Is this news to you?:
This is about how the peoples in over 50 countries feel about other countries and their leaders, and especially about America, China, Russia, and the EU. This is the closest thing to comprehensive global polling about such matters; and, since the same questions are being surveyed in each of the 50+ countries, one can reasonably compare the attitudes in one country to the attitudes on the same questions in other countries. So, it’s unique. And many people will be learning about it for the first time right here, in this article, because these findings have been effectively suppressed.
Gallup International publishes every year an “Annual End of Year Survey” of public opinion around the world, that covers their pollings of over 50,000 people during the prior year or more, in over 50 countries. The questions generally change from year-to-year. Some years, the questions and their findings are stunningly informative and newsworthy, and are even more stunningly unreported in the world’s press; so, I shall be reporting here from those years of what I consider to be the highest newsworthiness and lowest news-coverage findings from these polls, because I think that there are very few people for whom these findings won’t be news (as they ought to have been news, years ago):
Gallup International 42nd Annual Global End of Year Survey [issued in December 2018, was the latest that has been published, and this one had more copy-editing blunders than ever] found:
“Tensions across the world are growing and leadership is in crisis almost everywhere. … Many point out that the gap between elites [billionaires and their hired agents] and masses [everybody else], is reacting [reaching] intolerable levels and the post WW2 global order is following [falling] apart.” In other words: they found that, worldwide, the aims by “elites” (referring to the people who are in power, NOT to people who are better than everyone else — and perhaps that writer was simply afraid to offend the “leadership” who own the large international corporations that hire WIN/Gallup to do their polling) are “reacting” (as that writer put it) to the “masses” whose opposition to them is “reaching intolerable levels” to such an extent that “the post WW2 global order is falling apart.” Anyway: that was a remarkably bold and honest statement.
Gallup International’s 41st Annual Global End of Year Survey [issued in January 2018]:
PUTIN PREFERRED TO TRUMP AS A CHOICE FOR COUNTRY LEADER,
NEW CONSTELLATIONS OF NATIONS ARE EMERGING
This year the world’s leading Global Public Opinion Barometer (launched in 1977), covering about 2/3 of the global population in a representative way, and carried out in partnership with WIN [Worldwide Independent Network of Gallup International], shows: Choosing between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, over one quarter (29%) of respondents globally prefer the Russian leader to the head of state of their own country. Donald Trump is preferred as country leader by [only] 17%. There are nine countries among the 55 surveyed that give preference to Donald Trump as possible leader. Among them the frontrunners are Kosovo, Albania, the Philippines, and the United States itself. Vladimir Putin was the preferred leader in 25 countries: Germany, France and Ireland are on that list, as well [as] others who traditionally are loyal to him. 45% of all surveyed respondents globally find it impossible to choose. [I.e.: They chose the answer that was marked as “Neither one.” This response reflected clearly a rejection of both leaders. But, otherwise, the summary given here was accurate.] Vladimir Putin is generally preferred in most regions globally, except the USA. Perhaps surprisingly, when choosing between Putin and Trump, Europeans give preference to the Russian leader. In Africa, India and East Asia, the two opponents score almost equal support. The survey results suggest that the current American President is no longer perceived as the absolute, world leader. Turning to global political leadership, should the USA retain its role as arguably the most powerful state in the world? Or would survey respondents prefer the USA and Russia to exercise global leadership together? One in four respondents in the world (25%) vote for joint leadership, while USA maintaining sole leadership is preferred by 19%. [The survey’s blunder here was that the option “Russia to lead” wasn’t being offered to respondents. If it had been, then the option “Neither” would have received less – perhaps lots less – than the 43% who selected it. Consequently: though the survey could have shown whether a Russia-led world would have been more preferred than the current U.S.-led world is, Gallup International excluded that possibility from even being listed.] Majorities in almost all of the world macro-regions prefer joint leadership of the USA and Russia, except the USA itself, where 40% of respondents believe their country should continue as global leader alone. Opinion on global leadership is most divided in West Asia - the Republic of Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Overall, our survey suggests that right now the dominant position of the USA, as global leader, no longer looks unquestionable.
[TWO GALLUP INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARIES ON THEIR FINDINGS:]
Kancho Stoychev, President Gallup International Association (GIA):
«Just one year after Donald Trump entered the White House the world of international relations is no longer the same. While increasing US economic and military strength, President Trump is failing to attract sympathy around the world and US global political leadership is no longer accepted among a predominant part of the world’s inhabitants. From a bi-polar world during the Cold War, through a US-dominated world after 1989, now the World seems to be transforming into a more colorful place. Different constellations of nations (or “constenations”) are emerging in front of our eyes as an expression of a new regionalization of the World – not on geographical principles but on a shared view of the future.»
Andrey Milekhin, Vice President Gallup International Association (GIA):
«The choice between these two Presidents is not an easy one and in the end the candidate “against both” won. [That statement is publicly acknowledging the falsity of the prior summary’s assertion that “45% of all surveyed respondents globally find it impossible to choose.” Those respondents refused to specify either of them as being a tolerable leader. This wasn’t indecision: it was rejection of both men.] The complexity of the choice was defined by the fact that [whereas] behind Trump stands the USA economic and military power, Putin on the other hand has 25 years of political experience being one of the most long-lived and sustainable among the world political leaders. The respondents also made a choice between the values represented by the two: stability and patriarchal spirit represented by Putin on the one side and Trump’s modern business-approach and supremacy of national interests in defining the world politics, on the other side. To the majority of [the] world’s population, the conservatism and reliability of Putin seems to be more appealing. No doubt these attitudes are also affected by the spread of a mass-media vendetta against Trump’s personality and actions in their entirety. We could say that 25 years of USA dominance didn’t result in global peace and harmony. On the contrary, it gave rise to some new problems and conflicts. Multipolarity of the World is already clear and obvious. In several regions there are strong leaders that distinctly claim to form the world’s overall agenda. And this is not only Russia, but China, India, Brazil and Turkey as well. With new leaders, new political ideas and coalitions, we see attempts to restore France’s and Germany’s world influence. It is interesting to see that in Russia a potential joint global leadership, exercised along with the USA, is supported by less than half of the population (40%). [Significantly, their survey likewise excluded among the options that were being provided to the respondents to select from, “China.” If the questions had included that option, the findings might have been significantly different, but perhaps not. Without the data, no one can know.]»
——
On 25 March 2023, WIN/Gallup headlined “The World is divided these days – but how seriously?”, and reported:
An opinion poll conducted by GIA in 64 countries covering over two thirds of the global population (and more than 90% of those countries which are [entirely] free to conduct and publish opinion research [ — which is why China wasn’t among the countries that they sampled in]) shows the following picture regarding perceptions on strategic partnerships between countries:
The collective West (EU and USA) remains more attractive as an economic partner (58%) and as a security partner (59%), compared to China and Russia which together score respectively 29% and 26%. What is important to note here is that this basic two-to-one proportion is valid without the voice of China where research content is restricted, and also without significant Arab and African countries for the same reason. Taking into consideration these specifics most probably the actual division of the World is half-by-half. [I.e.: WIN/Gallup’s sampling was quite predominantly in the U.S.-and-allied countries.]
The European Union is the most attractive partner in the field of economy (31%) while the US keeps the position of most preferred ally in security (33%). But as already mentioned, these figures are valid only for the researchable part of the world and don’t include Chinese public opinion.
While Russia comes last among the four surveyed powers as a partner in the economic field, it scores a better result on the issues of security partnership and is positioned in front of China [on that].
Economy and security go hand in hand for the vast majority of countries, and people prefer as a partner for both all the same of the two “blocks” of two superpowers (EU & USA or Russia & China), but the few exceptions are of an essential significance.
While China appears to be the preferred economic partner for the vast majority in seven of the studied countries – Yemen, Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Palestinian Territories, Iraq and Ethiopia, Russia is preferred by none.
When it comes to the preferred security partner, Russia is perceived as such in a dozen countries, while China gets a majority preference in only two countries – Russia and Pakistan.
In a dozen countries, public opinion is divided in their preference for an economic partner, between the four powers [EU, U.S., Russia, and China] – Afghanistan, Cameroon, Greece, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Libya, Macedonia, Peru, Syria.
In the field of security, the public is seriously divided in Afghanistan, Argentina, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Greece, Libya, Macedonia, Peru, Vietnam, Yemen, and the UAE.
Public opinion in the U.K. is deeply divided in its rating of the US and EU as preferred partners for both fields – economy and in security. The pro-European attitudes prevails in both matters – 45 % to 33%. [By contrast: because Cecil Rhodes’s ideology ever since 1877 — that the UK must retake America (which Truman culminated on 25 July 1945) and then together with the U.S. conquer the entire planet — controls the UK’s Government, so that the UK’s Government is 100% committed to its partnership with the U.S. to control, not partner, with Europe. That’s why Brexit happened.]
I summarize here the main 25 March 2023 WIN/Gallup findings:
If “The Collective West” is defined as being economically the most hostile to Russia (scoring below the global average of 10% who answer predominantly “Yes” to “Prefer own country to partner economically with Russia”), here you will see them, and you will also see (scoring above that average) the populations that ally economically with Russia.
If “The Collective West” is defined as being economically the most hostile to China (scoring below the global average of 19% who answer predominantly “Yes” to “Prefer own country to partner economically with China”) here you will see them, and (scoring above that 19% average) you will also see the populations that ally economically with China.
(Interestingly, Sweden scored as being economically the most hostile of all surveyed nations both toward Russia and toward China, 0% on each; so, it’s amazing that Sweden’s Government took so long to break its neutrality and join NATO. Finland and the Baltic populations weren’t surveyed.)
If “The Collective West” is defined as being above the global average of 27% answering “Yes” to “Prefer own country to prefer to partner economically with USA,” here you will see them, and (scoring below that global average) the populations that are hostile toward USA. (The three nations that scored the lowest of all on that were Moldova, Serbia, and Russia, tied at 5%. But Sweden was the 8th-lowest on that, at 11%; so, isn’t economically friendly towards any of the leading countries.)
If “The Collective East” is defined as being militarily the most hostile to USA (scoring below the global average of 33% who answer “Yes” to “Prefer own country to partner with security with USA”), here you will see them, and (scoring above that average) the populations that ally militarily with USA.
If “The Collective East” is instead defined as being militarily the most favorable to Russia (scoring above the global average of 16% who answer “Yes” to “Prefer own country to partner with security with Russia”) here you will see them, and (scoring below that 16% average) the populations that would ally militarily against Russia. (Sweden is the lowest, 0%, on this, too.)
If “The Collective East” is defined as being militarily the most favorable to China (scoring above the 11% who answer “Yes” to “Prefer own country to partner with security with China”), here you will see them, and (scoring below that 11% average) the populations that would ally militarily against China. (Sweden is the lowest, 0%, on this, too. However, its nearest-to 0% scorers on that included some of the most favorable-to-Russia ones, such as Moldova, Georgia, Vietnam, Czechia, Hungary, and Slovenia.)
Gallup International’s 40th Annual Global End of Year Survey surveyed 68,759 people from 69 countries across the globe in 2016, and found that:
Fiji and China are the happiest countries (+89% and +79% net happiness respectively), followed by Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Panama and Papua New Guinea, while Iraq is the least happy for the third year in a row (less than +1% net happiness).
42% of the world is optimistic about the economic outlook for 2017; 22% are pessimistic and 31% believe the economy will remain the same. Net economic optimism is at +20%.
The most optimistic countries about economic prosperity in 2017 are Ghana and Bangladesh (+67% net optimistic each). In contrast, South Korea, Hong Kong and Greece are the most pessimistic (-62%, -56% and -53% respectively).
On 29 September 2015, I headlined about an even bigger international poll, this one by the other — the U.S.-headquartered — large polling organization that George Gallup formed, Gallup Inc. (he formed that American one in 1936, and then founded the International WIN/Gallup in 1947, originally called the Gallup International Association, in Zurich and then in Vienna. That poll by the U.S. Gallup covered 1,000 adults in each of 148 countries during 2014, and my headline about it was “GALLUP: “Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest Populations in the World.” The U.S. Government never apologized for destroying Iraq on the basis entirely of lies, and has always refused to end its occupation of that country, even though Iraq’s Government has on numerous occasions “requested” it to.
WIN/Gallup International’s Annual Global End of Year survey in 2013 was hidden from the press, with only non-shocking findings even mentioned in their press releases, such as here and here, and all without including any means of easy access to the actual report, which was instead supplied only to the academic libraries that were on paid subscription to WIN/Gallup’s reports, so: only interested academics might get to see it. However, the reporter Sarah Lazare managed to get hold of it on 31 December 2013 the day after the BBC — alone of all news-media — included (though buried down in an innocuously headlined story “Happy new year? The world's getting slowly more cheerful” there) this stunning news, and she headlined about the matter at the then not yet CIA-controlled but at that time progressive, Common Dreams news-site, “Biggest Threat to World Peace: The United States”, and she reported (though it was given such little exposure on the site, so that nobody even tried to copy this news story into the biggest Internet archive, the Wayback Machine, until 6 months later, on 1 July 2014) that:
Over 12 years into the so-called "Global War on Terror," the United States appears to be striking terror into the hearts of the rest of the world.
In their annual End of Year survey, Win/Gallup International found that the United States is considered the number one "greatest threat to peace in the world today" by people across the globe.
The poll of 67,806 respondents from 65 countries found that the U.S. won this dubious distinction by a landslide, as revealed in the chart below [which was shown in a photo but I instead extract the data here:].
U.S. 24%
Pakistan 8%
China 6%
Afghanistan 5%
Iran 5%
Israel
5%
North Korea 5%
India 4%
Iraq 4%
Japan 4%
Syria 3%
Russia 2%
Australia 1%
Germany 1%
Palestine 1%
Saudi Arabia 1%
Somalia 1%
South Korea 1%
UK 1%
That was an open-ended question, and all other countries were mentioned by fewer than .5% of respondents.
The U.S. Government officially says that the military alliance it created against ‘communism’ (but really against Russia) in 1949, NATO, is “the political and military Alliance of democratic nations created after World War Two to prevent war and keep peace.” However, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, there were 297 U.S. military invasions after WW II (i.e., during 1945-2022, a 77-year period). That 297 U.S. invasions in the past 77 years was more than all of the instances put together during 1798-1945 — which was twice as long a period, 147-years. And none of those 297 invasions after 1944 was defensive. 244 of the 297 occurred after the Soviet Union ended in 1991 and prior to Russia’s invading Ukraine in 2022. During that entire time (and even going all the way back to the end of WW II in 1945) there was no U.S. declaration of war and therefore no Constitutional legality for the U.S. invasion — not for any of America’s post-WW-II invasions). All of the 297 were unConstitutional (without an official congressional declaration of war). Most of them were purely aggressions (some in order to help a foreign fascist tyrant suppress his own population). After the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the U.S. regime just went wild — and it still is wild. So: to call NATO an anti-war, pro-peace, organization that has “kept the peace” is like alleging that any terrorist organization ‘keeps the peace’ by the terror he imposes — it’s a bad joke, that is aimed only at suckers, who won’t laugh at it. As that suppressed 2013 WIN/Gallup international poll demonstrated, this fact (that America is by far the "greatest threat to peace in the world today”) is overwhelmingly recognized outside of the propaganda-drenched “The Collective West” (and even within it). And yet, the myth does have power, even up till the present time. Fooling the public is easy, if you’ve got the money to do it.
And if any of this is news to you, please pass it along to others, so that they too might come to know it.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.