Europeans generally reacted to President Obama’s re-election with a mixture of excitement and relief, just as they did four years ago. For many across the Atlantic, Obama’s 2008 victory signaled the end of the Bush-era estrangement between the U.S. and its Western allies, and the emergence of an America that would see the world a lot like Europeans do. However, despite Obama’s re-election at home and continued popularity in Europe, his presidency has not closed the long-running transatlantic values gap. Instead, on issues such as the use of military force, religion, and individualism, Americans and Europeans continue to disagree.

Obama has been popular in Europe since he toured the Continent as a presidential contender. Following George W. Bush’s two terms in office, Europeans immediately embraced Obama’s presidency. A stunning 93% of Germans expressed confidence in Obama in the early months of his first term, compared with just 14% for Bush during his final year in office. In Britain, France, and Spain, the new American president also received stratospheric ratings.

The result was a dramatic “Obama effect” on attitudes toward the U.S. In France, for instance, America’s favorability rating soared from 42% in 2008 to 75% in 2009. And importantly, support for American policies grew, especially support for U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. The enthusiasm that greeted Obama’s election has waned a bit over time, even in Europe, but vestiges of “Obamamania” remain. The 2012 Pew Global Attitudes survey found at least eight-in-ten expressing confidence in the U.S. president in Germany, France, and Britain.

However, while the pervasive anti-Americanism of the Bush years has receded, the “values gap” between Americans and Europeans is alive and well. Polls consistently find a transatlantic divide when it comes to fundamental beliefs on a variety of political and cultural issues. Americans and Europeans view each other with less hostility today, but they still don’t see the world in the same way.

Take the issue of military force. Americans remain more inclined than Europeans to say it’s necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Meanwhile, they are significantly less likely than Europeans to believe that getting UN approval is necessary before using military force to deal with international threats. America’s willingness to “go it alone” in world affairs has become an ingrained piece of the country’s international image – and it hasn’t changed much in the Obama years. Majorities across Europe continue to see the U.S. as acting unilaterally, not taking into account the interests of other nations when making foreign policy.

The Obama administration’s use of drone strikes illustrates the divide over hard power. About six-in-ten Americans – including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents – approve of U.S. drone attacks against extremist leaders and organizations in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. But in seven of the eight EU nations surveyed by Pew in 2012, more than half oppose these strikes, including nine-in-ten Greeks and 76% in Spain. The lone exception is the British, who are almost evenly divided on this issue.

Religion is another topic where Americans and Europeans hold very different views. In largely secular Western European nations such as Spain, Germany, Britain, and France, less than a quarter consider religion very important to their lives. Even in Poland, where Catholicism still plays an important role in public life, only 27% say religion is very important. By contrast, fully half of Americans hold this view. Similarly, solid majorities in the six EU nations surveyed by Pew in 2011 said you do not have to believe in God to be a moral person, but only 46% of Americans felt this way.

The same 2011 poll asked Christians from the U.S. and eight European nations whether they identify first with their nationality or their religion. Americans were evenly split: 46% said they think of themselves first as Americans and 46% as Christians. In seven of the eight European countries, a majority of Christians identified primarily with their nationality. Only 8% of French Christians, for example, said they thought of themselves first as Christians.

Individualism also continues to differentiate Americans and Europeans. Most Americans believe individuals largely control their own fate – just 36% agree with the statement “Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control.” However, half or more in Germany, France, and Spain agree with this statement.

Europeans also believe in a very different relationship between the individual and the state. When asked which is more important, that everyone be free to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state, or that the state play an active role in society to guarantee that no one is in need, 58% of Americans choose the former. Majorities across Western and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, say making sure no one is in need should be a bigger priority.

Of course, even on fundamental values like these, opinions can and do shift over time, and on a few key issues, the values gap is shrinking. For instance, Americans are not as convinced as they used to be about their own cultural superiority – in 2002, six-in-ten agreed with the statement “our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior.” By 2011, just 49% held this view, much closer to the levels typically registered in Europe.

Public opinion on homosexuality has also shifted dramatically. The percentage of Americans saying society should accept homosexuality rose from 49% in 2007 to 60% just four years later. This is still much lower than the high levels of acceptance witnessed in Europe – more than eight-in-ten in Spain, Germany, France, and Britain believe homosexuality should be accepted – but the gap is clearly closing. The recent passage of marriage equality ballot initiatives in four U.S. states highlights how quickly public opinion on this issue is changing.

Moreover, young Americans increasingly look like their cohorts across the Atlantic on these questions. Nearly seven-in-ten Americans under age 30 say homosexuality should be accepted and only 37% think their culture is superior to others. Young people are also much more likely than older Americans to believe the government should make sure no one is in need. If these trends continue and expand to other topics, the transatlantic values gap could someday vanish. But for the foreseeable future, the divide will likely persist, regardless of who occupies the White House.

Across the five expert groups surveyed, there is a far greater consensus than among the general public that building a strong relationship with China should be the most important priority for the U.S. Being tough with China on economic issues is considered a much lower priority, even among retired military officers and trade and business leaders, who largely believe toughness on economic and trade issues is very important for the U.S.

When asked about the Obama administration’s handling of China, slightly more of the public say it is not being tough enough than say the administration is handling it about right; virtually no one says Obama is being too tough with China. In contrast, solid majorities among most expert groups endorse Obama’s China policy.

Among the public and the experts, few say continuing to sell arms to Taiwan and advocating for more freedom for Tibet are very important priorities for the U.S. A small number across the five expert groups say promoting human rights in China should be the most important priority.

Americans who have heard a lot about relations between China and Taiwan are somewhat divided on whether the U.S. should use military force to defend Taiwan if China were to attack the island, with only slightly more saying the U.S. should use force than saying it should not. Among the experts surveyed, most say the U.S. should use force to defend Taiwan if China were to attack it without a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan. There is far less support for U.S. military intervention if an attack from China followed a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan.

Obama’s China Policy

The Obama administration’s handling of China receives somewhat mixed reviews from the public — 45% say Obama is not being tough enough, while 39% say Obama’s China policy is about right. In May 2001, in a survey conducted just weeks after a U.S. spy plane landed on the Chinese island of Hainan after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet, more of the public endorsed George W. Bush’s dealings with China than said Bush was not being tough enough (46% vs. 34%) (see “Public Behind Bush On Key Foreign Issues,” released June 11, 2001, by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press).

As was the case in 2001, views of the administration’s dealings with China are divided along partisan lines. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans (65%) say Obama is not being tough enough, while 27% say his policy is about right. Among Democrats, about half (51%) endorse the president’s policy and 35% believe Obama has not been tough enough. A decade ago, 57% of Republicans said the Bush administration’s handling of China was about right and 32% believed the president wasn’t being tough enough; Democrats were somewhat divided, with 40% saying Bush wasn’t tough enough and 34% saying his China policy was about right.

Of the foreign affairs experts surveyed, retired military officers are the most critical of Obama’s handling of China; about half in this group say the administration is not being tough enough, while about a third believe it is about right. In contrast, majorities among the other groups endorse Obama’s policies, with scholars and government officials being particularly supportive.

When asked to describe in their own words what they believe Obama has done best when dealing with China, experts most often mention the president’s general diplomatic approach to the bilateral relationship. Obama is commended for being balanced and consistent – combining aggressiveness when necessary with cooperation when possible.
Government officials, scholars and retired military officers, in particular, also applaud the Obama administration for refocusing efforts on Asia and regional allies, including the increase of military capabilities in the Pacific. They also believe military-to-military communication between China and the U.S. has improved during Obama’s time in office.

Yet, there are concerns that the president has not made much progress on the trade imbalance; business and trade leaders especially fault him for protectionist policies. Experts across the board are also concerned that the Obama administration has inadequately responded to the theft of intellectual property and cyber attacks on businesses.

Policy Priorities

Most Americans (56%) say it is very important for the U.S. to be tough with China on economic and trade issues. Yet, about the same number (55%) say building a strong relationship with China should be a top policy priority. More than half (53%) also consider promoting human rights in China as very important, while considerably fewer say the same about advocating for more freedom for Tibet (36%) and continuing to sell arms to Taiwan (21%).

The view that promoting human rights in China is very important is more widespread than it was in January 2011, when 40% believed this to be a top priority for the U.S. (see “Public’s Global Focus Turns from Europe to Asia,” released January 12, 2011, by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press). Democrats and Republicans alike are more inclined than they were in 2011 to say promoting human rights in China should be a very important priority; 58% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans currently express this view, compared with 43% and 33%, respectively, in 2011; opinions have been more stable among independents (50% now vs. 41% in 2011).³

Across the five expert groups, majorities of at least eight-in-ten consider building a strong relationship with China a very important priority for the U.S. However, there is less consensus regarding other aspects of U.S. policy. For example, about six-in-ten government officials and business and trade leaders want the U.S. to be tough with China on economic and trade issues, but fewer than half in the other three groups consider this a top priority. And while promoting human rights in China is seen as very important by 46% of government officials and 41% of members of the news media, about one-third of business and trade leaders and about one-in-five scholars and former military officers share this view. Just 30% or fewer across the five groups consider advocating for more freedom for Tibet and continuing to sell arms to Taiwan to be very important priorities for the U.S.

When describing in their own words what they believe should be the top priorities for U.S. policies toward China, experts across the board cite economic issues such as the bilateral trade imbalance, the theft of intellectual property and economic espionage through cyber attacks by China. Among business and trade leaders, China’s currency valuation is also mentioned as a major issue.

Experts also consider managing the international balance of power between the two nations a top priority, though they are divided on the best approach. While many say it is important to contain China by preventing a build-up of its military and limiting its growing influence in other areas of the world, there is also a desire to avoid conflict between the two by increasing military-to-military communication and learning to accommodate China’s growth as a world power.

Partisan Differences on Key Priorities

For the most part, among the general public, Republicans, Democrats and independents offer similar views of U.S. policy priorities toward China. There are partisan differences, however, when it comes to the importance of building a strong relationship with China and being tough with the Asian nation on economic and trade issues.

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats and independents to say it is very important for the U.S. to be tough with China on economic and trade issues. About two-thirds (68%) of Republicans express this view, compared with 53% of Democrats and independents.

Conversely, about six-in-ten Democrats and independents (59% each) believe building a strong relationship with China should be a top priority for the U.S., while 48% of Republicans agree.

Areas of Collaboration and Sources of Conflict

Across the five expert groups, the economy is most frequently offered as the best arena for cooperation between the U.S. and China. Given the size of the two nations’ economies, many believe that it is in both countries’ interests to collaborate on fostering global economic stability as well as developing equally beneficial interdependence.

Many also mention the possibility of the U.S. and China jointly addressing common threats, such as climate change, terrorism, health epidemics, instability in the Middle East, and security on the Korean Peninsula as an avenue for cooperation. And all the expert groups agree that the exchange of ideas and people between the two world powers – from cultural interactions to joint scientific research – can improve the bilateral relationship.

On the other hand, when asked about the most likely sources of conflict, the top concern is that regional territorial disputes, such as in the South China Sea, could lead to escalating tensions. Many also say that U.S. efforts to maintain its leadership in the region or Chinese attempts to assert itself militarily could result in a competition for dominance in the Pacific.

Respondents in all expert groups also express concerns about power struggles for influence in other areas of the world, and many raise the possibility of a clash between the U.S. and China over third-party actions, such as North Korea or Iran. Retired military officers and business leaders in particular mention the need for scarce natural resources as a key source of conflict both within the region and other areas of the world.

Among business and trade leaders, economic issues – such as a trade war, theft of intellectual property and currency valuation – are most often cited as likely causes of deteriorating relations between the U.S. and China.

Using Force to Defend Taiwan

Just 10% of Americans say they have heard a lot about relations between China and Taiwan; 54% have heard a little and 34% have heard nothing at all about this issue.

About half (48%) of those who have heard a lot about relations between China and Taiwan say the U.S. should use military force to defend Taiwan if China were to use force against the island; 43% say the U.S. should not use military force to defend Taiwan.

Among the expert groups surveyed, views on whether the U.S. should use military force to defend Taiwan depend on the circumstances of a potential attack by China. Majorities across the five groups would support the use of U.S. military force to defend Taiwan if China moved against the island without a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan.

At least six-in-ten government officials, scholars and retired military officers express this opinion, as do somewhat smaller majorities of business and trade leaders and members of the news media.

If China were to use military force following a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan, however, at least six-in-ten government officials, business and trade leaders, scholars and members of the media say the U.S. should not use military force to defend Taiwan; half of the retired military officers surveyed share this view.

With the uprising against him showing no signs of abating, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is widely unpopular in neighboring countries. And the vast majority of Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians and Turks would like to see him step down. In Lebanon, however, views differ sharply along sectarian lines, with Shia Muslims overwhelmingly expressing support for the Assad regime.

Even though many would like to see Assad out of office, there is no consensus on taking action to dislodge him from power. There is limited support for tougher international economic sanctions or Arab military intervention, and very little support for Western military action.

These are among the key findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted from March 19 to April 20, prior to the May 25 massacre in Houla, Syria, as well as other recent acts of violence against civilians by pro-Assad forces.

Few Have Positive View of Assad

Large majorities hold an unfavorable opinion of Assad in Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey. In Lebanon, which was occupied by Syrian forces for three decades before they withdrew in 2006, about six-in-ten (59%) express an unfavorable view of Assad, but opinions of him vary dramatically across the country’s major religious communities.

About nine-in-ten Lebanese Sunni Muslims (92%) express a negative opinion of Assad, as do 66% of the country’s Christians. However, almost all Shia Muslims (96%) have a favorable view of Assad, who is a member of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam.

Assad Should Go, But No Consensus on Taking Action

Nearly nine-in-ten say Assad should step down in Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia, and two-thirds agree in Turkey. Again, views in Lebanon reflect sectarian divisions: 80% of Sunnis and 67% of Christians want Syria’s autocratic ruler to leave office, compared with just 3% of Shia Muslims.

The widespread desire for Assad to step down does not translate, however, into support for economic sanctions or military action against Syria. Tunisia is the only country in which a majority approves of tougher sanctions on Syria.

Similarly, Tunisia is the only nation polled in which most would support military intervention by Arab states to remove Assad from power.

And there is no country in which a majority favors military intervention by Western countries. About four-in-ten Tunisians (38%) endorse this idea, while fewer than a quarter in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon support Western military action.

As Felipe Calderón’s term as Mexico’s president draws to a close, Mexicans continue to strongly back his policy of deploying the military to combat the country’s powerful drug cartels. Eight-in-ten say this is the right course, a level of support that has remained remarkably constant since the Pew Global Attitudes Project first asked the question in 2009.

Support for Calderón’s strategy continues despite limited confidence that the government is winning the drug war, and widespread concerns about its costs. Just 47% believe progress is being made against drug traffickers, virtually identical to the 45% who held this opinion in 2011. Three-in-ten today say the government is actually losing ground against the cartels, while 19% see no change in the stand-off between the authorities and crime syndicates.

At the same time, the public is uneasy about the moral cost of the drug war: 74% say human rights violations by the military and police are a very big problem. But concern about rights abuses coexist with continued worries about drug-related violence and crime – both of which strong majorities describe as pressing issues in Mexico.

President Calderón himself remains popular. A 58%-majority has a favorable opinion of Mexico’s current leader. Although down from a high of 68% in 2009, this rating nonetheless puts him on par with the 56% who have a positive view of the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI’s) Enrique Peña Nieto, whose ratings clearly topped those of his opponents when the poll was conducted between March 20 and April 2 of this year.

Whether Peña Nieto or any of the other presidential candidates have a solution to Mexico’s drug problems is an open question for the Mexican public. When asked which political party could do a better job of dealing with organized crime and drug traffickers, about equal numbers name Calderón’s National Action Party (PAN) (28%) and Peña Nieto’s PRI (25%), while only 13% point to the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). Fully 23% volunteer that none of the parties is particularly capable of dealing with this critical issue.

These are the principal findings from the latest survey in Mexico by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Conducted face-to-face with 1,200 adults from across the country, the poll also finds that most Mexicans (61%) blame both the United States and their own country for the continued drug violence within their borders. While solid majorities would welcome U.S. assistance in combating the cartels if the aid came in the form of training, equipment or intelligence support, only a third would approve deploying U.S. troops on Mexican soil.

Overall, a majority (56%) of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of the United States, with about the same number (53%) convinced that Mexicans who migrate to the U.S. have a better life. Despite this perception, most Mexicans have no interest in migrating north across the border, although the percentage who say they would move to the U.S. if they had the means and opportunity has remained fairly steady since 2009.

Army Backed in Drug War

More than five years after President Calderón first ordered troops to take part in controlling drug-related violence, the public remains firmly behind the use of military units to combat drug cartels. Fully eight-in-ten say they support the use of the Mexican army in the drug war, little changed from opinion over the past several years.

Supporters of both the PAN (88%) and the PRI (84%) strongly endorse Calderón’s use of the military. Backers of the PRD are more skeptical, yet 66% still approve of the approach.

Support for Calderón’s anti-cartel strategy is widespread even though only 47% of Mexicans believe the government is making progress against the drug traffickers. Three-in-ten actually think the authorities are losing ground, while 19% essentially see a stalemate, with neither side gaining. This assessment of the drug war is virtually identical to views expressed last year.

Perhaps not surprisingly, backers of the ruling PAN are more enthusiastic about the government’s campaign against drug traffickers: 62% of them believe the authorities are making progress, compared with just 45% of PRI and 34% of PRD supporters.

When asked who is to blame for the drug violence in their country – Mexico or the United States – a majority of Mexicans (61%) say both countries bear responsibility. About one-in-five (22%) says the U.S. is mostly to blame, while 14% point to Mexico. The number of Mexicans blaming both countries is up 10 percentage points compared with 2009, when the question was first asked.

In order to combat the drug cartels, three-quarters of Mexicans would support the U.S. training Mexican police and military personnel. About six-in-ten (61%) would also approve of the U.S. providing money and weapons to the country’s police and military. However, there is much less enthusiasm for deploying U.S. troops within Mexico’s borders. Only a third would welcome such a move, while a 59% majority would oppose it.

Overall, attitudes toward U.S. assistance in the drug war are little changed from last year, although the percentage who would back the deployment of U.S. troops has fallen slightly, from 38% in 2011 to 33% today.

Support for U.S. assistance in the drug war tends to be higher among those who see the government succeeding, rather than failing, in its fight against the cartels. For example, 85% of Mexicans who see progress in the drug war back U.S. training of police and military personnel, compared with 68% among those who think the government is losing ground or stymied. Similarly, those who see success in the drug war are more like than those who do not to approve of the U.S. providing money and weapons (71% vs. 54%). Even on the issue of deploying U.S. troops, Mexicans who see progress against the cartels are much more supportive of such a measure than those who believe the government is not succeeding in the drug war (47% vs. 22%).

Negative Ratings for Country and Economy

Mexicans remain unhappy with their country’s direction, although the national mood has improved somewhat over the past year. Currently, 63% say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Mexico – an improvement from 2011, when 76% were dissatisfied.

Similarly, while 62% describe the country’s economy as bad, this is a slight improvement from last year’s 68%, and is significantly lower than the 75% registered in 2010.

Regardless of these negative assessments, Mexicans are generally optimistic about the future – 51% say the economy will improve over the next 12 months. About a third (32%) believe things will stay the same and just 16% think the economy will worsen. These attitudes are virtually unchanged since last year.

Across all of these measures, Mexicans with higher incomes and better education are more likely to have a positive view of current conditions and to be optimistic about the country’s economic future. For example, almost half of higher-income Mexicans (46%) say the economy is good compared with just 23% of those with lower incomes.¹ Similarly, 43% of Mexicans with a post-secondary education rate the economy positively versus 25% of those with a primary education or less.

Crime and Drug Violence Top Concerns

Issues related to the ongoing drug war top the Mexican public’s list of concerns. Three-in-four say cartel-related violence is a very big problem for the country, while a roughly equal number say the same about human rights violations by the military and police. And 73% name crime as a very big problem.

Slightly smaller majorities point to corrupt political leaders, illegal drugs, and the economy as very big problems.

Roughly six-in-ten believe terrorism (62%) and pollution (58%) are very big problems, while only about half think people leaving Mexico for jobs or the poor quality of schools are top concerns.

Despite being relatively content with the overall situation in the country, Mexicans with higher incomes are more likely than others to see their country beset by problems. Specifically, wealthier Mexicans are at least 10 percentage points more likely than those with lower incomes to rate schools (+20), economic problems (+14), cartel-related violence (+10), illegal drugs (+10), human rights violations (+10) and crime (+10) as very big problems.

Given broad public concern about crime, it is perhaps unsurprising that more than half (56%) of Mexicans say they are afraid to walk alone at night within a kilometer of their home. This sentiment has increased slightly since 2007 (50%). Women (61%) are more likely to be afraid, though a sizeable percentage of men (51%) also express unease.

Calderón and Government Get Positive Marks

Felipe Calderón remains popular as he concludes his final months as president, with majorities expressing a favorable view of him personally and describing his influence on the country as positive. Ratings for the national government are also high, with roughly two-thirds (65%) saying it is having a good influence on the country’s direction.

Assessments of the national government’s impact have improved 11 percentage points since last spring, when 54% said it was having a good influence. Views of the government have particularly improved among middle-income Mexicans (+25 percentage points) and those living in the Mexico City area (+22).

Meanwhile, opinion of Calderón has slipped compared with the high marks he received in 2009. At that time, roughly two-thirds viewed him favorably (68%) compared to 58% in the latest survey, and three-quarters in 2009 thought he was having a good influence on the country compared to 57% now.

Calderón is especially trusted among people who say the Mexican government is making progress in the drug war (72% rate him a good influence) but less so among those who say the government is not making progress or losing ground (46%). Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mexicans living in the North and South regions say he is a good influence, but only about half from the Central and Mexico City areas say the same (53% and 47%, respectively).

Military, Media Viewed Favorably

In addition to the national government, the military is also seen in a favorable light, with nearly three-in-four (73%) saying it is having a good influence on the way things are going in the country. This represents a rebound from 2011, when 62% said the military was having a positive impact.

The media is also well-regarded: six-in-ten say television, radio, newspapers, and magazines are having a good influence on the country’s direction. Opinions of the media are unchanged from last year.

Views of the court system and police are not as positive. Less than half of Mexicans see the courts (44%) and the police (38%) as having a good influence on the way things are going in the country. A year ago, opinions of the courts and police were even more negative, with only about three-in-ten giving either institution a positive rating.

Views of Presidential Candidates

Of the three major presidential candidates, Mexicans are most positive about the PRI’s Enrique Peña Nieto. A 56%-majority has a favorable opinion of Peña Nieto, compared with 38% who see him unfavorably. The PAN’s Josefina Vazquez Mota and the PRD’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador are less popular, with only about a third expressing a favorable view of either candidate (36% and 34%, respectively). More than half express unfavorable views of López Obrador (60%) and Vazquez Mota (54%).

While Peña Nieto is broadly popular across Mexico, views of Vazquez Mota and López Obrador vary by region. Specifically, Vazquez Mota is seen more favorably in the North (47% favorable), while López Obrador has more support among Mexicans in the Mexico City region and the South (46% and 39% favorable respectively).

No Party Stands Out on Key Problems

The public is divided when asked which party could do a better job handling some of the most pressing issues facing Mexico. On unemployment, organized crime/drug traffickers, and corruption, the three main parties come out looking pretty much the same in the eyes of most Mexicans. And confidence is generally low across the board: 30% or fewer think any of the parties is better than the others on these issues.

Generally, those on the right of the ideological spectrum express greater confidence in the ability of both the PRI and PAN to deal with these major problems, while those on the left are inclined to trust the PRD.

U.S. Image Still Positive

A 56%-majority of Mexicans say they have a positive opinion of the U.S., while just 34% rate their northern neighbor unfavorably. America’s image has improved since the passage in 2010 of the highly publicized Arizona immigration law, but has yet to return to levels seen before the law’s enactment.

In 2010, the Arizona law had a measurable impact on opinion of the United States: prior to the law’s passage 62% of those interviewed expressed a favorable view of the U.S., compared with just 44% of those interviewed after the measure was enacted.

Today, younger Mexicans and those with higher education are more likely to be favorable toward the U.S. For example, 60% of 18-29 year-olds hold a positive view of the U.S., while just half of those age 50 and older say the same. Similarly, 66% of those with a post-secondary education are favorable versus just 48% of those with a primary education or less.

Better Life in the U.S.

More than half the public (53%) believe that Mexicans who move to the U.S. have a better life there. Just 14% say they have a worse life, while 28% believe life in the U.S. is neither better nor worse. Attitudes on this topic have shifted since last year, when there was a dip in the percentage who said life is better in the U.S.

Even though many believe life is better for those who emigrate to the U.S., most Mexicans (61%) say they would not move to the U.S., even if they had the means and opportunity to do so. Among the substantial minority who would move, half say they would emigrate without authorization (19% of the total population). These attitudes are unchanged since last year.

The young and highly educated are more likely to want to go to the U.S. Among 18-29 year-olds, 54% would like to move north, while just 37% of 30-49 year-olds and 25% of those age 50 and older say the same. Mexicans with a post-secondary education are 11 percentage points more likely to want to emigrate than those with the lowest level of education.

A sizeable minority of Mexicans know people who have returned to Mexico from the U.S., either for economic reasons or through deportation. Three-in-ten are personally familiar with someone who came back from the U.S. because they could not find a job. This percentage is down 10 points since 2009, during the depth of the U.S. recession. Similarly, 32% of Mexicans say they know someone who has been deported or detained by the U.S. government in the last 12 months.

While many still hold Obama in high regard, general confidence in his foreign policy leadership has slipped by six percentage points or more in most countries since 2009.

Moreover, on a number of specific policy issues, Obama has failed to live up to expectations. In 2009, many around the world anticipated that Obama would consider their country’s interests when making policy, seek international approval before using military force, act fairly when dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians, and take significant steps on climate change. Today, considerably fewer think he has actually done these things.

Obama gets somewhat better marks for his handling of the global economic crisis, especially in financially troubled Europe (although the Greeks are an exception). And although reviews for Obama are generally less positive than when he first took office, at least a plurality in most countries would like to see him re-elected.

Overall Confidence in Obama

In 11 of the 21 countries surveyed, people, on balance, continue to have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. In eight countries, a majority or plurality expresses a lack of confidence, and in two, opinions are essentially divided. Confidence in Obama in almost all countries is, however, markedly greater than it was for President Bush in 2008.

Solid majorities in most European Union countries continue to express a positive view of Obama, including seven-in-ten or more in Germany, France, Britain, the Czech Republic and Italy. His ratings are somewhat lower in Spain and Poland, where confidence has slipped by double-digits since 2009.

In Greece, views of him are much more dismal than in other EU countries – just three-in-ten express confidence, while 68% lack confidence.

Respondents in predominantly Muslim countries continue to have a low opinion of Obama, and the American leader’s ratings have slipped significantly since 2009 in the five Muslim nations where trends are available, including a 13 percentage point drop in Egypt.

Confidence in Obama is somewhat higher in Lebanon. There are, however, large divisions among the country’s three major religious groups. While 51% of Lebanese Christians and 50% of Sunni Muslims express confidence, just 12% of Shia Muslims agree.

Large majorities in Japan and Brazil have confidence in Obama’s foreign affairs leadership, as do most Americans.

Attitudes toward the U.S. president are almost evenly divided in China and Mexico. In both nations, Obama’s ratings have declined significantly since his first year in office, falling 24 points in China and 13 in Mexico.

Russians generally lack confidence in the American president, with just 36% saying Obama has their trust and 44% saying he does not. In India, 41% say they have confidence in Obama, though many do not offer an opinion.

Despite decreasing confidence in Obama, he is still more highly rated than President Bush was during his last year in office. Obama’s reviews continue to be especially high relative to Bush’s in Europe and the U.S. The only country among those surveyed in both 2008 and 2012 where confidence in Obama is on par with Bush is Pakistan, where both men have received consistently poor ratings.

Obama’s Handling of the Global Economy

In 11 of 21 countries, ratings of Obama’s handling of the global economic crisis are on balance positive. As with other attitudes toward Obama, approval is highest in Europe, Japan and Brazil. Greece continues to be the exception in Europe – a majority (60%) rates Obama negatively on his approach to the economy. Publics in Russia, China and predominantly Muslim countries all give the U.S. leader poor economic reviews.

Obama’s ratings on the economy are generally unchanged since last year, although they have slipped somewhat in Japan (-12 percentage points) and Russia (-10).

Unmet Expectations: Multilateralism

While many around the world still have a positive image of Obama, he has nonetheless failed to meet expectations on specific policies. For instance, in 2009, many publics anticipated that the U.S. leader would consider their country’s interests when making foreign policy decisions and would seek international approval before using military force. Today, relatively few believe Obama has done either.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans (66%) think Obama has considered other countries’ interests when making policy decisions over the past three years, but few around the world agree.

Obama’s best reviews in this regard are in Brazil, where 49% say Obama has considered Brazil’s interests. Publics in Germany and India are divided.

In all other countries, opinion is on balance negative. And in 14 nations, about one-in-three or fewer believe Obama has taken their countries’ interests into account.

These findings contrast sharply with 2009, when there were high expectations in many countries that Obama would act multilaterally. For example, three years ago, 47% in Spain said Obama would consider their nation’s interests; today, only 17% believe he has actually done so.

There is similar disappointment with the way Obama has used military force. Half or more in only three countries – France, the U.S. and Germany – say Obama has sought international approval before using military force. Respondents in Europe are somewhat more likely than other publics to say he has done so, though there are significant gaps between what they anticipated from Obama on this issue and what they now believe. For instance, 44% in Spain think Obama has tried to get international approval before using force, but in 2009, 71% said they expected the new American president to act in this way.

Clear signs of disappointment are present in other countries as well. In 2009, nearly four-in-ten (37%) Egyptians believed Obama would seek international consent before turning to military force; just 13% now think he has done so. Three years ago, 52% of Japanese expected Obama to get international approval; only 29% say he has.

Unmet Expectations: Middle East Peace and Climate Change

Obama has also failed to meet expectations on two other key international issues: dealing fairly with the Israelis and Palestinians and making significant progress on climate change.

Three years ago, majorities across Europe and Japan, as well as four-in-ten or more in China and Mexico, believed Obama would be fair in his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But today, just five of 21 countries have pluralities or more who believe Obama has been even-handed on this issue.

The gap between expectations and current evaluations is greater than 20 percentage points throughout Europe. Fully 79% of the British surveyed in 2009 said Obama would deal fairly with this issue, but just 47% now say he has.

Gaps are smaller in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, but that is because expectations were already low when Obama began his term. Today, less than 20% in all six predominantly Muslim nations surveyed think Obama handled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fairly.

On the issue of climate change, the gaps between expectations and evaluations of how he has done are especially wide. Almost all publics surveyed say that Obama has failed to significantly address the issue. Lebanon (60%) is the only country where a majority believes Obama has achieved this goal. Nearly everywhere else fewer than 40% agree, with the exception of Brazil (47%).

The sense of disappointment is strongest in Europe. In 2009, 81% of the French polled said Obama would get the U.S. to take significant measures to control global climate change; just 27% believe he has actually done this. Roughly three-in-four Germans (76%) believed Obama would make significant strides on this issue, but only 23% now say he has been able to do so.

Americans also think Obama has not performed as expected on this issue. Three years ago, 69% thought he would take major steps to deal with climate change, but 35% now say he has taken such steps.

General Support for Obama’s Re-Election

Despite widespread disappointment with Obama’s policies, pluralities or more in 11 of 20 countries hope Obama wins the 2012 election. However, fewer people around the world, especially in Europe, are now paying attention to the presidential election compared with 2008.

Support for Obama’s re-election is especially high in Europe, Japan and Brazil – all areas where his image remains generally positive. About nine-in-ten in France and Germany think the U.S. leader deserves a second term. About seven-in-ten in Britain, Spain, Italy and the Czech Republic agree.

Even in Greece and Poland, two EU countries with lower levels of approval for Obama’s policies, pluralities support his re-election. Broad majorities in Brazil and Japan do the same.

Opinion is generally against Obama in most of the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, with about half or more in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan saying Obama should not be elected again. However, Tunisians are divided, and a 39%-plurality of Turks would like to see a second term.

In many nations, a large number of respondents do not offer an opinion about whether Obama should be re-elected, which may reflect diminished international interest thus far in the U.S. presidential contest. Overall, attention to the 2012 election is down in most countries relative to the 2008 contest. Attention has decreased the most in Germany (down 20 percentage points), Japan (-20), Jordan (-17), Britain (-16), France (-16) and Egypt (-16). China is the only place where more respondents are now watching the U.S. election than four years ago (+19).

In many countries, respondents with a college education are more likely to be tracking the presidential contest. For example, 53% of those with a college degree or higher in Jordan say they are paying close attention to the election, compared with just 29% of those without a college degree. The education difference in attention is also large in India (+24), Germany (+19), the U.S. (+19) and Tunisia (+18).

Global approval of President Barack Obama’s policies has declined significantly since he first took office, while overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U.S. have slipped modestly as a consequence.

Europeans and Japanese remain largely confident in Obama, albeit somewhat less so than in 2009, while Muslim publics remain largely critical. A similar pattern characterizes overall ratings for the U.S. – in the EU and Japan, views are still positive, but the U.S. remains unpopular in nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, support for Obama has waned significantly in China. Since 2009, confidence in the American president has declined by 24 percentage points and approval of his policies has fallen 30 points. Mexicans have also soured on his policies, and many fewer express confidence in him today.

The Obama era has coincided with major changes in international perceptions of American power – especially U.S. economic power. The global financial crisis and the steady rise of China have led many to declare China the world’s economic leader, and this trend is especially strong among some of America’s major European allies. Today, solid majorities in Germany (62%), Britain (58%), France (57%) and Spain (57%) name China as the world’s top economic power.

Even though many think American economic clout is in relative decline, publics around the world continue to worry about how the U.S. uses its power – in particular its military power – in international affairs.

There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular. And in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes. In 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Americans are the clear outliers on this issue – 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%).

These are among the principal findings from a 21-nation survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project from March 17-April 20. The poll also finds that, despite disappointment with Obama’s policies, there is still considerable support for his re-election in many countries, especially in Europe. Roughly nine-in-ten in France (92%) and Germany (89%) would like to see him re-elected, as would large majorities in Britain (73%), Spain (71%), Italy (69%) and the Czech Republic (67%). Most Brazilians (72%) and Japanese (66%) agree. But in the Middle East there is little enthusiasm for a second term – majorities in Egypt (76%), Jordan (73%) and Lebanon (62%) oppose Obama’s re-election.

Overall Ratings for U.S. Mostly Positive

Majorities or pluralities in 12 countries express a favorable opinion of the United States, while the prevailing view is negative in only five nations. In three countries views are closely divided.

Attitudes toward the U.S. are generally more positive today than in 2008, the final year of the George W. Bush administration. The biggest improvements in America’s image have occurred among Europeans – in France, Spain, and Germany, the percentage of people with a positive view of the U.S. is at least 20 percentage points higher than in 2008.

However, some of the initial surge in pro-American sentiments that followed Obama’s election have waned in Western Europe, especially in Germany where 64% had a favorable opinion of the U.S. in 2009, compared with 52% today.

In Japan, 72% currently express a favorable opinion of the U.S., up from 50% four years ago. America’s image in Japan improved dramatically in 2011, due in part to American relief efforts following the devastating March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Fully 85% of Japanese respondents expressed a positive view of the U.S. in last year’s poll.

In a number of strategically important Muslim nations, America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency. In fact, America’s already low 2008 ratings have slipped even further in Jordan and Pakistan.

Even in many nations where overall ratings for the U.S. remain low, however, certain aspects of American “soft power” are often well-regarded. For instance, the American way of doing business is especially popular in the Arab World – more than half in Lebanon (63%), Tunisia (59%), Jordan (59%) and Egypt (52%) say they like this element of America’s image.

Majorities or pluralities in 18 of 20 countries admire the U.S. for its science and technology, and most of the publics surveyed embrace American music, movies and television. Around the world, U.S. ideas about democracy and American ways of doing business have become more popular since Obama took office.

American soft power is often particularly appealing to young people. In particular, U.S. popular culture and American ideas about democracy are more popular among people under 30.

Still, even as they embrace certain features of American culture, people worry that it may crowd out their own cultures and traditions – majorities or pluralities in 17 of 20 countries say it is a bad thing that U.S. ideas and customs are spreading to their countries.

Disappointment With Obama’s Policies

While confidence in Obama has slipped, in many of the countries surveyed, people continue to express confidence in President Obama’s foreign policy leadership. In particular, he still gets extremely high ratings in much of Europe. More than seven-in-ten in Germany, France, Britain, the Czech Republic and Italy express confidence that Obama will do the right thing in world affairs. Big majorities in Japan and Brazil also hold this view.

There is little support for Obama, however, in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. Fewer than three-in-ten express confidence in him in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and Jordan. And roughly a year after he ordered the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden, just 7% of Pakistanis have a positive view of Obama, the same percentage that voiced confidence in President George W. Bush during the final year of his administration.

Outside of Pakistan, however, Obama consistently receives higher ratings than Bush did in 2008. This is particularly true in Western Europe and Japan, but it is also true in several predominantly Muslim nations where Obama’s ratings – while not especially high – are nonetheless more positive than his predecessor’s.

In nearly every country where trends are available, support for Obama’s international policies has declined over the last three years. Even though most Europeans still endorse Obama’s policies, their enthusiasm has ebbed. Among the EU countries surveyed in both 2009 and 2012, a median of 78% approved of Obama’s policies in 2009, compared with 63% now. Among Muslim nations, the median has slipped from 34% to 15%. Major declines have also taken place in China, Japan, Russia and Mexico.

On a number of specific issues, there is a sense that Obama has not lived up to the expectations people had for him when he first took office. The 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey found that many believed the new American president would act multilaterally, seek international approval before using military force, take a fair approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and make progress on climate change. As the current survey reveals, few now believe he has actually accomplished these things.

For instance, looking at the countries surveyed in both 2009 and 2012, a median of 56% in 2009 expected Obama to take significant steps to deal with climate change. Today, a median of just 22% think he has actually done this.

China’s Growing Economic Might

China’s image has slipped in several countries over the last year. The percentage of Japanese with a favorable opinion of China plummeted from 34% to 15%. In France, China’s favorability ratings dropped from 51% to 40%, and in Britain from 59% to 49%. And since last year, Americans have become less disposed to rate China positively (51% in 2011, 40% now).

However, perceptions of China’s economic power continue to grow. This is especially true in Europe, but the belief that China is the world’s top economy has become more common in the last year in other parts of the world as well, including Brazil, Japan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Views about the economic balance of power have shifted dramatically over time among the 14 countries surveyed each year from 2008 to 2012. In 2008, before the onset of the global financial crisis, a median of 45% named the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power, while just 22% said China. Today, only 36% say the U.S., while 42% believe China is in the top position.

Also of Note

• Global publics are much less interested in the 2012 U.S. presidential election than they were in the 2008 contest. For example, four years ago 56% of Germans were closely following the race, compared with just 36% now.
• Much like President Obama, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton receives largely positive marks in Western Europe, but is unpopular in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed.
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives mostly favorable ratings in Europe – with the clear exception of Greece, where only 7% express confidence in her.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin is rated negatively in most of the countries surveyed, and Russia’s overall image has declined since last year in Western Europe and the U.S.

A 21-nation Pew Global Attitudes survey finds widespread opposition to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And in most countries, there is majority support among opponents of a nuclear-armed Iran for international economic sanctions to try to stop Tehran’s weapons program. The Chinese and the Russians are notable dissenters in this regard. The poll also found majorities in Western Europe and the United States disposed to taking military action to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Again, the Russians and Chinese disagreed.

The U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – known as the E3+3 – are currently negotiating with Iran in an effort to keep Tehran from crossing a threshold that would enable it to quickly produce a nuclear bomb. But there are differences between these negotiating partners in their opposition to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, in their support for economic sanctions and in their willingness to resort to the use of military force if necessary to blunt Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Nine-in-ten people or more among the transatlantic E3+3 partners oppose Iran’s nuclear weapons aspiration. But just over half (54%) of Chinese agree. There are even greater differences among the negotiating partners over economic sanctions. Among those who oppose Tehran’s nuclear armaments program, about eight-in-ten Americans, Germans and British back sanctions, but only 38% of Chinese and 46% of Russians are in agreement.

The military option is even more divisive among those who are against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. A solid majority (63%) of Americans would turn to military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Roughly half of Washington’s European allies would support such a move. And there is very little Chinese or Russian support for a military strike.

These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted March 17 to April 20, 2012.

No To a Nuclear Iran

There is almost universal opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons across the 21 nations surveyed by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.

Among the United States and its fellow European negotiating partners, the opposition is overwhelming: 96% of the French and the Germans, 94% of Americans and 91% of the British oppose Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Other Europeans have similar sentiments. Fully 95% in Spain, 94% in Czech Republic and 91% in Italy do not want Tehran to have an atomic bomb. This opposition is effectively unchanged since the first Pew Global Attitudes survey on this issue in 2006.

Russians and Chinese, whose governments are the other two partners in the E3+3 process, also oppose the Iranian nuclear weapons program, but less strongly. Roughly three-in-four Russians (77%) are against Tehran acquiring nuclear armaments. In China, 54% oppose Tehran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, down 15 points from 2007.

Iran’s regional neighbors generally would rather not see an Iranian nuclear arsenal. But opinions do vary and they are fluid. About three-in-four Jordanians (76%), two-in-three Egyptians (66%) and 54% of Turks oppose Tehran acquiring nuclear weaponry, while Tunisians are divided (42% favor, 43% oppose). Half of Pakistanis back Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, while just 11% oppose them. Nearly four-in-ten Pakistanis (39%) have no opinion.

Lebanon is an interesting sectarian case study. Overall, the Lebanese oppose Iran having nuclear weapons by a 62% to 35% margin. But there is a deep cleavage in opinion among religious groups in the country: 94% of Sunni Muslims are against the Iranian nuclear program, as are 61% of Lebanese Christians. Nearly three-in-four Shia Muslims (73%), however, support it. Iranians are mostly Shia Muslims.

And views within the region are changing. Since 2006, opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions is up 34 percentage points in Jordan and 24 points in Egypt. While 54% of Turks still oppose their neighbor Iran having nuclear weapons, that opposition is down 11 points since last year. And opposition in Lebanon is also down seven points since 2006.

Opposition to Iran’s nuclear program among its neighbors generally tracks public fears of the threat an Iranian atomic bomb might pose to their country. A majority of Lebanese (57%) see a nuclear Iran as threatening. A majority of Tunisians (57%) and Pakistanis (57%) do not.

The outlier is Jordan. A very strong Jordanian majority opposes Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but a majority (55%) also say that such an Iranian force would pose no danger to their safety.

Opposition to the Iranian nuclear armaments program is overwhelming in Japan (94%), Brazil (91%) and Mexico (86%).

Divisions Over Tougher Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions have been imposed on Iran by the international community in an effort to dissuade Tehran from continuing its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. Additional EU sanctions are scheduled to be put in place July 1, 2012.

Among those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Americans and citizens of their European negotiating partners in the E3+3 talks with Iran strongly support tougher international economic measures against Tehran to try to stop its atomic weapons program. This includes 80% in the U.S. and Germany, 79% in Britain and 74% in France.

In some of the negotiating partners, there is a bit of a generation gap among those who oppose a nuclear-armed Iran. Sanctions are generally supported by the young. But in Britain, people ages 18-29 are 17 points less likely to back sanctions than people 50 years of age and older. Similarly, in France the young are 14 points less likely than their elders to be supportive. And in the United States they are 13 points less likely.

The Chinese and Russians do not agree with their negotiating counterparts on economic sanctions. Moreover, support for sanctions is eroding in these two pivotal members of the E3+3 talks. Just 46% of Russians who oppose the Iranian nuclear program back new sanctions, down from 67% in 2010. In China, 38% favor more sanctions, a drop of 20 percentage points over the last two years.

Other Europeans are generally supportive of sanctions, including 79% of Czechs who oppose the Iranian program and 78% of Italians. But only 55% of Greeks agree. Some publics whose governments are further removed from the current negotiations with Iran are also somewhat less supportive: the Brazilians (62%) and Japanese (61%).

Iran’s regional neighbors are fairly sympathetic toward sanctions, including 74% of Lebanese who oppose Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, 70% of Egyptians and 68% of Jordanians. The Turks, with a lively cross border trade with Iran, see sanctions in a different light. Roughly half of those who oppose Iran’s program in Turkey (52%) disapprove of tougher economic sanctions against their neighbor.

Divisions Over Military Action

Among those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Americans are the most willing to take military action if necessary to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The British and Germans lean toward the use of military force, while the French are split. The Russians and the Chinese show no support for a military strike and lean toward accepting a nuclear Iran.

If necessary to keep Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, 63% in the U.S. are willing to go to war. And that proportion has not changed significantly since 2010. Only 28% are ready to accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

Only about half of those who oppose an Iranian nuclear program among America’s European allies in the E3+3 talks agree: 51% in Britain and France and 50% in Germany. This sentiment is unchanged in Britain and Germany, but down eight points in France since 2010. Thus there is a significant 12-13 point transatlantic divide on whether to take military action if the E3+3 talks fail to end the Iranian weapons program. Roughly two-in-five or more of the British, French and Germans could live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Within the E3+3 countries there are significant political differences on resorting to force. In the United States, among those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Republicans (79%) are more supportive of turning to military force if necessary than are Democrats (61%) or independents (58%).

In France there is also a left-right split. Only 43% of the French on the left of the political spectrum favor military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. A majority (56%) could accept a nuclear Iran. French conservatives take exactly the opposite view: 56% back military force. In Britain and Germany there is no significant ideological division on the issue.

For the most part there is no generation gap among the E3+3 over the use of force, except in Britain. Younger British, ages 18-29, are 19 points more likely to support military action than British 50 years of age and older.

Publics in Russia and China, the other two E3+3 negotiators with Iran, definitely do not back a military solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge. Only 30% of Chinese who oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions support the use of force. In Russia 24% hold this view, down from 32% in 2010. Roughly four-in-ten Russians (41%) and Chinese (39%) want to avoid war, even if that means Tehran gets the bomb. But 36% of Russians and 31% of the Chinese volunteer that they reject both options or have no opinion.

Sentiment in other parts of Europe is comparable to that among the European E3+3 participants. About half or more of Czechs (55%), Spanish (53%), Italians (52%) and Poles (51%) who oppose an Iranian nuclear program would back a military strike to halt it. The outlier is Greece, which is deeply divided: only 27% support a military solution, 30% would accept a nuclear-armed Iran and 43% reject both options or express no opinion.

By considerable margins, Egyptians and Jordanians who oppose Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons would support military action against Iran. Fully 52% in Egypt and 50% in Jordan back the use of force, only 17% of Egyptians and 25% of Jordanians say they can live with a nuclear Iran. And that sentiment has not changed much in the last two years.

In Lebanon, a plurality (46%) would approve resorting to armed intervention. The Turks, for their part, are very leery of the use of force. Barely a quarter (26%) would agree to military intervention in Iran, while 42% want to avoid a military conflict even if that means the Iranians develop a nuclear weapons capacity.

In other parts of the world, the Brazilians (55%) and the Mexicans (54%) would back the use of force. But only two-in-five Japanese (40%) would agree to do so. Sentiment in Japan seems to be shifting somewhat. In 2010 a majority of Japanese (55%) supported avoiding conflict at all cost. Today only 49% hold that position.

Iran’s Negative International Image

Overall ratings of Iran remain largely negative across much of the world. Solid majorities in the United States and the European Union have an unfavorable opinion of Iran, including more than eight-in-ten people in Germany (91%), France (86%), Italy (85%) and Spain (84%).

Negative assessments are also common in E3+3 member China (62%). In Russia, however, views are divided, with 38% expressing a negative and 36% a positive view. Iran’s image has declined slightly in Russia since last year, when 42% had a favorable opinion.

Iran is also unpopular in many predominantly Muslim nations who are its neighbors. Roughly six-in-ten Lebanese (61%) give the Islamic Republic a negative rating, although views are sharply divided among the country’s major religious communities. About nine-in-ten Lebanese Shia Muslims (91%) hold a positive view of Iran, compared with just 5% of Sunni Muslims and 32% of Christians.

In Turkey, where diplomatic tensions with Iran have increased over the last year, 55% of the people have an unfavorable opinion about Iran, while only 26% express a favorable view.

Jordanians (79% unfavorable) and Egyptians (76%) give Iran especially poor marks. Moreover, ratings for Iran have declined precipitously since 2006, when 59% of Egyptians and 49% of Jordanians expressed a positive view.

There is also a generation gap on this question in some countries in the region. Young people in Tunisia, ages 18-29, are 16 percentage points more likely to have an unfavorable view of Iran than are people 50 years of age and older. In Turkey the generation gap is 14 points, while in Lebanon it is ten points.

Pakistan sees its neighbor quite differently: 76% of Pakistanis give Iran a positive rating. Meanwhile, Tunisians are roughly divided (43% unfavorable, 39% favorable).

Ahmadinejad Unpopular

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad receives largely negative reviews in most of the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. However, Pakistan is again a major exception. About half of Pakistanis (47%) express a favorable opinion of Ahmadinejad, while just 6% give him an unfavorable rating (47% do not offer an opinion). Also, a plurality of Tunisians (42%) hold a positive view of the Iranian leader.

Once more, Lebanese opinions are split along religious lines, with nearly all Shia (95%) expressing a favorable view of Ahmadinejad and nearly all Sunnis (92%) offering a negative rating. Nearly six-in-ten Christians (57%) also see him in a negative light.

About half of Turks (48%) and large majorities of Jordanians (83%) and Egyptians (73%) have an unfavorable view of the Iranian president.

Survey Report

As has long been the case, American values differ from those of Western Europeans in many important ways. Most notably, Americans are more individualistic and are less supportive of a strong safety net than are the publics of Britain, France, Germany and Spain. Americans are also considerably more religious than Western Europeans, and are more socially conservative with respect to homosexuality.

Americans are somewhat more inclined than Western Europeans to say that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Moreover, Americans more often than their Western European allies believe that obtaining UN approval before their country uses military force would make it too difficult to deal with an international threat. And Americans are less inclined than the Western Europeans, with the exception of the French, to help other nations.

These differences between Americans and Western Europeans echo findings from previous surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. However, the current polling shows the American public is coming closer to Europeans in not seeing their culture as superior to that of other nations. Today, only about half of Americans believe their culture is superior to others, compared with six-in-ten in 2002. And the polling finds younger Americans less apt than their elders to hold American exceptionalist attitudes.

These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain from March 21 to April 14 as part of the broader 23-nation poll in spring 2011.

Use of Military Force

Three-quarters of Americans agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world; this view is shared by seven-in-ten in Britain and narrower majorities in France and Spain (62% each). Germans are evenly divided, with half saying the use of force is sometimes necessary and half saying it is not.

Germans are more supportive of the use of military force than they have been in recent years. For example, in 2007, just about four-in-ten (41%) Germans agreed that it was sometimes necessary, while 58% disagreed. Opinions have been more stable in the U.S., Britain and France.

For the most part, opinions about the use of force do not vary considerably across demographic groups. In Germany and Spain, however, support for the use of military force is far more widespread among men than among women. Six-in-ten German men agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world, compared with just 40% of women. And while majorities across gender groups in Spain believe the use of force may be necessary, more Spanish men than Spanish women say this is the case (68% vs. 56%).

In Britain, France, Spain and the U.S., conservatives, or those on the political right, are more likely than liberals, or those on the left, to agree that the use of force is sometimes necessary to maintain world order. However, in the four countries, majorities across ideological groups express this view.¹

When asked whether their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with international threats, American opinion differs considerably from that of Western Europeans. Americans are almost evenly divided on the question, with 45% saying that the U.S. should have UN approval while 44% say this would make it too difficult to deal with threats; in contrast, solid majorities in the four Western European nations surveyed, including about three-quarters in Spain (74%) and Germany (76%) say their country should have UN approval before it takes military action.

In Western Europe, those with a college degree are more likely than those with less education to say their country should have UN approval before using military force, although majorities across both groups share this view. For example, in Spain, 84% of those who graduated from college say UN approval should be obtained, compared with 70% of those who do not have a college degree. Double-digit differences are also evident in Britain (15 percentage points), Germany (11 points) and France (10 points). This is not the case in the U.S., where respondents across education groups offer nearly identical views.

In Germany, gender differences are also notable; even though German men are more likely than women to say the use of military force is sometimes necessary, more men than women say their country should have UN approval before using force (83% vs. 70%).

The view that their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with threats is far more prevalent among American liberals than among conservatives. Close to six-in-ten (57%) liberals favor obtaining UN approval, while 33% say this would make it too difficult for the U.S. to deal with threats; in contrast, most conservatives (52%) say getting UN approval would make it too difficult to deal with threats, while 38% say this is an important step. Political moderates fall between the other two groups, with 49% saying the U.S. should seek the approval of the UN before using military force and 42% saying this would make it too difficult to deal with threats. The same ideological difference is generally not evident in Western Europe.

Views on International Engagement

About four-in-ten (39%) Americans say the U.S. should help other countries deal with their problems, while a narrow majority (52%) says the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their problems as best they can. In this regard, Americans are not drastically different from respondents in France, where 43% believe their country should help other countries and 57% say it should focus on its own problems.

The British are nearly evenly divided; 45% say their country should help other countries deal with their problems and about the same number (48%) believe Britain should deal with its own problems.

Compared with the U.S., France and Britain, Spain and Germany stand out as the only countries where majorities favor international engagement: 55% and 54%, respectively, say their countries should provide assistance to others, while 40% in Spain and 43% in Germany take the more isolationist view.

Opinions about international engagement have changed somewhat in the U.S., France and Spain since last year, but while publics in the two Western European countries are now more in favor of helping others than they were in 2010, more Americans currently take an isolationist position. Last year, about the same number of Americans said their country should help other countries (45%) as said it should let other countries deal with their own problems (46%). Similarly, the Spanish were nearly evenly divided, with 49% favoring engagement and 47% taking an isolationist approach. In France, where a majority continues to take an isolationist view, even more (65%) did so a year ago.

In the U.S. as well as in the four Western European countries surveyed, those with a college degree are far more likely than those with less education to offer an internationalist view. This is especially the case in Germany, where about three-quarters (73%) of those who graduated from college believe their country should help other countries deal with their problems, compared with a narrow majority (52%) of those without a college degree.

Political ideology is also a factor in Germany, France and Spain. In these three countries, those on the right are more likely than those on the left to take the isolationist view when it comes to international engagement. For example, while about half (48%) of left-wing French say their country should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with theirs as best they can, about six-in-ten (59%) on the right offer this opinion.

Cultural Superiority

About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.

While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007. Belief in cultural superiority has declined among Americans across age, gender and education groups.

As in past surveys, older Americans remain far more inclined than younger ones to believe that their culture is better than others. Six-in-ten Americans ages 50 or older share this view, while 34% disagree; those younger than 30 hold the opposite view, with just 37% saying American culture is superior and 61% saying it is not. Opinions are more divided among those ages 30 to 49; 44% in this group see American culture as superior and 50% do not.

Similar age gaps are not as common in the Western European countries surveyed, with the exception of Spain, where majorities of older respondents, but not among younger ones, also think their culture is better than others; 55% of those ages 50 or older say this is the case, compared with 34% of those ages 30 to 49 and 39% of those younger than 30.

As is the case on other measures, opinions about cultural superiority vary considerably by educational attainment. In the four Western European countries and in the U.S., those who did not graduate from college are more likely than those who did to agree that their culture is superior, even if their people are not perfect. For example, Germans with less education are about twice as likely as those with a college degree to believe their culture is superior (49% vs. 25%); double-digit differences are also present in France (20 percentage points), Spain (18 points) and Britain (11 points), while a less pronounced gap is evident in the U.S. (9 points).

Finally, among Americans and Germans, political conservative are especially likely to believe their culture is superior to others. In the U.S., 63% of conservatives take this view, compared with 45% of moderates and just 34% of liberals. Similarly, a majority (54%) of right-wing Germans see their culture as superior, while 47% of moderates and 33% of those on the political left agree.

Individualism and the Role of the State

American opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Western Europeans when it comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.

In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and 55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer consider being free from state interference a higher priority.

In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21% say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more limited role for the state.

Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%) conservatives in Britain.

American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.

Asked if they agree that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view.

In the U.S. and in Western Europe, those without a college degree are less individualistic than those who have graduated from college; this is especially the case in the U.S. and Germany. About three-quarters (74%) of Germans in the less educated group believe that success in life is largely determined by forces beyond one’s control, compared with 55% of college graduates. Among Americans, 41% of those without a college degree say they have little control over their fate, while just 22% of college graduates share this view.

Religion More Important to Americans

Americans also distinguish themselves from Western Europeans on views about the importance of religion. Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.

Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Western Europeans to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S., compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.

In the U.S., women and older respondents place more importance on religion and are more likely than men and younger people to say that faith in God is a necessary foundation for morality and good values. About six-in-ten (59%) American women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 41% of men; and while a majority (56%) of Americans ages 50 and older say religion is very important to them, 48% of those ages 30 to 49 and 41% of those younger than 30 place similar importance on religion.

Similarly, while a majority of American women (58%) say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, men are nearly evenly divided, with 47% saying belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality and 51% saying it is not. Among Americans ages 50 and older, 58% say one must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 50% of those ages 30 to 49 and 46% of those younger than 30 share this view.

Education also plays a role in views of religion in the U.S., to some extent. Although Americans with a college degree are about as likely as those without to say religion is very important to them (47% and 51%, respectively), the less educated are far more inclined to say that one must believe in God in order to be moral; 59% of those without a college degree say this, compared with 37% of those who have graduated from college.

Views of religion and whether belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality vary little, if at all, across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed. In Spain, however, respondents ages 50 and older place more importance on religion than do younger people, although relatively few in this age group say it is very important to them; 33% say this is the case, compared with 16% of those ages 30 to 49 and 11% of those younger than 30.

Politically, conservatives in the U.S., Spain and Germany are more likely than liberals to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, but while solid majorities of conservatives in the U.S. (66%) take this position, fewer than half of conservatives in Spain (31%) and Germany (46%) share this view. Meanwhile, just 26% of liberals in the U.S., 11% in Spain and 19% in Germany say belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality. Conservatives in the U.S. are also far more likely than liberals to consider religion very important in their lives (67% vs. 29%); in Western Europe, few across ideological groups place high importance on religion.

Religious vs. National Identity

American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain (63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.

In Britain, France and Germany, more Christians now see themselves in terms of their nationality than did so five years ago, when national identification was already widespread in these countries. This change is especially notable in Germany, where the percentage seeing themselves first as Germans is up 11 percentage points, from 59% in 2006.

Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70% in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22% say they are primarily American. Among other American Christians, more identify with their nationality (55%) than with their religion (38%).

Homosexuality

Tolerance for homosexuality is widespread in the U.S. and Western Europe, but far more Western Europeans than Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society; at least eight-in-ten in Spain (91%), Germany (87%), France (86%) and Britain (81%), compared with 60% in the U.S.

Acceptance of homosexuality has increased in recent years, and the shift is especially notable in the U.S., where only slightly more said it should be accepted (49%) than said it should be rejected (41%) in 2007. Today, more Americans accept homosexuality than reject it by a 27-percentage point margin.

While there are some differences in opinions of homosexuality across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed, overwhelming majorities across age, education and gender groups believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the U.S., however, these differences are somewhat more pronounced. For example, while 67% of American women believe homosexuality should be accepted, a much narrower majority of men (54%) share that view. Among Americans with college degrees, 71% accept homosexuality, compared with 56% of those with less education. Finally, about two-thirds (68%) of Americans younger than 30 say homosexuality should be accepted by society; 61% of those ages 30 to 40 and 55% of those ages 50 and older share this view.

In addition to demographic differences, an ideological divide on views of homosexuality is also notable in the U.S., where more than eight-in-ten (85%) liberals and 65% of moderates express tolerant views, compared with 44% of conservatives. In the four Western European countries surveyed, at least three-quarters across ideological groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

As the death toll continues to rise in Mexico’s drug war, now claiming more than 35,000 lives since President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006, fewer than half (45%) of Mexicans say their government is making progress in its campaign against drug cartels; 29% say the government is losing ground and 25% say things are about the same as they have been in the past.

Still, an overwhelming majority (83%) continues to endorse the use of the Mexican army to fight drug traffickers, virtually unchanged in recent years. Moreover, many welcome U.S. help in training Mexican police and military personnel (74%) and providing money and weapons to Mexican police and military forces (64%).

And while Mexicans broadly oppose the deployment of U.S. troops to combat drug traffickers in Mexico (38% support and 57% oppose), more now support this strategy than did so in 2010, when only about a quarter (26%) favored the deployment of U.S. troops in their country and two-thirds opposed it.

The survey of Mexico conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project between March 22 and April 7 also finds that illegal drugs and cartel-related violence rank among the top national problems facing Mexico; 71% say illegal drugs are a very big problem in their country and even more (77%) see the violence associated with drug cartels as a major challenge.

Concerns about illegal drugs and cartel-related violence are especially widespread in the North, where Mexico’s cartels have been especially active. Nearly nine-in-ten (87%) in North Mexico say illegal drugs are a very big problem in their country, compared with 69% in the South and in the Greater Mexico City area and 63% in Central Mexico. Similarly, 94% in the North see the violence associated with drug cartels as a very big problem; 75% in Mexico City, 73% in the South and 69% in Central Mexico share this concern.

When asked who is most to blame for the drug violence in their country, more now say both Mexico and the U.S. are to blame than did so in recent surveys. About six-in-ten (61%) Mexicans blame both nations; 51% held this view in 2009 and 2010. Currently, 18% say the U.S. is mostly to blame and about the same percentage (16%) blame Mexico; a year ago, nearly twice as many said the U.S. was mostly to blame as named Mexico (27% vs. 14%).

U.S. Image Positive

The image of the U.S. has rebounded somewhat since the passage of Arizona’s controversial immigration bill in April 2010, but it remains far more negative than it was prior to the law’s enactment. Currently, a slim majority (52%) of Mexicans hold a favorable view of the U.S., while 41% express a negative opinion.

A year ago, 56% had a favorable view of the U.S., but those who were interviewed before Gov. Jan Brewer signed the Arizona measure into law on April 23, 2010, offered far more positive opinions than those interviewed following the law’s enactment; 62% of those interviewed April 14-20, 2010 rated the U.S. favorably, compared with just 44% of those interviewed May 1-6, 2010. In 2009, nearly seven-in-ten Mexicans (69%) expressed a positive attitude toward the U.S.

Fewer See a Better Life in U.S.

Mexicans are less likely than they were two years ago to say that people from their country who move to the U.S. have a better life than those who stay in Mexico. Fewer than half (44%) now say this is the case; 22% say life is worse in the U.S. and 29% say it is neither better nor worse. In 2009, nearly six-in-ten (57%) said people who moved to the U.S. from Mexico enjoyed a better life in the host country, while 14% believe life was worse for those who moved to the U.S. and 22% said it was neither better nor worse.

As was the case in 2009, most Mexicans (61%) say they would not move to the U.S. if they had the means and opportunity to do so. Among the sizeable minority (38%) who would move to the U.S. if they could, 53% (or, 20% of the total population) say they would be inclined to do so without authorization. (For a more detailed analysis of Mexican immigration patterns, see “The Mexican American Boom: Births Overtake Immigration,” Pew Hispanic Center, released July 14, 2011.)

Younger respondents are more likely than older ones to say they would move to the U.S. Slightly more than half (52%) of those younger than age 30 say they would move if they had the means and opportunity to do so, including 28% who say they would be inclined to work and live in the U.S. without authorization. In contrast, just 36% of those ages 30 to 49 and 27% of those 50 and older say they would move to the U.S. (20% and 11%, respectively, say they would do so without authorization).

Most Unhappy With Country’s Direction

After shrinking in 2009, during the global recession, Mexico’s economy rebounded impressively in 2010 – growing at its fastest rate in a decade. Still, an overwhelming majority of Mexicans remain dissatisfied with economic conditions and with their nation’s direction overall. Roughly three-quarters (76%) say they are unhappy with the way things are going in their country, little changed from assessments in 2009 and 2010. Dissatisfaction with the country’s direction is common across the different regions of Mexico and cuts across income and educational levels.

Discontent with current economic conditions is similarly widespread with about two-thirds (68%) describing the economy as poor, down slightly from 75% in 2010; just 30% say the economic situation in Mexico is good.

Looking ahead, Mexicans are no more optimistic than they were a year ago about their country’s economic prospects. Roughly half (48%) believe the economy will improve over the next 12 months, while 29% think it will remain the same and 22% say it will worsen, virtually unchanged from 2010. In 2009, however, as the effects of the global recession and the faltering U.S. economy were beginning to be felt, Mexicans were actually more optimistic, with 61% saying economic conditions would improve in the coming year.

Crime and Drug-Related Violence Top Concerns

As noted earlier, among the challenges confronting their country, Mexicans most frequently name crime (80%) and cartel-related violence (77%) as very big problems. Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) see illegal drugs in the same light. Most (69%) also describe economic problems as a major challenge. Indeed, when asked specifically about rising prices and lack of job opportunities, majorities (74% and 70%, respectively) say these are very big problems in Mexico today. Slightly smaller numbers place corruption (65%) and terrorism (62%) in this category, while fewer than six-in-ten (56%) characterize pollution as a very big problem. Just half say people leaving the country for jobs elsewhere is a major issue.

While crime and cartel-related violence rate as major challenges among all Mexicans, those with lower incomes are especially concerned about terrorism, with more than seven-in-ten (73%) among this group describing terrorism as a very big problem.¹ Only 54% of middle-income and 49% of higher-income Mexicans see terrorism in the same light.

Despite the economy not topping the public’s list of major challenges, when asked separately about rising prices and lack of job opportunities, strong majorities (74% and 70%, respectively) say these are very big problems in Mexico today.

Not surprisingly, given the high levels of concern about crime and cartel-related violence, Mexicans by a 58%-to-26% margin say it is more important for the government to try to maintain law and order than to protect people’s personal freedoms. About one-in-seven (15%) volunteer that the government should give equal weight to both. Compared with two years ago, the number of Mexicans who think personal freedoms should take precedent over law and order has increased eight percentage points, rising from 18% in spring 2009.

Supporters of President Calderón’s PAN tend to be more insistent that law and order should be the government’s top priority. Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) PAN supporters say it is more important for the authorities to maintain law and order than to protect personal freedoms; only 52% of those who back the opposition PRI agree with this view.

Views of Calderón and the National Government

Despite overwhelming concerns about crime and drug-related violence and negative assessments of the country’s economy and overall direction, most Mexicans continue to say that President Calderón and the national government are having a positive impact on the country. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) say the president’s influence is good, while 39% describe it as bad; 54% give the national government a positive rating, while 41% say the government is having a negative influence.

Compared with two years ago, however, views of Calderón and the government have become increasingly negative. In 2009, three-quarters said Calderón was having a positive influence and 72% said the same about the national government; just 22% and 26% gave the president and the government, respectively, a negative rating.

Views of the national government are tied, at least in part, to opinions about the government’s handling of drug traffickers; a solid majority (63%) of those saying the Mexican government is making progress against drug traffickers describe the national government’s influence as good, compared with 47% of those who say the government is losing ground and 46% of those who say things are about the same as they have been in the past.

Military and Media Receive Positive Ratings

Most Mexicans say the military and the media are having a very or somewhat good influence on the way things are going in Mexico (62% and 60%, respectively) In contrast, only about three-in-ten say the court system (32%) and the police (30%) are having a positive influence.

While the military remains popular, the percentage saying it is having a good influence has declined by double digits, from 77% in 2009. Ratings for the media have also declined over the last two years, though not as dramatically; 68% said the media was having a good influence on the way things were going in Mexico in 2009. In 2002, when the question was first asked, 84% of Mexicans saw the media’s influence as positive.

Rating Political Leaders

A slim majority (55%) of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of President Felipe Calderón, while 42% express an unfavorable opinion; in 2009, about two-thirds (68%) had a positive view of the president. Gustavo Madero Muñoz, the president of Calderón’s PAN party, receives negative ratings on balance, with nearly four-in-ten (39%) expressing an unfavorable opinion, 18% voicing a favorable opinion and 43% of respondents not offering an opinion of the current president of the PAN party.

Enrique Peña Nieto, current governor of the State of Mexico and potential presidential candidate for the PRI, is viewed favorably by about six-in-ten (61%) Mexicans, while only 31% express an unfavorable view of him. Majorities across all demographic groups offer a positive opinion, with especially high ratings among those who identify with the PRI (80% favorable). Beatriz Paredes Rangel, former president of the PRI, receives more mixed ratings; 43% of Mexicans voice a favorable opinion of her and 38% offer an unfavorable view.

Marcelo Ebrard, current mayor of Mexico City and a member of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), is seen favorably by 35% of Mexicans, while nearly half (46%) have an unfavorable view of him. Ebrard is viewed most warmly by residents of Mexico City; 56% have a favorable view, compared with about three-in-ten in North (32%) and Central (31%) Mexico and 26% in the South.

Fellow PRD member Andrés Manuel López Obrador has the highest unfavorable ratings of the politicians tested, with over six-in-ten (62%) voicing an unfavorable opinion of the 2006 presidential election runner-up and one-third expressing a positive view. Views of Jesus Ortega Martinez, president of the PRD, are also negative, on balance (22% favorable vs. 45% unfavorable); one-third of Mexicans do not offer an opinion. Favorable ratings for Martinez have declined 15 percentage points since 2009, when nearly four-in-ten (37%) Mexicans offered a favorable view of the PRD leader.

Since President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006, more than 25,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence. However, Mexicans overwhelmingly continue to endorse Calderón’s campaign against the drug cartels. Most also believe the Mexican military is making progress in the drug war, although they are less likely to hold this view now than was the case one year ago.

Fully 80% of Mexicans support using the army to fight drug traffickers, essentially unchanged from 83% in 2009. Opposition to using the army has increased only slightly, from 12% to 17%.

Just over half (55%) of Mexicans say the army is making progress against the traffickers, while only 22% think it is losing ground and 21% believe things are about the same as they have been in the past. However, assessments have become somewhat less positive since last year, when 66% felt the army was making progress and only 15% said it was losing ground.

Majorities in Central (60%), North (56%) and South (56%) Mexico believe the army is making progress, while residents of Mexico City (45%) are somewhat less likely to offer a positive assessment.

A survey of Mexico by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted April 14-May 6, also finds continuing support for American involvement in the battle against drug cartels – at least in terms of training and financial support.¹ Fully 78% favor the U.S. providing training to Mexican police and military personnel, unchanged from the 2009 poll.

A smaller majority (57%) favors the U.S. providing money and weapons to Mexican police and military personnel, down slightly from 63% last year. Meanwhile, the share of the public that opposes this idea has grown from 28% to 37%. Opposition to the deployment of U.S. troops in Mexico has also increased, from an already high 59% last year to 67% in the current survey.

Support for American assistance to Mexican forces tends to be strongest in North Mexico, parts of which have been especially hard hit by drug-related violence. For example, 67% of those in the North favor the U.S. providing money and weapons to Mexico’s military and police, compared with 56% in the South, 53% in the Central region, and 52% among residents of Mexico City.

The results from the poll also highlight the extent to which Mexican views of the U.S. generally turned negative following passage of the recent Arizona immigration law. Prior to the law’s enactment, 62% of Mexicans had a positive opinion of the U.S., compared with 44% after the law. However, the Arizona controversy had a lesser impact on views about U.S.-Mexican cooperation in the drug war. Still, those surveyed after the law’s passage were slightly more likely than those surveyed before to oppose U.S. training of Mexican police and military forces (16% before the law, 24% after the law).

When asked which country is mostly to blame for their country’s drug violence, 27% name the U.S., while 14% say Mexico, and 51% say both nations are to blame. These results are almost identical to those registered in 2009, when 25% blamed the U.S., 15% blamed Mexico, and 51% said both.

Survey Methods

Results for the survey are based on face-to-face interviews conducted April 14 to April 20, 2010 and May 1 to May 6, 2010. The survey in Mexico is part of the larger 2010 Pew Global Attitudes survey conducted in 22 nations from April 7 to May 8, 2010, under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. (For more results from the 22-nation 2010 poll, see “Obama More Popular Abroad Than At Home, Global Image Of U.S. Continues To Benefit” released June 17, 2010.)

The table provides details about the survey’s methodology, including the margin of sampling error based on all interviews conducted in Mexico. For the results based on the full sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus the margin of error. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.