EU just won’t listen to us.
No Turkey, ever, period.
#16 by Roberto Foa on September 8, 2009 - 1:59 am
Kronion: It is a fair point, but I suspect Russia will find it much easier to play the role of an equal partner to France or Germany, within a European system, than become China’s junior partner alongside Myanmar and Pakistan. Privately, many Russian strategists are worried about what China’s rise will mean for their influence in Central Asia and Mongolia. And there are certain things that only Europe can offer, namely foreign direct investment, technology transfer, and (should a future leadership desire it) a binding commitment to accountability and the rule of law.
Taek and Kronion: Allow me to play devil’s advocate and put a somewhat unconventional view into the field here. If we are to play the game of alliances (and I do not think we necessarily should), why assume Russia rather than Europe would be China’s logical partner? As Russia declines demographically, militarily, and perhaps even economically, both the EU and China will share a common interest in stabilising the former Soviet space, with the western half (Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucasus) stepping toward Brussels, and the eastern half (Central Asia and Mongolia) moving toward Beijing. This Sino-European ‘Ribbentrop pact’ may sound a little far-fetched but from a realist viewpoint, it is rational. Until now, Russia’s main means of preventing encroachment has been energy diplomacy, yet don’t forget that the country has already passed peak oil production, and as Russia’s energy exports decline in the coming decades, its ability to maintain an autonomous sphere of influence may also dwindle.
Henk: I’m not sure I’ve understood you correctly. Are you suggesting that Middle Eastern states see the EU as an extension of US foreign policy (hence the scepticism in Palestine and Pakistan)? Or did you mean something else?
#17 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on September 8, 2009 - 2:21 pm
@ Marcel: can you explain why you don’t want Turkey, ever? Just because you hate Turks, or is there any serious argument you have about this issue?
#18 by Gavin Renwick on September 8, 2009 - 5:10 pm
To Blaat
If most British people didn’t bother to turn out and vote doesn’t that suggest that at best British people don’t care about Europe and the ones that do don’t really like it?
To Patrick
Yes Patrick the independent press are evil and exist for the sole purpose to bring down the EU, while the BBC which is pro European having been told by Parliament to be pro-European and receiving soft loan from the EU, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3257748.ece
are to be trusted. As it happens “The Independent” and the Guardian (called the observer during the weekend) newspapers are both very pro-European. They also happen to be from what I understand, the most disbelieved of the British papers. The independent press in Britain have taken a Euro-sceptic line with the EU ever since when British people were asked to vote in European referendums, the BBC and most politicians swore it was an economic union not a political one they were entering. Since that turned out to be a lie most Brits put their trust in the independent press, people who have nothing to gain to see the EU establishment succeed or fall.
Finally as Blair was the second longest serving British Prime Minister its insane to base an argument that he underestimated the media in anything.
#19 by Taek on September 9, 2009 - 10:45 am
@Roberto
I can see your point. It’s a different perspective, of course. We both just steeped into the shoes of Russia concerning its attitude to Europe. Personally I don’t think that Russia would become weak enough in the near future so that EU or China would be able to interfere with the Russian sphere of influence. You are right that Russia passed its oil production peak. However, it goes up since the late 90s. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Russia/Oil.html Anyway, I think that Russia would hold its petroleum weapon for some time. Despite being weaker than in the near past, it is still a major economy and is the ‘R’ in BRIC. I am more inclined to believe that the relations between the three sides would be more of a triangle than anything else with each one of EU, Russia and China keeping independent relations with the other two. Only time will show.
#20 by Blaat on September 9, 2009 - 11:09 am
But not all those who voted don’t really like it, how else can you explain that Lib Democrats managed to get seats and they pretty much are the only Europhilic party in the UK.
Also about the second part of your posts, I want to point out (PDF) that 48% of the British people think that the (British) press reports too negatively on EU matters.
#21 by Gavin Renwick on September 9, 2009 - 1:28 pm
Blaat
The pro-european party finished 4th behind all the Euro-sceptic parties, that is my point. Most Brits ignore the European elections and the majority of those that do vote tend to be euro-sceptic.
That statistic basically says that more than half of British people don’t think the press reports too negatively on press matters.
Finally I am reconsidering my earlier doubt about this polls validity. The one I found indicates that 55% want out while 41% want in which is close enough to this poll. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7949104.stm
The impression I got of the British attitude towards the EU while I was in the UK was that a majority wanted out. However that impression could of been confined to a region as opposed to being national.
#22 by Kronion on September 9, 2009 - 1:54 pm
Roberto,
maybe Russia could be an equal partner of France, UK or Germany instead of a ‘step down’ one of China, but you must consider that western Europe is a depleted continent whereas Asia is a continent in full economic expansion, that marks the difference. There is another point, 4 or 5 year ago the former US presidente George Bush Sr. (not George W. Bush) stated in a speech in the Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo (in Santander, Spain) that US wouldn’t let Russia and western Europe to form an alliance or joint system. So, the decision is simply out of control of EU or Russia.
As a statistician who have worked on demography , and as fas a I know, IMO the russian demographic crisis has been very exageratted. In addition, the last figures in fertility seems to show a change in the tendency.
Taek,
Even before the financial turmoil, some experts said that an 1 % growth will be a good economic datum for Europe in the future. In contrast, Asia will get vey important growths and will need more and more energy, and Russia can provide it. We must bear in mind that gas, and not oil, will be the main fossil fuel in 21st century.
Marcel,
I totally agree with you, the EU is undemocratic.
Regards
#23 by Blaat on September 9, 2009 - 3:53 pm
If this is what you meant, then I agree with you. However what you said (and this is what I disagree with) is that the British who voted in the European elections are sceptic.
How about you word it like this: “That statistic basically says that three quarter of British people don’t think the press reports objectively on EU matters.” or “That statistic basically says that more then 80% of British people don’t think the press reports too positively on EU matters” :p
#24 by Gavin Renwick on September 9, 2009 - 8:12 pm
Blaat
Apologies I didn’t mean every single person who voted in the euro-elections was eurosceptic, I meant a majority.
Iam not quite sure where you got the 80% stastic, the one you sent me http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_274_en.pdf said 16% think of Brits think the press are too positive , 26% objective and 48% too negative. What I meant by the 52% was that if less than half of the British people think the press is negative more than half most think its fair, but I hadn’t taken account of the \don’t knows\.
However with more than half of Brits thinking the radio and Television coverage is objective or too positive towards the EU I am not sure that peoples opinion of the EU is effected that much by the negativity of some newspapers. People generally know what stance their papers are going to take on a subject before they’ve read the article, same as in Canada.
What I do object to was someone’s comment that made it sound like that there is a small number of millionaires with complete control over the British media (as that would include TV and radio as well) making up garbage to bring down the EU.
What would help peoples understanding would be if the EU could define what it is. I mean its not a federation due to the independence of nation states and its not a confederacy due to the Commissions competences over nations in some legal areas. Barroso once described it a non imperial empire. http://unsealedprophecy.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/barroso-eu-is-a-non-imperial-empire/