Many at odds with Bush foreign policy

WASHINGTON -- A new survey indicates that a majority of the American public is at odds with many of President's Bush's foreign policy priorities, with overwhelming majorities favoring treaties that the Bush administration opted out of and more than half saying that the United States has the right to go to war without United Nations approval only if there is "imminent danger of being attacked."

But the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations study, released days before the first debate between Bush and Democratic rival John F. Kerry, also suggests that many American voters don't feel strongly enough about these issues to mobilize against the president over them.

"The rhetoric that the Bush administration has used since the invasion of Iraq doesn't seem to fit with the broader goals of the American public," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington-based think tank. "But it's working."

The study, one of the nation's most-cited surveys on how Americans feel about foreign policy, questioned 1,195 randomly selected Americans, with a margin of error of 3 percent. A separate study was also conducted of 450 "opinion leaders," including 100 members of Congress or their staff, 75 university administrators, and 59 journalists and editors. The survey is usually conducted every four years, but the Council conducted a special 2004 survey to compare sentiments now with those in 2002, which measured views shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Protecting the jobs of American workers" ranked highest this year on the public's list of "very important" US foreign policy goals, above preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and combating international terrorism. According to the study, 78 percent of the public respondents listed jobs as a "very important goal," compared with 81 percent in 2002.

The percentage of people who listed the spread of international terrorism as very important declined significantly, from 83 percent in 2002 to 71 percent this year.

Researchers found that only 17 percent of the public questioned felt that the United States has the right to attack another country without UN approval when there is "strong evidence that the other country is acquiring weapons of mass destruction that could be used against them at some point in the future."

A majority -- 61 percent -- said the United States only has the right to do so if there is "imminent danger of being attacked." Only 10 percent of "opinion leaders" thought the United States has the right to attack in those circumstances without an "imminent danger." About a quarter of all people questioned said a country has the right to go to war only if attacked.

The study also showed little enthusiasm for dramatic US action to promote democracy abroad, with only 40 percent of the public and 32 percent of "opinion leaders" favoring the unilateral use of force to restore a democratic government that had been overthrown.

The survey shows strong support for the United Nations, including support for a peacekeeping army and even a willingness to give up the United States' veto in the Security Council in situations where all other nations on the Security Council agree on an issue.

Perhaps most striking in the survey, specialists said, were the large majorities in favor of international treaties that were rejected by the United States during Bush's four years in office.

Eighty-seven percent of the public questioned and 85 percent of the opinion leaders favored a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons testing worldwide; 80 percent of both groups favored a worldwide ban on landmines; and more than 70 percent of both groups favored joining the international criminal court and the Kyoto agreement to prevent global warming.

The Bush administration opposes the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto treaty.

The American public "does not share the Bush administration's view of how to conduct foreign policy," said Ivo Daalder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, and a critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy. "The question is, how does that translate politically when the president opposes them? How many people are out there running around saying that Kyoto ought to be ratified? Not many."

Farah Stockman can be reached at fstockman@globe.com.