Richard Sinnott explores new poll evidence on the complexity of Irish attitudes to both the US and an EU foreign policy dimension
The war in Iraq started on March 19th, 2003. As it happens, at the very same time fieldwork for the spring 2003 Eurobarometer survey (EB59) got underway in the European Union. The survey, fieldwork for which was completed by 30th April, asked questions about the role of the US "in relation to peace in the world" and "in relation to the fight against terrorism".
It also included questions on the development of a European common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Accordingly, EB59 enables us to examine the immediate responses of the citizens of the member states to these crucial issues as major events were unfolding.
In March-April 2003, only two European countries showed a positive net evaluation of the role of the US in relation to peace in the world - the UK at +14 percentage points and Denmark at +7 points (see graphic); net evaluation is obtained by subtracting the proportion of negative responses from the proportion of positive responses.
Irish public opinion was the next most favourable to the US, with a net evaluation of -5 percentage points. After that, net evaluation of the role of the US in relation to peace in the world was clearly negative, ranging from -14 points in the Netherlands to -87 in Greece. The European Union average was -35.
However, only four countries made a net negative evaluation of the US in regard to the fight against terrorism. In the remainder of the member states the net positive evaluation ranged from +51 in the case of the UK to +5 in the case of Portugal; the Irish figure was +23 points.
Between autumn 2002 and spring 2003, substantial changes in attitudes to these issues occurred in a majority of the member states, mostly in a negative direction. In relation to the US and peace, Irish public opinion moved from +4 to -5. On the role of the US in the fight against terrorism, Irish public opinion showed a drop of 14 points.
The increase in negative evaluation of the role of the US was accompanied, particularly in some countries, by some increase in support for the view that defence decisions should be made by the European Union (France up 8 points, Belgium up 7 and Finland up 11). Support for European Union decision-making on defence declined significantly in just one state, Austria. Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Luxembourg showed no change.
Responses to a more detailed set of questions on these issues shows support across the EU for a wide range of aspects of the development of a European foreign and defence policy to be in the region of 70 per cent. On most aspects, Irish public opinion was indistinguishable from the European average and, in those cases in which it was a bit lower, there was still an Irish majority in favour.
Thus, although Ireland lagged 8 or 9 points behind the EU average on the proposition that "the EU should agree a common position in international crises" and on the proposal that "the EU should have a rapid military reaction force in international crises", it still supported both of these propositions with majorities of 74 per cent and 61 per cent respectively.
Detailed statistical analysis of the questions dealing with CFSP issues suggests that there are three dimensions underlying attitudes to the CFSP. The first dimension is that of attitude to a comprehensive common foreign and security policy which would include a rapid military reaction force, an EU foreign minister, an EU common position in international crises, common asylum and immigration policies and a seat for the EU on the UN Security Council.
The second dimension involves attitudes to an independent and ethical foreign policy i.e. an emphasis on human-rights issues in the context of an EU foreign policy independent of US foreign policy. The third dimension captures people's attitudes to participation by the neutral states and the current accession countries in the EU foreign policy process.
Public opinion across the member states is divided into three groups on the first dimension (support for a comprehensive common foreign and security policy). The most enthusiastic group includes Greece, Italy, France and the Benelux countries. The middle group is made up of Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Britain and Ireland, the latter smack in the middle of this group. Those member-states opposed to a comprehensive European foreign and security policy are Finland, Denmark and Sweden.
The distribution of member states on the independent and ethical foreign policy dimension takes the form of a continuum rather than of discrete groups of countries with clearly different views. However, the ends of the continuum are clearly identifiable - support for an independent and ethical foreign policy is most widespread in the Scandinavian countries, in Greece and in former East Germany whereas strongest opposition to this view is found in Britain and, to a lesser extent, in Portugal. Ireland is, once again, in the middle of the dimension, but leaning slightly towards the opposition pole.
On the dimension measuring attitudes to participation in the formulation of foreign policy, however, Irish public opinion takes a very distinctive view in support of the right of the neutrals and accession countries to participate. It is followed fairly closely in this view by Austria and Portugal (but, notably, not by Sweden or Finland). Denmark and the Netherlands tend to be more opposed to such participation.
In short, as Ireland prepares for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and a potential role in brokering a better relationship between Europe and the US, Irish public opinion provides some latitude and some encouragement to policy-makers. This is because Irish public opinion is more sympathetic to the role of the United States than most, takes a middle-of-the-road position on the development of a comprehensive CFSP, and is not particularly gung-ho about having an independent and ethical foreign policy.
At the same time, Irish opinion is quite insistent that the voice of the neutral countries and that of the accession countries should be heard. In this and in other areas, Irish policy makers will want the Presidency to go well for domestic as well as for international reasons. This is because they will want to stem the modest but persistent downward trend in Irish public support for European integration that was also a feature of EB59.
• Professor Richard Sinnott is Director of the Public Opinion and Political Behaviour research programme at the Institute for the Study of Social Change, UCD. His recent Irish National Report on Eurobarometer 59 is available from the European Commission Representation in Dublin.