101. Preliminary Report Prepared in the Office of Research, United States Information Agency1
PERCEIVED OPINIONS ON NORTH-SOUTH ISSUES IN LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Highlights
This preliminary report is based on questionnaires answered by USIS public affairs officers in 57 less developed countries during August and September 1977. In most cases, PAOs worked with economic and political officers in completing the forms. Their perceptions of the opinions of those in their country professionally concerned with North-South issues or personally interested in international affairs include the following:
—In most of the reporting countries, the involved and interested publics on North-South issues are believed to prefer seeing U.S. resources devoted primarily to projects fostering economic growth and national development, rather than to programs aimed at meeting basic human needs.
—Most posts perceive relatively little support for a policy of channeling officials development assistance primarily to the poorest of the LDCs.
—There appears to be no strong preference for multilateral over bilateral aid.
—The prominence of concern over issues of trade more than questions of aid suggests a view among most LDCs that if they could obtain more favorable terms in trading with the industrialized countries, other problems in North-South relations would be less troublesome.
—Whatever support the interested or involved groups in these countries may give to Third World rhetoric in other contexts, they do not appear to accept the cliches about the ineffective, self-serving, or misdirected character of past U.S. economic assistance.
[Page 289]—In less than half the countries is credence given to the official American position that the U.S. is committed to helping build a new international economic system or to the proposition that the U.S. is actively supporting the economic aims of the LDCs.
—Encouragement of private investment appears to be important to many more of these countries than does the nationalization of existing foreign-owned companies.
—The great majority of posts think that those interested in international affairs in the host country would view a visit by a top level U.S. official as important and desirable as a symbolic evidence of U.S. interest.
Introduction
The 57 posts covered in this preliminary report include 16 from Africa, 16 from the Near East and South Asia, 18 from Latin America and 7 from East Asia. About half of these countries can be considered very poor (per capital GNP under $300), the other half as better off among the LDCs.2
In most of these countries USIA is unable to conduct standard opinion surveys. PAOs were, therefore, asked to report their perception of local public opinion, especially of the opinions of two groups: those professionally concerned with North-South problems (referred to herein as Group A), and the larger group of individuals personally interested in international affairs (referred to as Group B).
Although completion of the questionnaire at each post was the responsibility of the Public Affairs Officer, he was asked to solicit and usually received assistance from Mission officers directly concerned with economic or political problems. These officers indicated, to the best of their joint ability, their perceptions of opinion in the host country on North-South issues.
This is, therefore, a study of opinions about opinions—a study not of what people think but of what our USIS and other overseas Mission officers think people think.3 In other words, this report is based on informed estimates rather than on actual measurements. Different officers at some posts perceived local opinion on certain issues very differ [Page 290] ently and said so. Those who have worked with the completed questionnaires have also been very conscious of the impressionistic character of the responses. Nonetheless, our Mission officers are often in a unique position to assess prevailing opinion on economic and political issues of interest to the U.S. Government.
A fuller report covering the entire questionnaire with an area-by-area breakdown is under preparation.
The Most Important North-South Issues
The burning issue is trade. In reply to a question on what are the most important North-South issues in the host country, posts in the great majority of reporting countries perceive that both Groups A and B consider trade with developed countries most important. Mentioned most often are improvements such as better access to markets in the developed countries, a broadening and liberalizing of the GSP (Generalized System of Preferences), increasing the prices paid to LDCs for raw materials, creation of a “Common Fund” to stabilize LDC commodity prices, and a revision of GATT to provide better terms for LDCs.
No other single issue is believed to be given as much emphasis as trade in the countries surveyed. Other issues mentioned by a varying number of posts as important to those professionally concerned in the host country are, in descending order of the number of mentions:
1. Transfer of Resources. (Including Official Development Assistance, private and multilateral financing).
2. Transfer of technology. (Concessionary terms for transfer of technology are perceived as being highly important in a majority of countries).
3. Energy problems. (Financial assistance from the developed countries to LDC oil-importing countries are perceived as highly important in a majority of countries. OPEC financial assistance, and minimizing further oil price increases, are seen as highly important in a majority of non-OPEC countries).
4. The New International Economic Order. (Belief that the developed countries should support this).
5. Stimulation of foreign investment. (Nationalization of foreign-owned companies is perceived as having low importance in a great majority of countries, while encouragement of private investment in LDCs by the developed countries is perceived as highly important in a near majority of countries).
6. Effects of economic problems in the developed countries on the LDCs.
7. Debt relief for host country.
[Page 291]The following issues are viewed as being accorded low importance by most of the surveyed countries: Law of the Sea issues, food supplies and population issues.
Perceived U.S. Position on North-South Issues
Our posts abroad believe that in a majority of LDCs the United States is viewed as supporting the economic aims of the LDCs but as not working for them actively. In a plurality of countries, those professionally involved are believed to view the U.S. as committed to helping build a new international system in which there is increased equity, growth and justice for the LDCs. The interested nonspecialist public, however, is perceived in a majority of countries as disagreeing strongly with this view and as feeling that the U.S. is not committed to helping build a new international system.4
Choosing Sides
In most of the surveyed countries, large majorities of both involved and interested publics are believed to feel that their country’s interests are best served by siding in economic disputes with other less developed countries rather than with the developed countries. Further, in a majority of countries, posts perceive groups A and B as subscribing to the view that, to counter the divide and rule tactics of the industrialized nations, the “Group of 77” must negotiate as a solid front even when some of their economic interests differ.
Reaction to American Economic Actions or Policies
Various American trade policies—such as the generalized system of preferences (GSP), commodity agreements, and elimination of non-tariff barriers—are perceived as having most helped our image in less developed countries among both groups A and B. Conversely, perceived American inaction, intransigence or obstructionism on trade issues are perceived by posts to have done the greatest damage to the American image in the past two or three years.
When asked what changes or initiatives in American policies or actions in the economic field would, in their opinion, be most helpful to gain the support of those most interested in international affairs in host country, posts again talk primarily about: further trade concessions [Page 292] such as expansion of the GSP, or more commodity agreements favorable to the LDCs.
View of American Foreign Aid Funds
Contrary to the thrust of the Administration’s aid policy, which emphasizes meeting basic human needs, posts in large majority believe that the support of informed and involved groups in their country is more likely for a policy of devoting U.S. resources primarily to projects designed to foster economic growth and national development in the LDCs. Further, posts in a plurality of these countries perceive little support for giving official development assistance primarily to the poorest of the LDCs.
In a majority of countries that had been recipients of U.S. aid in the past, posts believe that at least those directly involved in international economic affairs perceive that this aid contributed materially to the development of the host country. Those more generally interested in international affairs are seen as more divided on the issue of American contribution to the country’s development.
Perceptions of the generally favorable image achieved by U.S. aid are supported by the belief that both groups A and B, in the majority of these countries, tend to disagree with the following three charges that have been made against the American aid program:
1. That U.S. economic assistance has so many strings attached that it has been ineffective;
2. That U.S. food aid has often been ineffective because it did not get into the hands of the needy; and
3. That U.S. food supplies given as foreign aid in the 60s and early 70s stifled expansion of local food production.
Multilateral Versus Bilateral Financing
International financial institutions like the World Bank, IDA, IFC, IMF, and the regional development banks are—in the opinion of posts—regarded favorably in the majority of the reporting LDC countries. They are generally not perceived as a means of control employed by the developed countries. Nonetheless, in a plurality of countries, posts perceive little support for the policy of channeling official development assistance primarily through multilateral rather than through bilateral institutions.
Our posts in a plurality of the 57 LDC countries responding perceive broad support for increasing the amount of official development assistance, for lowering interest rates, for providing a greater proportion of ODA in grants rather than loans, and for imposing fewer restrictions on how ODA funds are to be spent.
[Page 293]Perceived Opinions on Debt Relief
On a global basis, debt relief is not perceived as a particularly important issue. In a majority of these 57 countries, a moratorium or cancellation of debts owed to developed countries is believed to be given low importance. Rescheduling of debts to extend the payback period is, however, perceived to have high importance in about one-third of the countries studied.
Attitude Toward Multinational Corporations
Multinational corporations have, in the opinion of posts, a mixed image among groups A and B in the 57 countries. Only in a minority of countries is Group A—those professionally concerned with North-South issues—believed to accept the charge that multinationals exploit the natural resources of LDCs without providing commensurate benefits. In more than half the countries, however, group B—the attentive public—is believed to hold that view. The free-enterprise argument that multinationals are one of the best agents for helping LDCs achieve stable economic growth is thought by posts to be rejected by a majority of both groups A and B in these countries.
Further, in a majority of countries, those professionally concerned with international economic problems are believed to perceive “big foreign corporations” as “one of the dominant causes of the economic problems” in their country. The larger attentive public, on the other hand, is more often seen as blaming the present international economic order, their own government, or special vested interests for their country’s economic problems.
Perceived Reactions to American Political Actions or Policies
No single American political initiative undertaken during the past two or three years appears to stand out across regions as having particularly helped or harmed the U.S. image in less developed countries. Actions and policies believed by posts to have contributed most to a favorable image of the U.S. include, in descending order of frequency of mentions, the following:
[Page 294]1. U.S. foreign policy in general—such as paying more attention to a country or an area. (Mentioned in all areas)
2. U.S. initiatives in Southern Africa. (Popular mainly among African nations)
3. U.S. Middle East involvement. (Especially important to countries in North Africa and the Middle East)
4. U.S. human rights policies. (Mainly in Latin America)
5. The Panama Canal Treaty. (Mainly in Latin America)
Actions or policies perceived as having done the greatest harm to the U.S. image are:
1. U.S. foreign policy in general—such as neglect of a country or an area. (Mentioned in all areas)
2. U.S. policy in Angola. (Mainly in African nations)
3. U.S. arms policies (sales, refusal to sell, nuclear policy; Mentioned in all areas)
4. U.S. support for Israel. (Criticism centered in North Africa and Middle East)
Perceived Importance of Various Political Developments
A visit to the host country by a top-level USG official, or some other symbolic evidence of U.S. interest, is believed by posts in a majority of the surveyed countries to be considered both very important and highly desirable by persons professionally involved or otherwise interested in international affairs. Other American initiatives which, in the opinion of the posts, would be most helpful to gain the support of host country target groups are (in descending order of frequency of mention) the following:
1. Settling the Middle East problem. (A high priority in Africa, the Middle East and East Asia)
2. Supporting majority rule in southern Africa. (Important mainly in African nations)
3. Continuing giving attention to host country or its region. (Mentioned mostly in Latin America)
4. Halting nuclear proliferation and the arms race, including demilitarizing of Indian Ocean. (Mainly in South Asia)
5. Halting international terrorism. (Mentioned in all areas)
Political developments which are widely perceived as being, in the eyes of interested host country publics, both unimportant and undesirable, include:
1. Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea.
2. Reconciliation between the USSR and China.
3. Normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba.
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South Thornton Files, Subject Files, Box 101, North/South: Public Opinion in Less Developed Countries, 11/77. No classification marking. Bray sent a copy of the report to Thornton under a November 14 memorandum, noting that the report constituted the “first results” of USIA’s efforts in “canvass[ing] our public affairs officers to get a reading on opinion in the less developed countries concerning North-South issues.” (Ibid.) Another copy of the preliminary report, designated as USIA Research Memorandum M–7–77, and an unsigned and undated copy of Bray’s memorandum are in the National Archives, RG 306, Office of Research and Media Reaction, Research Memoranda, 1963–1999, Entry P–64, Box 35, M–7–77.↩
- Questionnaires were sent in August 1977 to the 83 principal USIS posts in countries which are members of the enlarged Group of 77. [Footnote is in the original. In Circular Message 816 to all principal USIS IAA, IEA, ILA, INA posts, Belgrade, Bucharest, Nicosia, and Valletta, August 12, the United States Information Agency transmitted the PAO questionnaire on host country opinion on North/South issues. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South Thornton Files, Subject Files, Box 101, North/South: Public Opinion, US and Abroad, 4/77–1/80)]↩
- An unknown hand, presumably Thornton’s, underlined this sentence and added an asterisk in the left-hand margin next to it.↩
- Posts generally judged Group B less well informed on most issues, more hostile than Group A to the positions of the developed countries and the U.S., and more accepting of the extreme opinions and slogans expressed by some Third World spokesmen. Besides some government officials, military officers and businessmen, Group B usually includes also students, teachers, journalists, intellectuals, and others who in many countries are traditionally among the more leftist elements of the population. [Footnote is in the original.]↩