Israelis and Palestinians differ widely in their outlook for a peaceful resolution of their longstanding conflict and in their views about the United States. But both want U.S. President Barack Obama to play a larger role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

Israelis, on balance, believe a way can be found for an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully with their country. Palestinians, on the other hand, overwhelmingly do not think this is possible, and a plurality believes armed struggle rather than negotiations or nonviolent resistance is the best way to achieve statehood.

Views of the United States also continue to vary considerably between Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis are far more likely to rate the U.S. favorably and to say its policies in the Middle East are fair.

Nonetheless, while Palestinians give the U.S. negative ratings and are nearly unanimous in saying the U.S. favors Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, many join Israelis in welcoming a larger role for the Obama administration in resolving the conflict.

While Obama, who visited Jerusalem and the West Bank in March, remains largely unpopular in the Palestinian territories, his ratings have improved markedly in Israel. The president enjoys the confidence of 61% of Israelis, up 12 percentage points from 2011. Palestinians, however, remain negative, with just 15% expressing confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, and 82% saying they have little or no confidence in the American president.

These are among the key findings from a new survey by the Pew Research Center of 14,997 people in 12 countries and the Palestinian territories from March 3 to April 12, 2013. Survey countries include Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia – and Germany, which has played an active role in key issues related to the Middle East. Surveys in Israel and the Palestinian territories were conducted after Obama’s trip to the region.

Israel’s image is overwhelmingly negative in the region; 86% or more in Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey have an unfavorable view. Israel also has few friends in France, Germany and China, where majorities express negative opinions of the Jewish state. The U.S. is the only country surveyed where a majority (57%) gives Israel a favorable rating.

Despite their negative views of Israel, Westerners generally believe a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible. At least half in France, Germany, Britain and the U.S. think a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully. In contrast, publics in Turkey and in the Arab countries surveyed are skeptical that this is possible.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas receive negative ratings in the region, although majorities in Israel and in the Palestinian territories rate their own leader favorably.

Netanyahu’s ratings are especially negative, with seven-in-ten in Turkey and at least 85% in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia expressing unfavorable views. Abbas receives his most negative ratings in Israel, where 84% have an unfavorable view of the Palestinian leader. Majorities or pluralities in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey also offer negative ratings of Abbas.

In Israel, a substantial number believes the continued building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank hurts their nation’s security, an opinion that is held by nearly half of secular Jews and by a large majority of Arabs in that country. In contrast, just 19% of Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox, say the continued building of settlements makes Israel less safe, while 41% say it makes Israel safer and 31% say it does not make a difference.

Middle East Sympathies

Perceptions of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians differ considerably across the countries surveyed. In the U.S., about half (53%) say they sympathize more with Israel, while just 14% sympathize more with the Palestinians. This is virtually unchanged from the last time the Pew Global Attitudes Project asked this question in 2007.

Views are more mixed in France, Germany and Russia. For example, 40% of French respondents sympathize more with Israel, while 44% say their sympathies lie with the Palestinians. Similarly, in Germany and Russia, about as many side with Israel as side with the Palestinians, but substantial numbers in these countries do not sympathize with either side in this conflict (31% and 42%, respectively).

One-in-five respondents in Britain also do not sympathize with either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but those who choose a side tend to sympathize with the Palestinians. About a third (35%) of the British sympathize with the Palestinians, while 19% side with Israel.

In Turkey and the Arab countries where this question was asked, overwhelming majorities side with the Palestinians. At least nine-in-ten in Tunisia (98%), Jordan (94%) and Egypt (92%) sympathize with the Palestinians in the dispute with Israel, as do 88% in Lebanon and 66% in Turkey.

For the most part, there has been little change in perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years. In France, however, opinions are more balanced than they were in 2007, when 43% sympathized with the Palestinians and 32% sympathized with Israel. Germans also offer more even views now compared with six years ago; 34% sided with Israel and 21% sided with the Palestinians in 2007.

Prospects for Palestinian Statehood

Israelis and Palestinians have very different opinions on the prospects for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that coexists peacefully alongside Israel. Half of Israelis think this is possible, while 38% say it is not and 9% say it depends.

Palestinians are far less optimistic; 61% do not believe a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully, while 14% say this is possible and 22% say it depends.

Israeli Arabs are considerably more likely than Jews to say it is possible for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully; 75% of Arabs in Israel say this is the case, compared with 46% of Israeli Jews.

Among Jews in Israel, a majority of those who describe themselves as secular believe a peaceful two-state solution is a possibility, while just 32% of those who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox share this view.

Elsewhere, at least half in France (71%), Germany (59%), Britain (52%) and the U.S. (50%) are optimistic that a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully with each other.

In Lebanon and Tunisia, majorities say there is not a way for a peaceful two-state solution to be achieved (80% and 57%, respectively), and about half (47%) in Turkey and 40% in Egypt are also skeptical. Opinions are somewhat more divided in Jordan, Russia and China, although pluralities in Russia and China say there is a way for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully.

Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.

When asked whether Arab countries are doing too much, too little or enough to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood, three-quarters in the Palestinian territories say they are doing too little; 16% say other Arab nations are doing enough and 5% believe they are doing too much to help Palestinians achieve statehood.

In the other Arab countries surveyed, only in Tunisia and Egypt do majorities or pluralities say their country could be doing more to help the Palestinians. More than six-in-ten (64%) Tunisians say their country is doing too little to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood. In Egypt, 47% believe their country is doing too little, but 34% think it is doing enough and 14% think Egypt is doing too much to help Palestinians with this goal.

Views are more mixed in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. For example, about the same number of Lebanese say their country is doing too little to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood (37%) as say it is doing enough (38%), while about a quarter (24%) believe Lebanon is doing too much. Among Jordanians, 28% say their country could be doing more to help Palestinians, while 38% think it is doing enough and 29% think Jordan is doing too much. And in Turkey, 26% say their country is doing too little, but 33% believe it is doing enough and 15% say it is doing too much to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood.

Views of Israel Largely Unfavorable

The U.S. is the only country surveyed where a majority expresses positive views of Israel: 57% of Americans have a favorable opinion and 27% have an unfavorable view of one of their country’s closest allies in the Middle East. Russians also express more favorable than unfavorable views of Israel (46% vs. 38%).

In predominantly Muslim countries, as well as in France, Germany, Britain and China, majorities or pluralities express negative opinions in Israel. At least eight-in-ten in Lebanon (99%), Jordan (96%), the Palestinian territories (94%), Egypt (92%), Turkey (86%), and Tunisia (86%) offer unfavorable views. Majorities in China (66%), France (65%) and Germany (62%) also express negative opinions of Israel, as does a 44%-plurality in Britain.

Negative Views of Netanyahu and Abbas

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu receives overwhelmingly negative ratings in neighboring countries. At least nine-in-ten in neighboring Lebanon (99%), Palestinian territories (96%), Jordan (95%) and Egypt (92%) have an unfavorable view of the Israeli leader; 85% in Tunisia and 70% in Turkey also express negative opinions of Netanyahu.

In Israel, by contrast, more than half (56%) view Netanyahu favorably, while 42% have an unfavorable opinion of their country’s prime minister. Israeli Jews are far more likely than Israeli Arabs to express positive views of Netanyahu. Among Jews, 63% have a favorable opinion and 36% have an unfavorable view of the prime minister; among Arabs, just 20% have a positive view, while 76% have a negative view of Netanyahu. Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox are especially likely to have a favorable opinion of Netanyahu (70% vs. 58% of secular Jews).

Views of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are also largely negative across the region, but not as overwhelmingly so as views of Netanyahu. More than eight-in-ten (84%) Israelis hold unfavorable opinions of Abbas, but Arabs in that country are more positive, with 52% expressing favorable views and 44% expressing negative opinions of Abbas.

Majorities in Lebanon (64%), Egypt (58%) and Jordan (56%) also have unfavorable views, as does a 42%-plurality in Turkey. Tunisians are nearly evenly divided, with 40% expressing positive views and 37% expressing unfavorable views of the Palestinian leader.

In Lebanon, views of Abbas reflect religious and sectarian differences. Majorities of Christians (78%) and Shia (66%) hold unfavorable opinions of Abbas. Among Lebanese Sunnis, however, most (54%) give the Palestinian leader a positive rating, while 44% have a negative opinion of him.

Palestinians express mostly positive opinions of Abbas; 61% have a favorable view and 34% have an unfavorable view of the Palestinian president. Abbas is viewed favorably by majorities in both the West Bank (57%) and Gaza (68%). His party also receives positive ratings among Palestinians; 69% have a favorable view of Fatah, while 27% express unfavorable opinions.

Islamic Jihad and Hamas, two groups designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S., receive lower ratings among Palestinians than Fatah, which renounced terrorism in 1988. Still, a majority of Palestinians (56%) holds favorable opinions of Islamic Jihad, while about a third (35%) gives the militant organization negative ratings.

Opinions of Hamas are more mixed, with 48% of Palestinians viewing the extremist group favorably and 45% saying they have an unfavorable view of Hamas. In 2011, when Pew Research last asked Palestinians about Hamas, more held negative views (56%) than expressed positive opinions (42%), but the militant organization was more popular in 2007, when 62% of Palestinians gave it a positive rating. Views of Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not vary significantly between the West Bank and Gaza or across demographic groups.

Many Israelis Say Settlements Hurt Security

About four-in-ten Israelis (42%) believe the continued building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank hurts their nation’s security; 27% say the expansion of settlements helps Israel’s security, and 23% say it does not make a difference.

Israeli Arabs are far more likely than Israeli Jews to say the continued building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank hurts Israel’s security. More than eight-in-ten (84%) Israeli Arabs express this view, while 4% say it helps their country’s security and 2% believe it does not make a difference. Israeli Jews are divided: 35% say the expansion of settlements hurts the security of Israel, 31% say it helps, and 27% say it does not make a difference.

Among Jews, those who are secular are considerably more critical of the continued building of settlements than those who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox. Nearly half of secular Jews in Israel (47%) believe the continued building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank hurts their country’s security; fewer say it helps or does not make a difference (23% each). Among more observant Jews, just 19% say expansion of settlements hurts Israel’s security, while 41% say it helps and 31% say it does not make a difference.

Israelis and Palestinians Differ on Views of U.S. and Obama

The U.S. receives overwhelmingly positive ratings in Israel, with even more Israelis now saying they have a favorable view of their country’s ally than did so two years ago, when Pew Research last conducted a survey in Israel; today, 83% express a positive opinion of the U.S., compared with 72% in 2011. In contrast, about eight-in-ten (79%) Palestinians express unfavorable views of the U.S., virtually unchanged from recent surveys.

In Israel, Jews are far more likely than Arabs to express positive views of the U.S.; nine-in-ten Israeli Jews have a favorable opinion, compared with 42% of Israeli Arabs. Arabs and Jews in Israel agree, however, that their country’s relationship with the U.S. is good. Overall, 94% of Israelis think Israel and the U.S. have a good relationship; 93% of Israeli Jews and 95% of Israeli Arabs share this view.

In the Palestinian territories, about one-third (35%) describe relations between the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. as good, while most (57%) say they are bad. Opinions are especially negative in Gaza, where just 24% say the relationship between their government and the U.S. is good, while 73% say it is bad. Views are more mixed in the West Bank, with 42% saying the Palestinian Authority has a good relationship with the U.S. and 47% saying relations between the two governments are bad.

Israelis and Palestinians also differ on views of Obama. About six-in-ten (61%) Israelis express confidence in the American president to do the right thing regarding world affairs, up from 49% in 2011. In the Palestinian territories, just 15% have confidence in Obama, while 82% have little or no confidence in him.

In Israel, opinions of Obama are far more positive among Jews than among Arabs. More than six-in-ten (64%) Jews express confidence in the American president, compared with about half (48%) of Arabs.

Secular Jews in Israel are especially positive in their views of Obama. About seven-in-ten (71%) secular Jews have confidence in Obama to do the right thing when it comes to world affairs, compared with 56% of Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox.

U.S. Policies in the Middle East

Israelis are more likely than they were six years ago to see U.S. policies in the Middle East as fair. Nearly half of Israelis (47%) say this is the case, while 35% say U.S. policies favor their own country too much and 14% say the U.S. is biased towards the Palestinians. In 2007, 37% of Israelis believed the U.S. was fair, while 42% said it favored Israel too much and 13% said the U.S. was overly supportive of the Palestinians.

Israeli opinions about U.S. policies in the Middle East vary considerably by ethnicity and religious affiliation. About six-in-ten (62%) secular Jews in Israel see the U.S. as fair, while 23% say the U.S. is biased toward Israel and 12% say the U.S. is biased toward the Palestinians. Among Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox, 47% say U.S. policies in the region are fair, 23% say they favor their own country too much, and 22% say the U.S. is biased towards the Palestinians. Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly believe U.S. policies favor Israel too much; 94% say this is the case.

Palestinian assessments of U.S. policies in the Middle East mirror those of Arabs in Israel. More than nine-in-ten (95%) Palestinians believe the U.S. is biased toward Israel, virtually unchanged from past surveys.

When asked whether they would like the Obama administration to play a larger role, a smaller role or about the same role it has been playing in resolving the conflict in the Middle East, at least four-in-ten Israelis and Palestinians say they would like it to play a larger role in the coming months.

About half (49%) of Israelis would like the Obama administration to be more involved, while 15% would like it to play a smaller role and 29% would like it to play the same role it has been playing in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Opinions on this do not vary considerably between Israeli Arabs and Jews.

In the Palestinian territories, 41% would welcome more involvement from the Obama administration in the coming months; about a quarter (26%) of Palestinians want the American president to play a smaller role in resolving the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and 19% would like it to play the same role it has been playing. Those who live in the West Bank are more likely than Gaza residents to say they would like the Obama administration to play a larger role in the Middle East conflict; 47% in the West Bank want more U.S. involvement, compared with 30% in Gaza.

Israeli and Palestinian Policies toward the U.S.

A majority of Israelis (61%) approve of Netanyahu’s policies toward the U.S., while 28% disapprove. Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-orthodox are especially likely to approve of Netanyahu’s policies (75% approve), but most secular Jews also approve (63%). Israeli Arabs are more critical of the prime minister’s policies toward the U.S.; just 22% approve and 59% disapprove of Netanyahu’s policies toward the U.S.

In the Palestinian territories, half approve of Abbas’ policies toward the U.S., and 38% disapprove. Views of the way Hamas is handling the U.S. are more mixed; 39% approve and 46% disapprove. Opinions about Hamas’ policies toward the U.S. are similar in the West Bank and Gaza.

Special to CNN

When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico this week, he will encounter a Mexican public that has far more positive attitudes about the United States than at any time in the last several years.

America’s image south of the border fell sharply in 2010, when Arizona passed a “show me your papers” law aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. But Mexican views have rebounded since then, and U.S. favorability ratings are now at their highest point since 2009. The prospects for U.S. immigration reform may be, at least in part, the source of renewed Mexican approval of their neighbor to the north.

A new Pew Research Center poll found that 66 percent of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of the U.S., up 10 percentage points from a year ago and up 22 points from May 2010, immediately following the enactment of Arizona’s immigration law. The last time America’s image was as strong among Mexicans was in 2009, when 69 percent said they had a favorable opinion.

Opinions of Obama, though more positive than in 2012, are still mixed – 49 percent express confidence in the American president, while 39 percent have little or no confidence in him, compared with a year ago, when 42 percent of Mexicans said they had confidence in Obama and 46 percent said they did not.

This boost in America’s image comes amidst rising expectations that Washington may soon reform U.S. immigration laws.

More than 11 million native-born Mexicans live in the U.S., including about 6 million who are in the country illegally – by far the largest segment of the undocumented population, according to estimates by the Pew Research Center. In June 2012, Obama authorized the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, giving more than one million undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children the chance to apply for temporary but renewable work permits and avoid deportation. It is estimated that 70 percent of those eligible for the program are from Mexico.

Obama carried the Latino vote by 71 percent to 27 percent in his 2012 reelection victory.  Since then, the president and a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators have been working on legislation that would remove the risk of deportation and open a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. These legislative developments have been followed closely by the Spanish-language media.

But this resurgence in goodwill for America coexists with continued skepticism about Uncle Sam’s intentions and influence in Mexico. And Obama himself, although now more popular than a year ago, receives only lukewarm ratings there. The president’s trip, which is being billed by the White House as an “opportunity to reinforce the deep cultural, familial and economic ties that so many Americans share with Mexico and Central America,” is also a chance for Obama to improve his own image on several key issues regarding the U.S.-Mexico relationship.

One challenge will be to convince Mexicans that Washington sees them as a full partner. About half of Mexicans say their neighbor to the north takes Mexico’s interests into account; 45 percent say it does not. And while the vast majority of Mexicans generally sees the benefits of strong economic ties with the U.S., their opinions are more mixed about the impact America is currently having on Mexico’s economy, with 33 percent saying U.S. influence is positive and 28 percent saying it is negative.

Besides talks on economic ties and collaboration on immigration and border security, Obama is likely to hear from Mexico about the U.S. role in the country’s ongoing fight against drug traffickers. Currently, 56 percent of Mexicans blame both the U.S. and their own country for the drug violence in Mexico, while one-fifth say the U.S. alone bears most of the responsibility.

Mexicans welcome their neighbor’s cooperation in combating this serious problem, with about three-quarters saying they want U.S. help in training Mexican police and military to combat drug trafficking, and 55 more than half saying they approve of the U.S. providing money and weapons to their country’s police and military. But they draw the line at any American boots on the ground, with 59 percent rejecting the deployment of U.S. troops to their country to fight narco-traffickers.

The drug war, immigration and the economic relationship between the U.S. and Mexico are among the items bound to be on the agenda when Obama visits Mexico this week, and Mexican opinion regarding U.S. involvement on these issues has shifted in a somewhat more positive direction in recent years. The question now is whether the two countries can build on the promise fostered by the proposed immigration policy and cement some of the progress that appears to have been made.

Criticized by some for being insufficiently pro-Israel during his first term, and dogged by relatively low ratings in Israel during his first term, President Obama travels there this week for meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to deliver a major address in Jerusalem. The Obama administration can only hope this speech is more warmly received among Israelis than his last high-profile address in the region at Cairo University in June 2009.

The Cairo speech was the most prominent piece of the newly-elected president’s outreach to the Muslim world. Following years of rampant anti-Americanism during George W. Bush’s tenure, Obama set out to transform America’s image in predominantly Muslim nations, many of which are vital to U.S. interests. At the time, polling found that the speech led to at least some improvement in perceptions of the U.S. among Palestinians, albeit temporary. However, it had the opposite effect in Israel.

Israelis gave both Obama and the U.S. lower ratings following the president’s Cairo speech than they did before.  Fully 76% of Israelis had a favorable view of the U.S. prior to the address, compared with 63% afterward, according to a May-June 2009 Pew Research Center poll. Six-in-ten Israelis expressed confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs before Cairo; just 49% held this view following the speech.

Two years earlier, 57% of Israelis had voiced confidence in Bush’s leadership. Among the 25 publics surveyed by Pew Research in 2009, Israel was the only one in which Obama’s ratings were not more positive than Bush’s during his final two years in office.

The 2009 poll also found signs that the Cairo speech was more favorably received in the Palestinian territories.  Most notably, the percentage of Palestinians saying they believed Obama would consider their interests when making foreign policy decisions rose from 27% pre-speech to 39% post-speech. Overall ratings for the U.S. and Obama also improved, but only marginally (+5 percentage points, a difference that is not statistically significant).

Recent polling shows that some Israelis continue to have misgivings about Obama. An October 2012 Jerusalem Post survey found that 28% of Israeli Jews described Obama as more pro-Palestinian, while just 18% saw him as more pro-Israel (40% said he is neutral). The administration obviously hopes to improve the president’s image in Israel with this visit and the Jerusalem speech.

However, in many ways the years since the Cairo address highlight the limits of speechmaking. Despite the favorable reaction among some Muslims to Obama’s 2009 rhetoric, four years later America’s image remains largely negative in many strategically important Muslim nations. In Egypt, ratings for the U.S. are lower today (19% favorable in the 2012 poll) than in spring 2009 (27%). Meanwhile, just 15% of Turks gave the U.S. positive marks in 2012. And in Jordan, where Obama will also visit this week, it was just 12%.

Special to CNN

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe travels to Washington this week to meet with President Barack Obama. This will be their first meeting since Abe was chosen for the second time to be prime minister and Obama secured a second term at the end of last year. But how do ties stand between the two countries?

Both leaders are riding a wave of relative popularity at home, strengthening their hands in dealing with mutual international challenges. And, unlike the Japan bashing days of the 1980s, when fear and resentment poisoned popular sentiment, Americans and Japanese actually like each other now. But public opinion on specific issues in both countries is likely to shape what Abe and Obama can and cannot accomplish.

The Obama that Abe will be meeting is in a stronger position than he was during much of his first term, enjoying a 52 percent job approval rating, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Among Japanese, about two-thirds back the Abe cabinet, at least according to a late January Kyodo News survey.

Meanwhile, about six in ten Americans today trust Japan, according to a Pew Research poll (the only nation they trust more is the United Kingdom, which is trusted by three quarters of Americans). And Japanese return the goodwill: 72 percent have a favorable view of the United States, one of the top favorability ratings among the 21 nations Pew Research surveyed last year. Moreover, three quarters of Japanese have confidence in Obama (compared with 25 percent who had confidence in George W. Bush in 2008).

But despite their affection for Obama, the Japanese are also disappointed in him. In 2009, just over half of Japanese expected Obama to get international approval before using military force, but only 29 percent say he has. Similarly, 58 percent thought he would be evenhanded in his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, yet just 17 percent say he actually has been.

All this suggests that when the Abe-Obama discussion gets down to concrete issues, there will be agreement, but also some differences.

The Obama administration would like to see Japan join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal Washington is negotiating with 10 other Asian-Pacific nations, which the White House hopes to complete by the end of this year. The economic benefits to the United States from the agreement would increase greatly if Japan is a member. And while TPP has little name recognition among average Americans, 60 percent do believe that increasing trade with Japan would be good for the United States. But Abe is wary because less than half of Japanese support joining TPP, according to a late 2012 Asahi Shimbun poll.

Japan’s growing tensions with China in the East China Sea and its implications for the U.S.-Japan military alliance may also be high on the agenda.

Americans have somewhat hawkish views on China, and when asked which country represents the greatest danger to the U.S., more Americans volunteered China than name any other nation, including Iran and North Korea, in a recent Pew Research survey.

And Americans and Japanese are both similarly skeptical of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, with 94 percent of respondents in both countries saying they were opposed to Tehran doing so, according to a 2012 Pew Research survey.

But what should be done to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons? Most Americans supports tougher sanctions, and Washington has leaned heavily on Tokyo to reduce oil imports from Iran (which it has), a topic Abe may hear more about in Washington. But those Japanese opposed to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are less supportive of such economic penalties, and this difference in opinion may weigh on the Abe government’s willingness to ratchet up Iranian sanctions in the months ahead.

Japanese and Americans also differ on the use of military force to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Fully 63 percent of Americans who oppose Tehran’s nuclear ambitions would consider such action, while only 40 percent of Japanese agree.

Ultimately, the U.S.-Japan relationship has gone through numerous ups and downs in the last few decades. Americans’ fears that Japan Inc. will overwhelm them have subsided. Yet challenges remain: how to jointly deal with China, North Korea and Iran, and whether Tokyo will join with other Asian governments and Washington in creating a transpacific free trade area.

The Abe-Obama summit cannot be expected to resolve all these differences. But the Japanese and American people are more predisposed to resolve their differences than they have been for years. The summit could not be happening at a more opportune and critical time.

Special to CNN

U.S. President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address is now history. It has been labeled “progressive,” “partisan,” “one of the best ever” and “pedestrian.” Whatever the positive or negative take on its content, the speech was largely about America’s domestic concerns. The limited internationalism highlighted in the speech lacks significant support from the American people, especially those who got him reelected.

The economy, jobs and the budget deficit dominate public concerns in the United States, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. More than eight-in-ten Americans think Washington should pay less attention to problems overseas and more attention to issues at home. And such isolationist sentiment has increased 10 percentage points in the last decade.

People outside the United States looking to Obama’s speech as some kind of signal of Washington’s foreign policy posture over the next four years should appreciate that Obama’s rhetoric may have reflected his aspirations but not necessarily the priorities or the will of the American people.

An inaugural address is generally reserved for statements of broad principles and themes. It is not the venue for detailed policy proposals, either foreign or domestic. These will come, if anywhere, in the president’s State of the Union speech February 12.

Nevertheless, it is notable that Iran, China and the Israeli-Palestinian troubles – all looming international challenges for the United States – were never mentioned by the president.

Afghanistan – America’s longest running war ever – was referenced obliquely: “a decade of war is now ending.” This scripted applause line reflected the fact that 60 percent of Americans want the United States out of that war-torn nation as soon as possible.

President Obama did promise: “We will respond to the threat of climate change.” This is music to many ears outside the United States. In 2009, foreigners had high hopes that the newly elected president would take steps on climate change: 81 percent of French, 76 percent of Germans and 59 percent of Japanese expected Obama to take action. But by 2012, only 27 percent of French, 23 percent of Germans and 22 percent of Japanese thought he had.

But before they get their hopes up again, people outside the United States need to realize that only 28 percent of Americans say dealing with global warming should be a top priority for president Obama and Congress this year. That includes just 38 percent of the president’s own party and just 32 percent of people under the age of 30 and 29 percent of women, both groups whose support helped win Obama his second term.

The president also raised expectations for those who one day hope to emigrate to the United States: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.”

But the recent political debate within the United States has largely been about what to do with those who are already in the country illegally. And even then, only 39 percent of Americans say dealing with the issue of illegal immigration is a top priority. Even among Hispanics, a key Obama constituency, just 31 percent make this issue a top priority.

On broader geo-strategic issues, President Obama promised that: “America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad.”

But only 41 percent of Americans say strengthening the military is a top priority. And that includes just under a third of the president’s own party members and only 29 percent of those under the age of 30, the future American electorate.

Moreover, Americans show relatively low support for NATO, America’s oldest and arguably most important alliance. Just 51 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, compared with 70 percent of Poles, about two-thirds of French and Germans, and 62 percent of Britons who hold it in high regard.

The U.S. president’s inaugural address is a speech heard and read around the world, and is interpreted as a sign of America’s intentions going forward. To separate lofty ambitions from more practical realities, it needs to be interpreted in the context of U.S. public opinion.

Much of the world cheered the November 6 re-election of U.S. president Barack Obama. But the president’s honeymoon may be short lived. Disappointment with Obama’s first term foreign policy may challenge both his popularity and his ability to present a positive image of the United States around the globe.

Prior to the election, overwhelming majorities in Western Europe, Japan and Brazil supported Obama’s reelection. But they were upset with signature elements of his foreign policy. In particular, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project earlier this year found widespread opposition to drone strikes, a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy, and many believe the president hasn’t sought international approval before using military force, as they expected he would when he first took office. In addition, publics around the globe say Obama failed to meet their expectations that he would tackle climate change and take an even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Four years ago, Obama came to office with the world behind him, reversing a decade-long trend of negative opinions of the U.S.  Between 2008 and 2009, the percentage of Germans, French, Spanish and Indonesians expressing positive views of the U.S. increased by at least 25 percentage points, and double-digit increases were also evident in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Britain, India and Nigeria.  Even in some Muslim countries, where Obama has never enjoyed broad popularity, the image of the U.S. saw modest improvements in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon when Obama was first elected.

But clouds loom on the horizon, as overall approval of Obama’s international policies and confidence in the American president have declined around the globe since 2009. Among Obama’s biggest problems is his administration’s drone campaign against extremist leaders and organizations.  Majorities in virtually every country surveyed in 2012 oppose this policy, which is a key component of American anti-terrorism efforts.  Opposition is especially prevalent in Muslim countries – at least eight-in-ten in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are against drone strikes – but about three-quarters in Spain, Japan, Mexico and Brazil are also against drones, as are 63% in France and 59% in Germany.

Obama is now confronted with a sense of disappointment over unmet expectations during his first term, especially when it comes to his handling of global climate change, and especially in Western Europe.  In 2009, large majorities in France, Germany, Britain and Spain believed Obama would take significant measures to control climate change. By Spring 2012, however, fewer than three-in-ten in these countries said Obama had, in fact, done this.  Significant gaps between expectations and evaluations of Obama’s performance on climate change were also evident in Poland, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, China, Japan, and Mexico.

In Western Europe, Obama also failed to meet expectations on his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although 61% in Germany, 57% in France, and nearly half in Britain still believed Obama had been fair in dealing with both sides in the Spring 2012, as many as 79% in each of these three countries said they expected Obama to be even-handed on this issue at the beginning of this first term.

In most of the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, where expectations that Obama would be fair in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were already low in 2009, even fewer said the American president had handled the conflict fairly. For example, after Obama took office, about a quarter of Egyptians believed he would be fair, compared with 11% who said Obama had been fair in 2012. Double-digit gaps between expectations and evaluations were also evident in Turkey and Pakistan.

More generally, many publics around the globe are disappointed with Obama’s approach to foreign affairs. Shortly after Obama took office, majorities in Britain, France and Germany, and at least four-in-ten in Spain, Poland, Russia, Japan and Mexico, expected Obama to act multilaterally when making international policy decisions. In the Spring 2012 survey, the percentage in these countries that said the president had, in fact, done this had dropped by 14 percentage points or more.

Similarly, in most countries, fewer said Obama had sought international approval before using military force than said they expected him to do so in 2009. Disillusionment with the president on this issue is especially common in Spain, Germany, Egypt and Japan, where the gap between expectations and evaluations is larger than 20 percentage points.

But despite some disappointment with Obama and a decline in the president’s popularity in some parts of the world, large majorities in Western Europe, Japan and Brazil continued to express confidence in the American president to do the right thing in world affairs in the Spring 2012 survey. And America’s image, which had declined dramatically during the Bush presidency, remained largely positive three years into Obama’s tenure.

A reelection is a time for renewal. And Obama has much support from the global community to build upon. Whether he continues to enjoy that good will, however, may hinge on how he approaches issues like drone strikes, climate change and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the extent to which he reaches out to the rest of the world in his second term.

By Bruce Stokes, Director of Pew Global Economic Attitudes, Pew Research Center

Special to YaleGlobal

The American people have spoken. Barack Obama remains the president of the United States – and by extension leader of the world – for the next four years. The people of Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America had no say in this choice, but they must live with the consequences.  The policies pursued by the reelected American president, be it dealing with the economy, Iran, terrorism or trade, promise to have a profound effect on the lives and livelihoods of billions of people in all parts of the globe.

The promises that presidential candidates make on the campaign trail do not necessarily dictate the policies pursued, But presidents tend to attempt to implement their promises. Moreover, American public opinion on a range of issues facing the next president is clear, with priority on the economy, preventing a nuclear Iran and catching up with China. Obama will defy such sentiment at his political peril.

The potential for either collaboration or friction between the new administration and foreign governments is ever-present. Europeans, Asians, Africans and Latin Americans attempting to gauge the implications of Obama’s victory understandably wonder if commitments made in the heat of a US presidential election really matter once a candidate becomes president. They do.

Read the full commentary at YaleGlobal

Special to EuropeanVoice

The re-election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States has ramifications—good, bad and indifferent—for transatlantic relations.

Whoever had emerged victorious November 6, the American pivot toward Asia was to continue because of China’s growing magnetic economic and geo-political appeal. But Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Russia, terrorism and trade are still likely to dominate the immediate transatlantic agenda. And differences in public perception on both sides of the Atlantic could pose new tests for the EU-U.S. alliance in the years ahead.

Iran is the most immediate challenge to transatlantic solidarity.

There is extremely strong American and European opposition to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, according to the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes survey in spring, 2012.

But among those who oppose Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal, Americans’ support for the use of military force to halt the Iranian efforts exceeds that in any other country. About six-in-ten (63%) Americans would support military action, compared with 51% in France and Britain and 50% in Germany. Only 24% of Russians would back such a move.

The absence of strong international backing for a strike on Iran could complicate the new president’s ability to build and hold together a united diplomatic front in any effort to deny Tehran nuclear weapons.

Washington’s likely continued offensive against terrorists poses similar, if less threatening, alliance frictions. Europeans are generally supportive of U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism. But they take a sharply negative view of the drone strikes that are likely to continue to be one of America’s principal methods of prosecuting that war. Drones have the overwhelming support of the American public (62%). But they are disapproved of by 76% of the Spanish, 63% of the French and 59% of the Germans.

Afghanistan, Syria and Russia are issues that may divide the alliance less than the campaign rhetoric in the United States presidential race might have suggested.

Obama has promised to get out of Afghanistan by 2014. Both American and European publics are clear, they want all troops out.

Obama has shown no stomach for military intervention in war-torn Syria. And neither the American nor the European publics support allied military involvement in Syria: 59% of Europeans and 55% of Americans say their governments should stay out completely, according to the 2012 German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Trends survey.

Obama’s promised reset of relations with Moscow was more of an ambition than a policy. Time will tell if it can be realized in his second term.

But European and American publics are clear. They don’t trust Russia: 55% of Europeans and 48% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Russia, according to the GMF survey. But they like the status quo. Half of Europeans (56%) and Americans (53%) approve of the way Obama has managed relations with Russia so far.

Trade promises to be a unifying transatlantic issue in the next administration. Later this year, the Obama administration is expected to announce plans to negotiate a free trade agreement with Europe. And Brussels is in agreement.

Overwhelming majorities on both sides of the Atlantic think trade is good for their countries, despite worries about its impact on jobs and incomes. France and American unions, both long skeptical of trade liberalization, have been largely silent about a transatlantic free trade deal, a positive sign. European and American farmers are likely to be wary. But prospects for completing such an agreement during the next U.S. administration are better than they have ever been.

Obama will continue the U.S. pivot toward Asia. Nevertheless, the European-American agenda will remain busy, with a number of issues that have to be properly managed to avoid alliance tensions. But with the re-election of Barack Obama, who is more popular across Europe than any other European leader and who most Europeans wanted to remain in the White House, there is no danger of a return of the transatlantic tensions that marked the Bush administration in the last decade.

Now that the election is over, the hard work begins. The U.S. economy is careening toward a so-called fiscal cliff that could dramatically shrink output in 2013. Confrontations loom with Iran over its nuclear weapons program and China over its trade practices.

Yet while the American people have chosen Barack Obama to navigate these shoals over the next four years, they remain deeply divided over what to do about these challenges. Obama has a mandate to govern, but his mandate on specific issues is far from clear. His biggest challenge may be to bridge the divides among the American people.

The economy was issue number one for voters on election day: 59 percent named the economy as their top concern, 15 percent said the government deficit, according to election day exit polls released by AP. The results echo a CNN exit poll that suggested 60 percent of voters see the economy as their top concern, with 38 percent saying that unemployment was their top economic worry.

Unless a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is agreed upon by January 1, 2013, dramatic cuts to U.S. defense and social welfare spending and significant tax hikes will kick in.

The non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing such measures would shrink the American economy by 0.5 percent in 2013. Such a course would ripple through a global economy already hobbled by recession in Europe and a slowdown in China, India and Japan.

Read the full commentary at CNN’s Global Public Square blog

Special to CNN

Tensions are mounting between China and its Asian neighbors, most recently over long-disputed territories in the South China and East China Seas. At the same time, the negative coverage that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received in state-run Chinese media during her trip to Beijing last month underscored ongoing differences between China and the U.S. on a host of issues. But tensions like these are not just apparent at the diplomatic level or in government propaganda. Now, as China prepares for its once-in-a-decade leadership transition, the Chinese public is increasingly hostile toward rival nations, according to polling by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. This can only complicate Beijing’s relations with its neighbors and global rivals in the years ahead.

In particular, Chinese sentiment about the U.S. has cooled over the last few years. In 2010, 68 percent of Chinese characterized their country’s relationship with the U.S. as one of cooperation, while just 8 percent said it was one of hostility. Now, only 39 percent describe ties in terms of cooperation and 26 percent say they are hostile.

The Chinese were fairly pleased with President Barack Obama’s election, but since he took office his ratings in China have fallen dramatically. Of course, the People’s Republic is not alone in this regard – Obama’s approval has declined at least somewhat since he took office in most countries regularly surveyed by Pew. However, the drop off in China has been especially steep. In 2009, 62 percent of Chinese said they had a lot or some confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, while just 23 percent had little or no confidence. Today, the Chinese public is almost evenly split – 38 percent express confidence; 41 percent lack confidence.

Read the full commentary at CNN