Citation
The West European public and the Atlantic Alliance

Material Information

Title:
The West European public and the Atlantic Alliance
Creator:
Ziegler, Andrew H., 1952-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvi, 361 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Public opinion -- Europe ( lcsh )
Political Science thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Political Science -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1987.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 334-359.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Andrew H. Ziegler.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Andrew H. Ziegler. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
000957018 ( ALEPH )
17238233 ( OCLC )
AER9701 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE WEST EUROPEAN PUBLIC AND THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE

By
ANDREW H. ZIEGLER, JR.
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1987




Copyright 1987
by
Andrew H. Ziegler, Jr.




For Uncle Freddy




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over the years, many people and organizations have been very influential in my life and work. It is not possible to acknowledge or even to remember them all, but I want to recognize the special few who have had the greatest impact on this project.
Institutional support was provided by several sources. The data utilized were made available in part by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and by the National Archives of the United States in Washington, D.C. Neither the original collectors of the data nor the suppliers bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretations presented here.
Funding was provided in part by a grant from the Army Research Institute that was made available by the Science Research Laboratory of the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York. The Computer Systems Division, USMA, funded the ICPSR membership and the purchase of several data sets from the National Archives. Additional financial support was provided by a grant from the Military Educational Foundation, a nonprofit association of faculty members in the Department of Social Sciences, USMA. The




views expressed herein are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the position of any agency of the United States government.
I am particularly grateful for the research opportunities afforded me by the Military Academy. During the summer of 1986 and the spring semester of 1987, 1 was freed from any teaching or departmental responsibilities and was allowed to work unhindered on this book. Special thanks go to Colonel Lee D. Olvey, Professor and Head of the Department of Social Sciences, for making these opportunities possible.
I wish to acknowledge with special appreciation and affection the contributions made by my wife, my children, and my parents. I owe Kalli untold gratitude for the understanding, love, and support she has provided throughout this very long and difficult task. It is not trite to say this book would not have been possible without her. Special thanks go to my daughters, Rebekah and Rachel, for being so patient with me. To my parents, Andy and Audrey Ziegler, I owe a great deal; they have been and will continue to be my personal and professional role models, whose values and examples I strive to follow every day.
Conscientious mentors are invaluable in any learning
endeavor. I have had the privilege of being guided by two, David P. Conradt and Augustus R. Norton, whose scholarly advice and practical exhortations have been indispensable to me during my academic apprenticeship.




Space does not allow me to detail the very significant contributions of the following people. They have each influenced this book in a major way, and I extend my thanks to them all: Alan Agresti, George Edwards, Warren Heyman, Keith Legg, Hazel Pridgen, John Spanier, Barbara Thomas, Ken Wald, Katherine Williams, and Jim and Shirley Ziegler.




TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... LIST OF TABLES . . .... LIST OF FIGURES .. .. .. .
CHAPTERITOUTO:ATTDSPOIIAN

ALLIANCE .. .. ... .. ... .
The Political Setting . *.. .. .. .
Foreign Policy Directions ...
Mass Politicization .......
The Analytical Setting ........
The Theoretical Setting .. .. .. ..
The Research Agenda......... .. .. .
II RESEARCH DESIGN: A MODEL FOR ANALYSIS
Components of the Model..... .. .. ..
Attitude Structure, Content, and D.
bution . . . . ....
Determinants . . . .*
Changes and Linkages.... .. ....
Summrary . .. .. .. ...
Cases and Data ............

Notes.

THE istri-

III THE STRUCTURE, CONTENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ATLANTIC
COOPERATION......... ..*. .. .. .. ..
Goals and Expectations ..........

vii

Page
iv x
xiv xv




CHAPTER
Findings and Analyses .
Structure and Content . . . . .
Distribution of opinion . . . . .
Cross-National Variation . . . . .
Conclusion .
Notes .
IV SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL DETERMINANTS
OF WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES . . . . .

Page

Goals and Expectations . .
Generational Influences
Value Orientations . .
Class Cleavages . . .
Educational Influences .
Partisanship and Ideology
Political Participation
National Identity . .
Summary .
Methods of Analysis . . . Findings and Analyses . . .
Data .

87
94 97 100
102 109
112 114
116 123
123
129 138
148
153 158
160
162
162
164 165
167 178
178 193 213

Effects of Social and Political
Attributes .
Cross-National Comparisons . .
Multivariate Analysis of Effects
Conclusion .
Notes .

V WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ATLANTIC
ALLIANCE: CHANGE OR CONTINUITY? . .
Assumptions Intrinsic to the Alliance . .
The Threat From the Soviet Union . .
Collective Security . . . . .
The Role of the United States . .
Goals and Methods .
Findings and Analyses . . . . . .
The Threat to Western Europe . . .
Attitudes Toward Security . . .
Images of the United States . . .

viii




CHAPTER Page
Conclusion...................224
Notes . . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 226
VI INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND WEST EUROPEAN
ATTITUDES..................... 227
International Politics . . * * 228
Alternative Explanations for Attitudinal
Change ........... .. .. .. ... .. ..245
Partisanship . .. . . . . . 246
Postmaterialism . . .. .. ... . 247
The Successor Generation. ........ 251
Conclusion 259
Notes .......... . . . . . . 262
VII CONCLUSION: ATTITUDES, POLICIES, AND ALLIANCE COHESION . . . . . . . 264
Summary of Major Findings . . . . . 266
Attitudes and Policies: Patterns of
Linkage . . . .. .. .. .... . 269
Britain . .. .. .. .. ... .. 270
France . .. .. .. ... . .. .. ....274
West Germany .. ............ 279
Italy ... . .. .. .. .. .....283
European Integration........... 286
Elite-Mass Linkage................290
Summnary .......... . .. .. .. ....299
American Attitudes: A Comparison ........302 Toward Alliance Cohesion . . .. .. ....309
Notes............... . . . 315
APPENDICES
A QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS USED IN CHAPTER III ... 317
B TESTS FOR INTERACTION FROM CHAPTER IV .... 323
REFERENCES. ........... ... ......* 334
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . .o.. 359




LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
3-1 SURVEY ITEMS MEASURING EUROPEAN ATTITUDES
TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION . . . . . 54 3-2 THE DIMENSIONALITY OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES . 57 3-3 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ALONG
TWO DIMENSIONS 64
3-4 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ALONG
TWO DIMENSIONS BY NATION . . . . . 68
3-5 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES BY TYPE
OF NATION 70
4-1 HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
DETERMINANTS AND ATTITUDES . . . . . 117 4-2 EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC
ATTITUDES 130
4-3 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC
ATTITUDES 134
4-4 EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC
ATTITUDES, BY NATION 139
4-5 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC
ATTITUDES, BY NATION 144
4-6 EFFECTS OF PARTISANSHIP ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 146 4-7 EFFECTS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY ON ATLANTIC
ATTITUDES 150
4-8 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL,
AND NATIONAL EFFECTS ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 151 4-9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
EFFECTS ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION . 154




TABLE Page
5-1 INDICATIONS OF THE SALIENCE OF FOREIGN POLICY
ISSUES IN WEST GERMANY AND ITALY . . . 172 5-2 SALIENCE OF DEFENSE IN GREAT BRITAIN . . 175 5-3 ISSUE SALIENCE IN WESTERN EUROPE, 1984 . . 176 5-4 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION 179 5-5 ITALIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION . 182 5-6 EUROPEAN PERCEPTION OF THE MILITARY BALANCE 183 5-7 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POSSIBILITY
OF WAR 184
5-8 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POSSIBILITY
OF CONFLICT 185
5-9 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CAUSES OF
INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS, 1984 . . . . 187 5-10 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE AND
NUCLEAR WEAPONS 189
5-11 BRITISH ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR WAR AND
NUCLEAR WEAPONS 190
5-12 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO . . . . 194 5-13 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND NEUTRALISM 195 5-14 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ALLIANCE
AND NEUTRALISM 196
5-15 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND U.S.
TROOPS 197
5-16 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD SECURITY POLICY . 199 5-17 PERCENT CATEGORIZED AS PLACING A HIGH PRIORITY
ON NATIONAL DEFENSE (DEFPRI) . . . . 201 5-18 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE EFFORTS . 202 5-19 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 204 5-20 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AND THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS,
JULY 1981 206




TABLE
5-21 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD WAR . .... 5-22 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ON HOW TO BEST IMPROVE
SECURITY, 1981 . . . . . ....
5-23 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD SECURITY IN THE
FUTURE, 1984 . .... .. .. .. .. .
5-24 EUROPEAN VIEW OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE
UNITED STATES . . .. .. .. .. ..
5-25 GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD AMERICANS .... 5-26 ITALIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE UNITED STATES 5-27 EUROPEAN RESPECT FOR THE UNITED STATES 5-28 EUROPEAN CONFIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 5-29 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EAST-WEST
RELATIONSHIP .. .. ..... . ....
6-1 EVENTS IN THE EAST-WEST RELATIONSHIP ...
6-2 EVENTS IN THE EURO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP 6-3 ANTI-AMERICANISM AND POSTMATERIALISM IN
EUROPE, 1982 . .
6-4 CHANGES IN PREVALENCE OF MATERIALIST AND
POSTMATERIALIST VALUE TYPES, 1970-1984

6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 7-1 7-2 7-3

THE EFFECTS OF AGE ON WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND THE U.S . .. .. .. .
THE EFFECTS OF AGE AND EDUCATION ON ITALIAN ATTITUDES, 1981.... .. .. . . . ...
PERCENTAGE OF UNIVERSITY-EDUCATED PEOPLE WHO FAVOR NATO OVER NEUTRALISM, BY AGE,
MARCH 1981 ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
EUROPEAN TRUST FOR THE UNITED STATES: A COHORT ANALYSIS ........ . ...
ATTITUDES TOWARD EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ...
ELITE PREFERENCES ON THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES, 1980 ELITE PREFERENCES FOR MILITARY SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, 1980 . . . . . ...

Page

* 211
* 212
*. 214
* 216
*. 217
* 218
*. 220
*. 222
* 230
** 232
** 248
** 250

* 253
* 254
* 255
* 257
* 288
* 294

295

xii




TABLE Page
7-4 ELITE PREFERENCES ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 1981 297 7-5 ELITE VIEWS OF FOREIGN POLICY ORIENTATIONS,
1981 298
7-6 AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE SPENDING . 303 7-7 AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO . . . . 305 7-8 AMERICAN ATTITUDES ABOUT THE USE OF U.S.
TROOPS 306
B-1 SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF INTERACTION TERMS,
BY NATION 325
B-2 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS
OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR FRANCE . . . 328 B-3 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS
OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR WEST GERMANY . . 329 B-4 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS
OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR ITALY . . . . 330 B-5 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS
OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR BRITAIN . . . 331

xiii




LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
2-1. Individual level attributes . . . . . 35
2-2. A model of attitude formation, change, and
linkage 42
3-1. Structure and distribution of European attitudes
toward Atlantic cooperation: A typology . 65 4-1. A model of attitude formation and structure 88 4-2. Social and political correlates of attitude
types 136
6-1. West German attitudes toward the United
States 238
6-2. Italian attitudes toward the United States . 239 6-3. British attitudes toward the United States . 240 6-4. European attitudes toward the possibility of
war 241
6-5. European perceptions of the military
balance 243

xiv




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE WEST EUROPEAN PUBLIC AND THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE by
Andrew H. Ziegler, Jr.
May 1987
Chairman: David P. Conradt Major Department: Political Science
Using original and previously published survey data, this study explores West European public attitudes about Atlantic cooperation in general and NATO in particular. Alternative viewpoints are categorized into a typology that is used to describe the conceptual nature of European beliefs and to measure the level of public support for the different viewpoints. Long-term trends in these attitudes and causal determinants are also examined.
A distinguishing feature of this study is that it is
truly comparative. The analysis relies on identical survey items administered in four European countries: Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy. This enables cross-national generalizations to be made with confidence; for example, one of the conclusions reached is that among the nations observed, the West German public is clearly the most "Atlanticist" in outlook.




The longitudinal data examined indicate that some fundamental changes have occurred in European security beliefs. Anti-Americanism has increased dramatically at the same time that attitudes toward the Soviet Union have become more favorable, and the fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear war has increased substantially. Explanations for these shifts in opinion are not found in sociological factors, such as changes in generational experiences, educational levels, or social classes; but instead, European attitudes appear to reflect broad changes in international politics, such as the Vietnam War, nuclear parity, and detente.
Favorable opinion for NATO tends to be high, yet
specific defense-related measures receive much less support. In other words, "NATO" in an abstract sense is popular, but there is no European consensus on various security policies, and in some cases there is widespread opposition. In Britain and West Germany the parliamentary debate over NATO policies has become particularly intense.
Thus, the picture that emerges of European support for the Alliance is complex. Western governments will have to tread a delicate path in attempting to structure security policies that form a credible deterrent on the one hand but that reassure the West European public on the other.

xvi




CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION: ATTITUDES, POLITICS, AND THE ALLIANCE
Political cohesion within the Atlantic Alliance seems to be threatened continually (Cohen, 1982/83; Joffe, 1981). In the early 1980s, the political mobilization of the West European public over security affairs presented a new challenge to Western unity (Stoppa-Liebi and Laqueur, 1985). The implications for Euro-American harmony raised by the politicization of Alliance decisions create the need for a more adequate conceptual understanding of the public's attitudes in this issue area (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985:381).
This study examines the mass attitudes of West Europeans toward Atlantic cooperation in general and the NATO Alliance in particular. A comprehensive profile is developed of the structure, content, distribution, determinants, trends, and cross-national variation of European beliefs in these areas. The nations of Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy are studied. This analysis also clarifies many of the conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues that have plagued previous empirical research on this topic.
The principal concept, or analytical variable, is
Atlantic cooperation. Attitudes that are favorably disposed




toward Atlantic cooperation would support a common EuroAmerican policy perspective along a wide range of issues, including defense policy, economic policy, and other aspects of foreign affairs. The intent is to examine European attitudes on NATO and military security within a large conceptual context. The focus of this study is on fundamental values and underlying constructs rather than on opinions about specific policies. This approach is intentionally broad in an effort to tap into underlying "affective" orientations (Hovland and Rosenberg, 1960), rather than the fleeting, impressionistic opinions generated by current publicized debates on various policies.
This introductory chapter and the research design
chapter that follows outline the framework within which this analysis takes place. The political setting in Western Europe and some of the analytical and theoretical issues prevalent in the scholarly literature are examined in this chapter. The model which guides the substance of the study is presented in Chapter II.
The Political Setting
European publics and governments have had to adjust to major changes in the configuration of world politics that emerged following World War II. Most visible of these was the shift in the balance of world power away from the European continent as the two new superpowers became the principal players in world events. Second, the nature of




strategic military decisions changed fundamentally as the importance of massive nuclear forces became apparent. Third, decolonization and the diffusion of power, resulting from the increased number of international actors, proportionately reduced Europe's influence in the world. And finally, the globalization of the international economy has increased the economic interdependence of Western nations. The domestic politics and national foreign policies of West European nations have varied in responding to these changes in the international system.
The nations of Western Europe differ in their national traditions, interests, and options. Historical events and circumstances have shaped these characteristics into distinct political cultures. The political environments of Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy are unique, and the nature and role of public attitudes are heavily influenced by these various national factors.
The following section briefly traces the divergent
foreign policy goals and constraints of these four nations. The subsequent section discusses a phenomenon common to each: the politicization of foreign policy decision making.
Foreign Policy Directions
The postwar history of Great Britain has been influenced primarily by the need to adapt to its decline in national economic and political power (Lieber, 1985:1). Following World War II, Britain remained the only major




European nation which was not invaded, occupied, or defeated. victorious and relatively unscathed, the British people could continue to look upon themselves as a great world power: one of the Big Three responsible for piecing together the international system. This victorious status hid for some time Britain's weakened international position that was the result of the drastic changes in the structure of global power. This gap between Britain's relative weakness and its continued claim to great-power status has been explained by the "cognitive lag" concept (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:179-180). This view accuses British leaders of failing to adjust to the postwar realities because of a faulty conception of the world.
Recognition that Britain's postwar status and power had diminished became clear as events unfolded. In 1947, Britain ceased being the guardian of the continental balance of power by withdrawing its military and economic support from Greece and Turkey; the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan followed, signalling that the United States had assumed Britain's traditional role. Decolonization began in the late 1940s, and the British learned to live with the idea that their vast imperial possessions were being relinquished. (This was accomplished peacefully and pragmatically for the most part, in contrast to the French experience.) The humiliating withdrawal of the British and French forces from the Suez expedition, in 1956, in response to widespread international criticism and the political and




financial pressure imposed by the United States, clearly illustrated the reduced world role of Britain. This episode marked the last time Britain would mount an independent military operation of any consequence without being assured of American support (Lieber, 1985:4).
Britain's relationship with the other West European nations was strained in the decades following the Second World War. Having emerged from the war as one of the Big Three, Britain resisted the early attempts at creating a unified Europe (Lieber, 1970). The notion of joining with defeated, second-rank nations was unacceptable to a great power. Additionally, Britain was unwilling to break or jeopardize its "special" relationship with the United States or its ties with the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, by 1961, it seemed clear that entry into the Common Market was in Britain's interests; however, the process of joining proved to be protracted and humiliating. French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application, and formal accession was not completed until 1974, five years after de Gaulle's death. This experience left the British resentful, and there remains "a lingering doubt about long-term British commitment to the Common Market" (Lieber, 1985:7).
The "prime foreign policy goal" of Great Britain following the war was to achieve a permanent American commitment to the security of Western Europe (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:189, 190). As the lines of East-West confrontation solidified in the late 1940s, British leaders perceived




a growing military threat from the Soviet Union. The Prague coup in February 1948, the Berlin blockade in June 1948, and the Korean War in 1950, prompted Britain to seek American assistance in maintaining a stable balance of power in Europe. British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was one of the principal architects of the Atlantic Alliance, and the establishment of NATO represented the realization of Britain's primary postwar goal.
For France, the pursuit of great-power status and
influence has dominated its postwar foreign policy experience. Having been defeated in 1940 and occupied for five years, French national self-definition required an assertive restoration of its former prominent position in world affairs. Although the nation was drastically weakened following the war, "the aspirations of greatness and rank have persisted" (Macridis, 1985:23).
French ambitions included a leadership role among West European nations, independence from the East-West conflict, and the maintenance of colonial possessions. These goals were clearly articulated by General de Gaulle in his Memoirs, referring to the period immediately following the defeat of Germany:
I intended to assure France primacy in Western
Europe by preventing the rise of a new Reich that
might again threaten her safety; to cooperate with
the East and West and, if need be, contract the
necessary alliances on one side or another without
ever accepting any kind of dependency; to transform the French Union into a free association in order to avoid the as yet unspecified dangers of upheaval. (1960:204; cited in Macridis, 1985:24)




Within Western Europe, de Gaulle achieved limited
success. After being excluded from the Yalta Conference in 1945, de Gaulle ensured French inclusion in the Big Four by insisting on a French zone of occupation in Germany and a French seat on the Allied Control Council (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:98). French statesmen, especially Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, were the driving force in establishing the institutions of the European Community: The European Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market (Grosser, 1982:101-128). Within this European framework, de Gaulle asserted French influence by vetoing Britain's application for membership into the Common Market. However, one of his principal goals--security from Germany by French control over the Saar and a disarmed Germany--was not achieved because of the overriding effects of the Cold War and the establishment of NATO.
France asserted itself most dramatically within the
East-West arena. The French objective was to remain independent of both blocs. To this end, national nuclear forces, the force de frappe, were produced, and eventually, de Gaulle withdrew France from the integrated military command structure of NATO in 1966. De Gaulle, in 1968, summed up his policies toward the superpowers as follows: "We French have never ceased to work in order to put an end to the regime of the two blocs" (cited in Macridis, 1985:43).




The "futility of French efforts to retain control over the empire" was illustrated by their complete defeat in Indochina in 1954 (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:139). Later, the war in Algeria brought down the French Fourth Republic in 1958. The losses incurred by France in fighting these colonial wars were devastating--politically, militarily, and morally--at a time when French influence was beginning to return in other areas of world politics. Compared to Indochina and Algeria, there was little French resistance to the decolonization of most remaining possessions. Within this sphere of French postwar goals, maintaining the empire, there was little success.
The establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany was in some ways a historical accident. Its existence was the result of "Allied fiat . an offspring of bipolarity" (Joffe, 1985:77). Rather than a harsh occupation followed by a "super-Versailles," the Cold War realities made a reconstituted Germany a prize for both East and West. Since neither bloc could obtain control over all of Germany, the client states of the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic were established in their respective zones of occupation (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:50). Within this unique setting, the foreign policy goals and perspectives of West Germany evolved.
Initially, the reestablishment of national sovereignty--the right and power to conduct foreign policy at all--was the overriding objective. Deprived of armed




forces, economic strength, and moral credibility, West Germany in 1949 needed resources it could leverage into political influence. In pursuit of international respectability, the first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, became a II compulsive joiner," reasoning that membership in any international organization would create the appearances of equality as well as offer real chances to influence events (Joffe, 1985:79). This tactic reversed the logic of the European integrationists, such as Jean Monnet, who viewed integration as a means to reduce the effects of sovereignty. Adenauer used each membership as an incentive for the Allies to lift restraints upon German statehood and sovereignty.
West Germany became the most integrationist of the West European nations. The Federal Republic was a charter member and leading advocate of the European Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market. Additionally, Adenauer at one time proposed a complete Franco-German union (this was actually a tactic to deflect French intentions to detach the Saarland from Germany).
The Korean War and its resultant increase in Cold War tensions forced the Allies to resolve the issue of German rearmament. France proposed but later defeated the European Defense Community which was designed to unite European (including German) military forces under supranational control. Eventually, the Anglo-American desire to rearm West Germany as a member of NATO prevailed. In 1955, the Federal Republic was admitted into NATO, and the foreign




occupation forces became Alliance forces, thus officially ending the period of occupation. Its entrance into NATO exemplified the realization of West Germany's principal postwar goal: "sovereignty through integration" (Joffe,
1985: 78-81).
In Italy, foreign policy decisions have been manipulated for domestic political consumption (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:87). There were no postwar aspirations or claims for great-power status as in France and Britain. Additionally, Italy was spared the dismemberment and dramatic loss of sovereignty suffered by Germany. The twin fears of an economic disaster and a radical shift in domestic political alignments were more important factors in Italy's postwar foreign policy than were fears of Soviet aggression or the ideals of integration. with the political climate deeply polarized between the pro-Soviet Left and the pro-Western Right, the ruling Christian Democrats committed Italy to its two fundamental "pillars" of foreign policy: the Atlantic Alliance and the European Community (Bonvicini, 1983:71).
Italy's initial decision to join NATO was made reluctantly (Putnam, 1977:295). However, faced with American diplomatic pressure, Italian dependence on Marshall Plan aid, and a desire for international guarantees of the domestic order, Italy became an unenthusiastic member. Throughout its tenure of membership, Italy's material contribution to NATO has been remarkably low.




Gradually, the Italian Socialist and Communist parties have come to accept both of these two postwar foreign policy choices of Italy. Support for NATO and the EEC are in large measure prerequisites for legitimate participation in governing Italy. In this respect the Socialist party has succeeded for some time, but questions remain about the legitimacy of the PCI. However, about a third of the Italian electorate remain loyal to the Italian Communist party.
Thus, the foreign policy directions of these countries have been guided largely by the particular "identity problems" experienced by each (Grosser, 1982:324-326). The most severe identity "crisis" was undergone by the Federal Republic which owes it existence primarily to American power. Concern with international identity was least serious in Italy; however, internal social change and development represent more significant issues for Italy than for the other cases. France and Great Britain each had to deal with their declining status and power, especially in relation to the United States. France has pursued an independent, reassertive course, while Britain has attempted to retain influence through its "special" Anglo-American relationship.
Mass Politicization
The politicization of foreign and defense policy making in western societies is one of the more significant




political developments of the postwar era (Bertram, 1983; Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983). once the domain of political elites, issues relating to alliances, national security, the international economy, and other foreign policy concerns are now well within the matrix of political attitudes and interests of the mass public in Western democracies. Bertram argues that this politicization has been accompanied by the decline of consensus and an increasing skepticism: "An important part of the public in [Western] societies is no longer willing to trust governments or experts or even the media on matters of defense policy" (1983:1).
In Western Europe, the increased role of the public in foreign and security affairs is substantial (Howard, 1983; Schneider, 1983). In 1975, a referendum in Britain was necessary to legitimize its membership in the Common Market, and in 1986, the public in Spain voiced its approval of membership in NATO also by referendum. The 1983 elections in Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany were contested largely over NATO, missiles, and foreign policy.
In general, the greater politicization reflects opposition to established Alliance policies. Peace movements are active, with varying degrees of success, in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Britain, West Germany, France, and Italy (Kaltefleiter and Pfaltzgraff, 1985). Opposition to NATO's decision to modernize its intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) served as a catalyst for mass demonstrations




and protests across Europe in the early 1980s. The Dutch Parliament delayed its vote on INF emplacement following massive public resistance. In West Germany, disagreement over INF deployment within the Social Democratic Party (SPD) contributed to the fall of Helmut Schmidt's government in 1982 (Joffe, 1985:110).
Within the Atlantic Alliance, the threat of disunity among the member nations has long been a principal concern of policy makers (Grosser, 1982; Kissinger, 1966); however, with increasing mass participation in the foreign policy arena, decision makers are increasingly worried about the level of domestic support for security policies. According to Richard Eichenberg: "The growing importance of the public has led many observers to conclude that domestic consensus is now the primary task of the Alliance" (1985a:4). In the future, as with the 1979 dual-track decision on INF, "the viability of NATO policies will depend on the level of support that they receive among attentive publics and in national legislatures" (Sloan, 1985:135).
The Analytical Setting
Political scientists and policy makers have realized
for some time the importance of public support in the United States for foreign policy and national security affairs (Mueller, 1973; Rosenau, 1961; Verba et al., 1967). The Vietnam War more than anything else highlighted the challenges that can arise within this policy arena from a lack




of public consensus and acceptance. Considerable empirical research at the mass and elite levels has been directed at the content, structure, changes, and determinants of American foreign policy attitudes (Bardes and Oldendick, 1978; Holsti, 1979; Holsti and Rosenau, 1984; Mandelbaum and Schneider, 1979; Wittkopf, 1981, 1983; Wittkopf and Kegley, 1982, 1983; Wittkopf and Maggiotto, 1981, 1983a, 1983b).
Only recently have West European foreign policy attitudes received similar attention. In view of the extent and intensity of the protest against NATO's 1979 dual-track decision and against the subsequent preparations for INF deployment, security analysts in many countries "discovered" public opinion and survey research which were formerly not central to their attention (Rattinger, 1986:1, 2). According to Bertram: "As long as domestic consensus on these matters existed, there was no real pressure to address them; that idyllic state of affairs no longer exists" (1983:1).
Research into European foreign policy and defense
attitudes thus far has not produced a consistent and cumulative body of knowledge. Many substantive, methodological, and theoretical issues remain unresolved. The impression received from the existing literature is that some rather broad generalizations have been derived from a few rudimentary analyses of opinion data.
The substantive issue of whether or not European
attitudes have changed at all is not clear, although several authors make this claim. Feld and Wildgen state that "in




Western Europe support for NATO appears to be slipping" (1982:182); however, they commit the cross-sectional fallacy in that they reach this conclusion on the basis of data from only one time period. From the same data they reach a rather dramatic conclusion: "The total trend picture of public opinion in Western Europe appears to be producing a widening gulf between the two sides of the Atlantic that eventually could endanger both NATO and the Atlantic defense in general" (133).
Other authors reach similar conclusions. Alting von
Geusau in a nonempirical analysis claims: "At stake is the survival itself of the North Atlantic Alliance, formed in 1949. . [There is] a climate in which the need for sustaining the partnership itself is now being questioned [in Europe]" (1982:153). Haseler (1983), Adler and Wertman (1981), Schneider (1983), Inglehart (1984b), and Russett and DeLuca (1981, 1983) all claim in one manner or another that values in Western Europe have changed in regard to foreign policy and defense issues, and that this change is away from the traditional consensus on Atlantic, Euro-American cooperation.
This is not to say that these conclusions are wrong; the point is that there appears to have been little in-depth, systematic data analysis in these studies. Conclusions were reached based upon one or two opinion items, and trends inferred. In a recent paper, Eichenberg argued that in regard to fundamental attitudes toward




military force and national security in Europe, "there remains a substantial base of general consensus" (1985:11).
Other studies support the notion of there being little attitudinal change in Europe in this area. According to Capitanchik and Eichenberg: "Public support for NATO remains high in all the European member states" (1983:388). Flynn and Rattinger write of the current "high level of popular consensus over national security issues at the mass level" (1985:388). Similar findings of European support for Atlantic cooperation can be seen in Noelle-Neuman (1981a, 1981b, 1983), Putnam (1977), Schweigler (1984), and Szabo (1983b).
A significant methodological issue is that there has been no effort to map these attitudes toward NATO or EuroAmerican cooperation in regard to conceptual structure or internal consistency. Such a descriptive analysis is a necessary first step to a systematic study of changes and causal relationships. Specifically, this is the principal analytical variable, and it must receive a considerable amount of attention. Can European foreign policy values be arrayed unidimensionally, or are they more complex? In what manner do Europeans set priorities and structure these issues? Existing studies tend to look only at single survey items and then generalize well beyond their scope with no effort to relate groups of items into more descriptive measures. According to Flynn and Rattinger: "Perhaps the most urgent task for future research is the construction of




a more adequate conceptual breakdown of the types of attitudes we are dealing with in this issue area" (1985:381).
The methods used to analyze the social and political correlates of attitudes raises another issue. Previous studies have relied on the cross-tabulation of univariate relationships to measure the effect of variables such as age, sex, political party, and so on. No attempts have been made to apply multivariate techniques to distinguish the relative effects of several variables. A comprehensive understanding of attitude formation and change requires a multivariate explanation.
A final methodological issue is about the very nature of comparative analysis. Many existing studies of European security attitudes are not truly comparative, but instead they employ some type of case study method (as distinguished from the comparative method by Lijphart, 1975). For example, Flynn and Rattinger (1985), Kaltefleiter and Pfaltzgraff (1985), and Szabo (1983b) have edited volumes each comprising several country studies written by separate authors. Capitanchik and Eichenberg (1983) organize their book into chapters, each dealing with a separate country and drawing on an assortment of data. Other books and separately published articles are also about single countries, such as Crewe (1984), Dackiw (1985), Dalton and Duval (1986), Deutsch and Edinger (1959), Gress (1983), Hill (1981), Noelle-Neuman (1981a, 1981b, and 1983), Rattinger (1986), Schweigler (1984), and Thompson and Netlig (1984).




There are only a few truly comparative analyses of European foreign policy attitudes in which identical survey items are compared cross-nationally; these are Adler and Wertman (1981) Eichenberg (1985a) Feld and Wildgen (1982), Inglehart (1984b) Merritt and Puchala (1968) and Shaffer (1982).
This study intends to overcome the difficulties discussed above. The research methods to be employed will allow for accurate longitudinal conclusions to be reached, as well as for an analysis of the conceptual structure of the European belief system. Additionally, the multivariate techniques to be used should provide for greater understanding of the correlates of European attitudes. Finally, the study will be truly comparative with identical survey questions being observed cross-nationally.
The Theoretical Setting
Several theoretical alternatives have been offered as explanations for the public mobilization over national security issues and the attitudinal shifts away from established Atlantic defense policies. One such explanation was borrowed from political sociology and holds that generational replacement is producing a long-term value change (Atlantic Council, 1981; Szabo, 1983a, 1983b, 1984). This Successor Generation argument is based on the effect of changing historical perspectives and socialization experiences of succeeding age cohorts. Several studies support




this view (Adler and Wertman, 1981; Lacqueur, 1985; Levi, 1982; Russett and DeLuca, 1983).
A closely related explanation is found within the
Postmaterialist school of thought (Inglehart, 1977). This view combines the socialization effects of generational change with a scarcity hypothesis based roughly on the psychological formulation of a hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954). The Postmaterialist argument is that as a result of unprecedented economic prosperity and military security in the postwar era, the younger generations are placing less emphasis on economic growth and military security and paying greater attention to a new Postmaterialist agenda: quality of life, the environment, anti-nuclear power, and cultural issues. Inglehart (1984b) presents some preliminary findings linking Postmaterialist values with anti-Americanism, the peace movements, and opposition to a common EuroAmerican foreign policy.
Two additional theoretical interpretations are presented by Flynn and Rattinger (1985:2). In the first, the increased politicization of defense issues is placed within the broader processes of modernization and democratization. The postwar growth of comprehensive mass education in Europe is seen as having stimulated increased public awareness of and interest in the politics of a wide range of new issues. Enlarged media networks and improved transport and communication technology have similarly encouraged the active




political participation of larger portions of the public (Deutsch, 1963; Huntington, 1974).
Within this view, increased popular participation in
determining defense priorities is seen as being natural and irreversible. The current tendency for partisan politics to divide along the various lines of the security debate is seen as a natural response to the increased information and interest within the public. Governments and parties, therefore, must adjust policies and policy making to take account of these new political realities. This is the view of Kurt Biedenkopf who argues for Alliance policies that are plausible, that "make sense to a well-educated public" (1983:8).
The other theoretical assessment mentioned by Flynn and Rattinger (1985:2) explains the public involvement in national security affairs and the attitudinal trends away from Atlanticism as the result of alienation and anxiety in the face of profound changes in the international state system. These changes include nuclear parity between the superpowers and Western Europe's robust postwar economic recovery yet continued dependence on the United States for military security. In this view, public activism and opinions are not permanent, and may be mitigated by policies and rhetoric that seek to "reassure" in the midst of changing international politics (Howard, 1983; Huntington, 1983).




To summarize, there are at least four theoretical
explanations for the politicization of and changes in West European attitudes about defense and security: the Successor Generation, Postmaterialism, modernization, and international politics. The first three of these will be examined simultaneously in Chapter IV, but the impact of international politics will be examined separately in a more descriptive approach in Chapter VI.
The Research Agenda
This study is organized into seven chapters. This
chapter introduced the topic and its importance; framed the political, analytical, and the theoretical settings; and reviewed some of the relevant literature.
Chapter II will present the research design for the main body of the research. This will include a detailed specification of the model of attitude formation, changes, and political linkages that will be developed throughout the remaining chapters. The data, methods, and cases to be used will also be discussed.
In Chapter III, an analysis of original, machinereadable survey data will explore the conceptual structure of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. Attempts will be made to aggregate the data into scales or typologies to allow for generalizations to be made. The results of this step will serve as the dependent variable for Chapter IV in which several determinants of attitudes,




corresponding to the alternative theoretical explanations discussed above, will be examined. These determinants (or correlates) will be compared and combined to seek a multivariate model of attitude formation. Cross-national comparisons of the aggregate measures developed in Chapter III and the correlates examined in Chapter IV will also be observed.
Chapter V will seek to determine the extent of change that has occurred in European foreign policy and defense beliefs. Published accounts of existing opinion data will be used in this chapter to assess the trends in public support for several assumptions fundamental to the Alliance. These trends will then be juxtaposed to changes in the international system in Chapter VI to examine the effects of international politics on European attitudes.
The final chapter, Chapter VII, will draw some tentative conclusions about the linkages between European attitudes and broad national policy orientations. The goal will be to observe possible indications of future Alliance cohesion or disunity. A brief examination of American foreign policy attitudes will also be included, along with a summary of major findings from the entire study.
The research agenda for this project grows out of the concern that foreign policy attitudes are becoming linked more and more directly to Western harmony (Eichenberg, 1985a:4; Sloan, 1985:135). In other words, the future cohesion or disunity of the Alliance will be influenced in large measure by the West European public. Therefore, a




23
better understanding of the nature of West European security beliefs, their conceptual structure, determinants, and trends, should provide an indication of things to come, or at least help theorists and policy makers better understand events as they occur within the arena of Euro-American relations.




CHAPTER II
RESEARCH DESIGN: A MODEL FOR ANALYSIS
The goal of this research is to assess the potential contribution of West European mass attitudes on the future cohesion or disunity of the Atlantic Alliance. To this end, European attitudes will be examined within a comprehensive model of attitude formation, change, and political linkage. This chapter discusses the various components of this model. The assumption is that mass attitudes favorable to Atlantic cooperation will foster national policies conducive to Alliance cohesion.
Systematic empirical research into mass attitudes as a component of political culture is a relatively new field of inquiry. However, the notion of political culture and many of its central concepts--like socialization, subculture, and values--have been around for some time and are even evident in classical writings, such as Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. Recently, the postwar technological advances in survey research methodology, along with the inter-disciplinary influences of sociology, social psychology, and anthropology, created a "revolution"' in political science research into political culture and attitudes (Almond, 1980:1-16) These technical and conceptual




advances enabled research to move from relatively loose and speculative inferences to more systematic and reliable measures. The path-breaking comparative study in this field was The Civic Culture, by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba in 1963.
This examination of West European foreign policy
attitudes belongs within this broad tradition of political inquiry. Political culture is "the set of attitudes, beliefs, and feelings about politics current in a nation at a given time" (Almond and Powell, 1978:25). The focus for research is on the individual as the appropriate unit of analysis. It is the individual, through perceptions, interests, and ideologies, who develops a belief system by imposing some sense of consistency and constraint across various political phenomena (Converse, 1964). The attitudes of individuals, when aggregated for a population (or sample), can provide a conceptual map or image of the belief structure of a multi-country region, a single nation, or a subculture within a nation. This research observes attitudes in Western Europe as a region and also makes crossnational comparisons of separate national samples.
Attitudes toward political objects can be distinguished by three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Hovland and Rosenberg, 1960:1-16). Knowledge of the political system, its leading figures, and current policy problems is the cognitive aspect. Deeply-held feelings of rejection or support toward the system or politics comprise




the affective component; these feelings often are the result of long-held cues received from family, class, and other attributes. The third aspect is that of political action and involvement: the behavioral component.1 The focus in this study is on the affective, in an effort to tap into fundamental values and underlying constructs.
Several factors combine to influence political attitudes. These elements (or agents) of the socialization process include a myriad of social, political, cultural, and international stimuli (Dawson and Prewitt, 1969; Dennis, 1973). The relative significance of these various determinants in regard to attitude formation and change is a recurring subject for comparative research. This study explores several determinants to assess their influence on the formation and change of European attitudes.
The political significance of West European mass
attitudes, as discussed in the previous chapter, is considerable. Several distinct research tasks are necessary for a thorough examination of these attitudes. In the sections that follow, these tasks are presented within the framework of a comprehensive model of attitude formation, change, and linkage.
Components of the Model
The model which guides this study contains several
components. The first is the conceptual orientation of West Europeans toward Atlantic cooperation. In other words, this




concerns the attitudes themselves. How do Europeans view the Alliance, a coordinated economic policy, military issues outside of Europe, and other foreign policy concerns? Are these issues all linked conceptually? or, are they structured in a more complex manner?
The second element involves the forces active in
determining the nature of attitudes. There are three types or levels of determinants (independent variables) that affect the formation and change of attitudes. These are individual level variables, national level variables, and international level variables.
The third aspect of the model is the extent to which
European attitudes and support for Atlantic cooperation have changed. Is there more or less European support for Atlantic cooperation? Finally, the last element concerns the linkages between attitudes and national policies. To what extent do attitudes and policies cohere together? Is there a causal pattern, and if so in what direction? What are the indications for future Alliance cohesion or disunity?
Attitude Structure, Content, and Distribution
Chapter III will first attempt to develop a typology describing West European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation, and second to make some generalizations about the distribution of European support in regard to the categories. As a result, opinion on NATO and national security will be examined in a broader perspective, and a more




theoretical understanding of European attitudes and policies will result. Several survey items will be aggregated in an effort to discover the conceptual constructs that underlie the attitudes, thus avoiding the inherent instability of single-item indicators.
Previous attempts to categorize European beliefs on these issues have been less than satisfactory. Feld and Wildgen (1982) used one survey item to dicotomize their European sample into "Euro-hawks" and "Euro-doves," but this provided no depth of understanding in regard to the relationship between various aspects of the security and foreign policy arena. An earlier attempt was made by Deutsch et al. to devise a tentative typology of attitude positions based on elite interviews (1967:87-91). Three types were identified: Nationals, Europeans, and Atlantics. The Nationals were those who favored the resurgence of the unqualified nation-state, and for whom Europe was only a camouflage to hide national aspirations. The typical Nationals were French Gaullists. The Europeans were those who favored some sort of European political union, whether it be confederal or federal. The Atlantics viewed close ties with the United States as being essential. Although not supportive of an Atlantic federation, NATO was strongly backed by the Atlantics as well as increased cultural, political, and economic ties among Atlantic nations. These profiles developed by Deutsch et al. (1967) are useful for broad generalizations, but the underlying dimensions are not




known, and the concepts of military policy, economic policy, and integration policy are blurred together.
There are four aspects to Chapter III. The first is to determine the number of dimensions necessary to describe the conceptual structure. The second is to impute substantive meaning to each dimension. The third is to measure the distribution of European opinion in regard to the different dimensions, and the fourth is to observe cross-national variation.
To determine the number of conceptual dimensions, a
factor analysis of survey data will be used. Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to identify a relatively small number of factors (or dimensions) underlying a larger set of variables. Groups of survey items identified with the separate factors can be interpreted as representing different attitudinal dimensions. The meaning usually associated with the concept "dimension" is that of a cluster or group of highly intercorrelated characteristics, and factor analysis "can uncover unsuspected relationships which may at first seem startling but later appear to be common sense"l (Rummel, 1970:31). Factor analysis is based on the assumption that underlying dimensions exist, and that they can be used to explain complex phenomena (INorusis, 1985).
There are several forms of factor analysis available. The principal components technique will be used because it generates the eigenvalue statistic which "serves as the most widely used practical means of solving the number-of-factors




question" (Kim and Mueller, 1976b:21). Additionally, principal components analysis is the common choice of analysts using research designs similar to this one for American attitudes (see Bardes and Oldendick, 1978; Wittkopf, 1981, 1983; Wittkopf and Maggiotto, 1981, 1983a, 1983b; Wittkopf and Kegley, 1982, 1983).
There are four possible results to the number of
dimensions question in regard to European attitudes. The first is a unidimensional structure in which all or most of the survey items load on one factor, and only one factor achieves an eigenvalue greater than 1. This would provide for ease of theoretical interpretation, and politically it would indicate limited policy alternatives and potential polarization. The second possible structure is bidimensional in which there are two distinct conceptual underpinnings to European attitudes represented by two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. This case may reflect policy makers having more latitude than in the first, and this structure, if orthogonal, may lend itself conceptually to the construction of a four-cell typology as in Wittkopf (1981).
The remaining two possibilities are more complex. A multidimensional structure would have three or more dimensions indicating a rather complex belief system. This result may preclude generalizing beyond the individual factors. A fragmented result with no interpretable dimensions would indicate that West Europeans do not interrelate




foreign policy issues at all, that there are either no conceptual constraints underlying mass opinion, or else the constructs are too complex or vague to be identified through empirical analysis.
The second step in Chapter III will be to interpret the substantive content of the dimensions discovered in the first step. This involves affixing descriptive labels to the factors. These labels
are concepts from the substantive area of concern
and reflect or embody the pattern of interrelationships defined by the factors. The descriptive
label is meant to be typological--to categorize the conceptual characteristics of the findings.
(Rumimel, 1970:175)
This is a somewhat subjective process, and it requires comparing the survey items belonging to each dimension to determine what relates them together conceptually. As a result of this evaluation, labels are chosen to serve as readily understood concepts to ease communication and discussion.
There are several substantive labels that may emerge
from this interpretive step. One is the concept of Atlantic cooperation which embodies the goals of the study. This could be used to describe a unidimensional structure in which respondents seem to evaluate issues and policies in regard to their fundamental attitude toward cooperation. Respondents could perhaps be categorized as internationalists and isolationists. However, there could be two cooperative dimensions with one representing cooperation with the United States and the other reflecting European




cooperation. Or, rather than regional distinctions there may be substantive ones in which perhaps military and economic issues represent dimensions of cooperation. Additional factors may relate to constructs such as neutralism, protectionism, and interventionism.
The expectations for this study are that a unidimensional belief system representing a cooperative-noncooperative continuum in regard to relations among the Atlantic community of nations will be uncovered. The hypothesized structure seems to be the best representation of European attitudes in the midst of the new developments of the 1980s. Specifically, the economic difficulties arising since 1973 are believed to have blurred the distinctions between security and economic issues such that Europeans seem now to be either favorably or unfavorably disposed toward Atlantic cooperation in general.
The third part of Chapter III will be to measure the
distribution of European opinion for each of the dimensions. The labels affixed in the previous step can be regarded as assertions, so that the task here is to determine the level of support for each assertion. For example, for a dimension regarding neutralism, percentages must be calculated for those portions of the sample that favor neutralism and oppose it. Inferences can then be made for the population as a whole.
To do this, scaling techniques will be employed. The survey items comprising each dimension as determined by the




factor analysis will be used to construct Likert scales, which is to say that for each respondent, responses will be summed to produce a composite score for a set of items. This requires that the items be monotonically related to the underlying attitudinal continuum; in other words, the coding must be uniform such that a high score represents a favorable response on all items and a low score represents an unfavorable response on all items (or vice versa, but usually high scores indicate favorable responses). No effort will be made to vary the weight assigned to the items because it has been found that little is to be gained since unweighted and weighted summative scores regularly correlate quite highly (Mclver and Carmines, 1981).
The reliability of any constructed scale must be
assessed statistically. Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficient is the preferred estimate of scale reliability (Mclver and Carmines, 1981). This statistic provides an estimate of reliability based upon the inter-item correlation matrix.
The final step in Chapter III will be to measure
cross-national variation. Whatever scales or categories are devised from the earlier steps will be applied to the separate national samples and the percentages of favorable and unfavorable opinion compared across nations. Thus, Chapter III will be a complex, descriptive analysis of the conceptual structure, content, and distribution of West European attitudes.




Determinants
Once the structure and content of West European attitudes have been established in Chapter III, the various influences, or determinants, affecting these attitudes will be assessed in the following chapters. These determinants, or independent variables, are categorized for this study into three levels: individual attributes, national cultures, and international events. The individual attributes are subdivided further into social and political characteristics. The social variables are generation, value orientations, class, and education. The political variables are partisanship, ideology, and participation. Figure 2-1 depicts these individual attributes. Chapter IV examines the individual and national level variables, and Chapter VI analyzes the influence of international events.
The individual attributes will each be discussed at length in Chapter IV in regard to their theoretical relevance and empirical effects on West European security and foreign policy views. These seven factors are assumed to contribute to an explanation of the variation of opinion within Europe. Specific hypotheses will be developed and tested for each.
The analyses in Chapter IV will go well beyond previous studies of these attributes and their effect on security attitudes. In the past, univariate relationships usings tables of cross-tabulations of percentages have been used (see for example, Feld and Wildgen, 1982; and Flynn and




F -i
ISocial Variables I
I > Generation
> >ValueI
Orientations
> Class
> Education
L--------------Ji
Political variables > Partisanship
> Ideology
L-------------------------J

Figure 2-1. Individual level attributes.




Rattinger, 1985). This descriptive method fails to provide useful explanatory statistics for comparing the relative significance of variables, and more importantly, it prohibits multivariate analyses in which separate effects can be observed after adjusting, or controlling, for the effects of other variables.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques provide the
capability for more sophisticated analyses and these will be used in Chapter IV. ANOVA is designed to test the statistical significance of the differences among a set of group means on an interval dependent variable (Agresti and Agresti, 1979:417). The groups can represent survey respondents within various social classes, generations, political parties, and so on. The interval dependent variables for Chapter IV will be the scales or typologies derived from the analyses presented in Chapter III.
There are two types of ANOVA. One-way ANOVA examines the relationship between the mean of an interval dependent variable and the levels of a single categorical variable. Two-way ANOVA, however, simultaneously controls for the effects of one or more independent variables and thus produces in effect a multivariate model. The various statistics and coefficients associated with ANOVA are discussed in detail in Chapter IV.
Chapter IV includes several steps. Initially, each of the individual attributes listed in Figure 2-1 will be assessed separately using one-way ANOVA. Then, these




variables will be combined using two-way ANOVA to examine the effects of each while adjusting for the others. Each of these techniques will be applied to both the European sample as a whole as well as to the separate national samples. Cross-national comparisons will provide an initial examination of the effects of nationality.
The effects of the second level variable, national
character, will also be examined more directly. Using the national identity of respondents as a nominal variable, the separate national samples can be compared by applying ANOVA to the combined European sample. In this way the differences between the means for the separate national samples can be observed. Additionally, the national identity variable will be entered into the multivariate analysis of the two-way ANOVA. Thus, the relative strength of national identity can be compared to the individual level attributes.
Chapter IV (as well as Chapter III) begins with the
premise that the European sample can be treated in a homogeneous manner. This is an attempt to achieve some universal theoretical understanding of the influences affecting European attitudes. "To the extent that general statements can be validly formulated without regard to the social system from which the samples were drawn, systemic [national] factors can be disregarded" (Przeworski and Teune, 1970:36). The amount of variation between the separate samples will indicate the extent to which the




second level variable, national character, can be given a special place among the predictors of European beliefs.
The final level of determinants, international events, will be examined in Chapter VI. This will follow an assessment of the extent to which European attitudes toward Atlanticism have changed. (Chapter V explores the amount and nature of attitudinal change in Europe.) The assertion that beliefs are affected by the international arena assumes that attitudes have changed. For this reason, the chapter on the nature and extent of any shift in European security views will precede the examination of international events.
The study of international events and their influence on attitudes is also known as "Period effects" (Adler, 1983). These are broad, historic changes in the international system--such as, war and peace, depression and prosperity, or shifts in the balance of power--as well as specific critical incidents, like the Cuban missile crisis. Many such international events will be observed and categorized in Chapter VI in an effort to uncover patterns and linkages that relate to attitudinal changes.
Disentangling period effects from the other determinants, especially generational influences, is difficult. The technique of cohort analysis will be employed in an attempt to distinguish between them (Glen, 1977).
Thus, three types or levels of determinants will be
examined in an effort to explain the formation and change in European security attitudes. These are individual




attributes, national political cultures, and international events.
Changes and Linkages
Chapter V seeks to assess changes in European attitudes about some fundamental assumptions upon which the Alliance is based. These assumptions are the following: (1) the Soviet Union poses a military and political threat to the security of Western Europe; (2) a collective security policy is the only way to deter and defend against the Soviet threat; and (3) the United States must be a leading member of the joint defense effort to balance Soviet power. After discussing and operationalizing these assumptions, Chapter V will draw upon previously published opinion data from a multitude of sources to assess trends in the level of European support for each.
There are inherent difficulties in attempting a crossnational and longitudinal analysis of this type. The available data are scarce and are often not comparable either between countries or time periods. The result is that the analyst is forced to jump from one survey question or source to another, constantly confronting interpretations of promising time series or modifications in item construction. These difficulties illustrate the complexity of the task, but they do not preclude it. Chapter V should be able to offer some indications of how European mass attitudes on security matters have evolved.




The hypothesis guiding Chapter V is that attitudes in
Europe have changed in the direction of being less favorably disposed toward the Alliance and Atlantic cooperation. This is the assessment of several of the analysts mentioned in Chapter I: Adler and Wertman (1981), Bertram (1983), Feld and Wildgen (1982), Geusau (1982), Haseler (1983), Inglehart (1984b), Russett and DeLuca (1981, 1983), and Schneider (1983). The emergence of the peace movement and the apparent prevalence of anti-Americanism in Europe would seem to support this view, although other authors disagree: Capitanchik and Eichenberg (1983), Flynn and Rattinger (1985), Noelle-Neuman (1981a, 1981b, 1983), Putnam (1977), Schweigler (1984), and Szabo (1983b).
The concluding chapter of this study will explore
(among other things) some tentative linkages between European attitudes, national policies, and the prospect for future Alliance cohesion or disunity. Various national policies, Alliance decisions, and mass support or opposition will be observed for evidence of coherence. This will be a subjective appraisal. No rigorous quantitative methods will be employed, because none are suitable.
This topic of linkage between attitudes and policies is the "Achilles heel" of attitudinal studies. "One of the most ambiguous, imprecise, and elusive aspects of security [is] that of the domestic political factors influencing defense policies, doctrines, and burdens" (Bertram, 1983:1). This is why the subject has generally been unexplored in




most studies; although the existence of a relationship is always assumed or inferred, sometimes implicitly. Therefore, Chapter VII will be cautious in its attempt to relate the attitudinal findings from the earlier chapters with the broad policy orientations of European nations.
Summary
The foregoing discussion has presented the various
components of a comprehensive model of attitude formation, change, and linkage. Figure 2-2 depicts the complete model that guides the analysis in the following chapters.
Each chapter that follows focuses on some aspect of the model. Chapter III develops some aggregate measures for the structure, content, and distribution of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. Chapter IV examines the effects of individual and national level variables on the formation of these attitudes. Chapter V assesses the nature and extent of any changes in European security attitudes. Chapter VI observes the influences of international politics to explain the trends in European attitudes. And finally, Chapter VII explores the linkages between attitudes, policies, and Alliance cohesion.
Cases and Data
The nations selected for this study are Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy. These four were chosen because they possess the bulk of the European resources




Determinants

r - -
Individual Level
Variables:
> Social
Attributes
> Political
Attributes
Nat'l Level Var: > British Culture I > French Culture > German Culture > Italian Culture
I I
Int'l Level Var: > Period Effects S> Systemic Change
L ----------J

I I
Structure
. Content I
Distribution
I I
'Change
L-----

r-------1
r1 I I
INational jPolicies I
II
Alliance Cohesion
or
IDisunity I L------ --

Figure 2-2. A model of attitude formation, change, and
linkage.

Attitudes

Politics




available to the Alliance and because of their obviously critical importance to Western solidarity. Any shift in the relationship between these nations and the Atlantic security posture might result in some fundamental multilateral realignment. 2
It is recognized that other interesting cases have been excluded from the analysis. For example, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark would be obvious candidates for inclusion in any future studies of this sort. Data are lacking, however, for any substantial analysis of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, or Norway. Thus, to keep this project manageable and focused on key nations, the cases were limited to the four countries listed above.
The data set used in Chapters III and IV is the
Eurobarometer 14 survey. The Eurobarometers are a series of semiannual surveys administered in EEC countries and sponsored by the Commission of the European Community. The data are in their original, machine-readable form, making sophisticated analyses possible. The data were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research of the University of Michigan.
The quality of the Eurobarometers is excellent and
equal to that of most American surveys. Stratified national quota samples of approximately 1000 respondents are drawn in each nation, taking into account region and the size of localities. Respondents are chosen within selected sampling points to provide a regionally representative sample with




respect to sex, age, and occupation. Some of the sampling may in fact be superior to that conducted in the United States because the availability of very complete and up-todate electoral lists in Europe permits excellent probability sampling. Further, all the data are based on personal interviews in the home, while many American public opinion polls, such as ABC-Louis Harris and CBS-New York Times, are conducted by telephone (Adler, 1983).
Original multi-country data sets other than the Eurobarometers are rarely available for the kind of analysis performed here. This is why most studies in this field have relied on a secondary analysis of single items from published opinion polls such as Gallup and Harris. Another difficulty is that the number of foreign policy and security items included in any one survey is usually very limited, thus preventing a meaningful analysis of underlying dimensions. Eurobarometer 14 was chosen for this project, despite its being somewhat dated (October 1980), because among the Eurobarometers it contains the largest selection of foreign policy items. 3
Other potential sources for machine-readable data sets are those produced by the United States Information Agency (USIA). These are available from the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and the Roper Center in New Haven, Connecticut. However, the documentation and code books provided are often incomplete and inaccurate, and the data are not "cleaned" adequately. 4




In comparison with the rather limited supply of data on European foreign policy attitudes, analysts of American foreign policy beliefs have available the surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. These surveys, administered periodically since 1974, each contain over 200 questionnaire items specifically on foreign policy issues. Currently, there are no data sets on European attitudes remotely equivalent to this rich source.
The data used in Chapters V and VI are drawn from a multitude of previously published sources. These are not original, machine-readable data but instead are reproduced figures (usually percentages of marginal) from both scholarly and journalistic publications. Many of the difficulties inherent in relying on data of this type are discussed in Chapter V.
This chapter has presented the research design for the analysis of West European security attitudes that follows. The model guiding the analysis was discussed in detail, and the cases selected for observation and the data to be used were also discussed.
Notes
1 Almond and Powell (1978:26) substitute "evaluative" for the third component of attitudes. This refers to any moral judgment of political objects in terms of ideology or ethics.
2 This assertion takes into account the current status
of France within the Alliance: a member but not part of the integrated military command structure. Despite this position, France plays an essential role in Western security plans and assumptions.




3Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) contains 11 questionnaire items suitable for a factor analysis within the conceptual boundaries of "Atlantic cooperation." Other Eurobarometer surveys with foreign policy items contain the following numbers of items:
Eurobarometer 6 (October 1976) 7 items,
Eurobarometer 8 (October 1977) 4 items,
Eurobarometer 10 (October 1978) 7 items,
Eurobarometer 11 (April 1979) 8 items,
Eurobarometer 13 (April 1980) 5 items,
Eurobarometer 16 (October 1981) 6 items,
Eurobarometer 17 (April 1982) 13 items (7 deal only with the U.S. and none are on NATO),
Eurobarometer 18 (October 1982) 4 items,
Eurobarometer 19 (April 1983) 6 items.
4Four USIA data sets were obtained from the National Archives by the author. These were the following: Alliance/Security Survey (1981), International Attitudes Survey (1976), International Survey (1955), and International Survey (1969). Each of these purported to include samples from several European nations and to contain 20 to 30 foreign policy questionnaire items. However, the documentation and code books were very sketchy, and the data on the tapes were not interpretable by any computer routine at the United States Military Academy at West Point or the University of Florida. Extensive efforts by the author and others to use these data in their machine-readable form were unsuccessful. Russell Dalton (Florida State University), Richard Eichenberg (Tufts University), and Mark Dehaven (University of Florida) concur that these data in their current condition are not usable. This leaves only the Eurobarometer surveys available for original, machinereadable data analysis of European foreign policy attitudes.




CHAPTER III
THE STRUCTURE, CONTENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION
American and European policy makers (as well as those in the Soviet Union) are vitally interested in the public support in the West for security policies, because in today's Western, pluralistic societies the electorate in large measure establishes at least the margins if not the outlines for policy alternatives. The increasing importance of public opinion and mass attitudes on national security and foreign policy decision making in the postwar era has been clearly documented (Bertram, 1983; Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983; Flynn and Rattinger, 1985). In regard to the Atlantic Alliance, West European attitudes are critical to the future cohesion or disunity among the member nations.
This chapter examines how Europeans structure their
system of beliefs about Atlantic cooperation. These attitudes can be defined as diffuse affectivity toward other West European nations and the United States and can be
1
favorable or unfavorable. Atlantic cooperation is operationalized by aggregating survey items that deal with broad goals and fundamental beliefs. This concept is used




in an effort to generalize beyond specific issues and policy opinions to determine the structure of the underlying belief system.
This research agenda grows out of the concern that attitudinal structure may be related to Western harmony. The cohesion within the Alliance is increasingly believed to be under great strain. This perception has existed for about a decade, since the mid to late 1970s when the EastWest detente started to erode. Concern over Western unity is nothing new. 2 However, intra-Alliance policy debates have tended to become disputes about fundamental issues (Cohen, 1982-83; Hoffmann, 1981; Joffe, 1981). These have included questions about the extent of Europe's dependence on the United States for its security, the nature of the Soviet threat, and the value and desirability of cooperation in areas other than the defense of Western Europe. An understanding of how these and other issues are arrayed within the matrix of beliefs held by European publics should provide some insight into the nature and extent of the underlying support for the Alliance.
Goals and Expectations
Analysts differ in regard to their theoretical expectations about the structure of belief systems. Some look for simplicity, others look for complexity, and in differing degrees both groups find empirical support for their expectations. These contending views have been labeled the




"unidimensionalist" and "multidimensionalist" (Stimson, 1975). The first of these is represented by Philip Converse who emphasizes consistency and simplicity, in which a single powerful liberal-conservative axis should be sufficient to orient beliefs. People whose attitudes display such a pattern of constraint are labeled "ideologues" (Converse, 1964).
The alternative view is that people structure their
political attitudes in a manner too complex to be explained unidimensionally. This multidimensional approach challenges the value placed on parsimony by Converse. Marcus et al. argue for the necessity of distinguishing between the structure and the content of belief systems. "Without knowing the general principles one uses in forming his opinions, we cannot classify any one individual on the basis of his responses to specific political issues as demonstrating high or low levels of structure" (1974:407). Thus, they allow for the existence of complex belief systems structured in any number of ways. It becomes the task of the analyst to discover the structure rather than find the ideologues.
The intent of this chapter is to develop a conceptual
map for the constructs underlying the European belief system toward Atlantic cooperation. Are the attitudes toward the EEC and NATO related? If so, perhaps some sort of an internationalist-isolationist continuum exists. Are the views of Europeans toward the United States affected by their views toward defense spending or the military




Alliance? In this case a hawk-dove dimension may be the best explanation. How many of these conceptual dimensions must be created to describe European attitudes adequately? Is there any structure at all? Perhaps European attitudes toward these issues are fragmented with no systematic, conceptual connectedness.
Understanding the manner in which Europeans structure
their attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation is essential for furthering our theoretical knowledge of European political culture and for providing the basis for informed policy initiatives. With a unidimensional continuum underlying these beliefs, interpretation and measurement are relatively easy; however, policy makers may have little room for alternatives, depending on the distribution of opinion. In this case, all foreign policy issue areas would be viewed by the public in terms of a single ideological construct, and opinion could easily become polarized, with compromise difficult and ideological disputes probable.
on the other hand, with a bi- or multidimensional structure, Europeans would distinguish between types of issues, perhaps based upon regional, military, economic, or other conceptual criteria, and the distribution of opinion for these various constructs would be independent and crosscutting rather than overlapping. As a result, conceptual interpretation would be more complex; however, policy elites might have more latitude to build or draw upon support in one issue area without affecting others.




Observers of American mass opinion have engaged in a
rich empirical dialogue over the manner in which the American public structures it attitudes toward foreign policy. There is agreement among these analysts that the traditional unidimensional (internationalist-isolationist) structure of foreign policy opinion ended with Vietnam, and that a new multidimensional belief system has emerged. The focus of the current debate is on the number of conceptual dimensions necessary to explain adequately the new structure of American foreign policy attitudes. 3
A similar debate about the structure of European
foreign policy beliefs has not occurred. Existing studies of European attitudes toward foreign policy seem to concentrate on current events and politicized issues rather than on underlying constructs. For example, Werner J. Feld and John K. Wildgen (1982), in their extensive examination of European opinion on foreign policy and security issues, NATO and the Atlantic Defense: Perceptions and Illusions,
interpreted a number of cross-national comparisons of single survey items. Kenneth P. Adler and Douglas Wertman (1981) as well as David Capitanchik and Richard Eichenberg (1983) reported on similar data in which respondents from several West European countries were compared with regard to their support for NATO, defense spending, and other concerns. Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger's (1985) edited volume, The Public and Atlantic Defense, includes contributions for Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and




Norway, and it contains over 200 tables and figures of European opinion data, but all are of single questionnaire items. Studies of this type are essential for discerning European opinion and trends on specific issues, but they do not address the broader questions of the nature and structure of belief systems.
The employment of scaling and modeling techniques to examine public support for underlying constructs distinguishes this study from others preceding it. As just mentioned, existing studies of European foreign policy attitudes rely almost exclusively on single-item measures, such as support for defense spending, support for the new missiles in Europe, opinions on NATO, and so on; however, there are important reasons why the multi-item scales used here are superior to single-item indicators. First, it is very unlikely that a single survey question can fully represent a complex theoretical concept. Second, singleitem indicators lack the precision to discriminate among fine degrees of an attitude; and third, they are usually less reliable than multi-item scales because single items are more prone to random error. 4 For these reasons, the methods employed here should result in a considerable advance in our theoretical understanding of European attitudes.




Findings and Analyses
To examine the structure of West European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation the survey Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) was used. The Eurobarometers are a continuous, semiannual series of sample surveys administered in Europe. Eurobarometer 14 was chosen for this study, despite its being somewhat dated, because among the Eurobarometers it contains the largest selection of foreign policy items. Of the approximately 50 substantive questionnaire items, 11 dealt with international affairs and foreign policy concerns suitable for this study. Table 3-1 lists these items. Each is identified by an abbreviation followed by a simple assertion that summarizes it.
The responses to these items required recoding to achieve the uniformity and monotonic, ordinal ranking necessary for eventual Likert scaling. Responses were given a higher numerical score the more strongly they agreed with the assertion, and a lower numerical score the more strongly they disagreed with it. Scores for all items were recoded to range from 1 to 7 to ensure that items and responses were weighted equally for eventual scaling.5 The original question wordings and the coded response categories are provided in Appendix A.
The variables listed in Table 3-1 cover a wide range of attitudes suitable for placing security issues into the broader perspective of Atlantic cooperation. The items on the unification of Europe and EEC membership (UNIEUR and




TABLE 3-1
SURVEY ITEMS MEASURING EUROPEAN ATTITUDES
TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION
INTLEXP: (International Expectations). The coming year will be one troubled with much international discord.
DEFPRI: (Defense Priority). Maintaining strong defense forces should be given top or second priority within our nation for the next 10 years.
UNIEUR: (Unify Europe). Efforts being made to unify Europe should be pursued.
EECMEM: (EEC Membership). Membership in the Common Market by our nation is a good thing.
NATOESS: (NATO Essential). NATO is still essential to our country's security.
NATOSPT: (Support of NATO). Our defense spending in support of NATO should be increased.
TRUSTUS: (Trustworthiness of Americans). The Americans are very trustworthy.
FORPOL: (Foreign Policy). In the conduct of its foreign policy, our country should join with the other EEC member states and the United States to develop a common Atlantic foreign policy.
ECPOL: (Economic Policy). In the conduct of its economic policy, our country should develop a common economic policy by working closely with the other EEC member states, the United States, and Japan.
SCTYPOL: (Security Policy). Our country should provide for its security in the 1980s by continuing in NATO with the countries of Western Europe, the United States, and Canada.

Source: Eurobarometer 14, October 1980.




EECMEM) focus specifically on regional cooperation. The defense priority variable (DEFPRI) measures support for domestic defense efforts as distinct from the defense of the Alliance. Economic concerns are addressed by two questions, those on economic coordination and the Common Market (ECPOL and EECMEM). The Alliance is not mentioned at all in seven of the questions, so these should provide particularly good indicators of the relationship between attitudes on NATO and other Western cooperation issues. The variable measuring trust for the United States (TRUSTUS) is essential to this research, because views of the United States are fundamental to what was defined earlier as Atlantic cooperation. Respondents believing the United States to be untrustworthy would probably have low support for Atlantic cooperation. The question on international expectations (INTLEXP) is a broad variable which asks for a prediction of the level of international tension in the coming year. Attitudes on this question may be related to cooperation; for example, respondents expecting a high level of international tension may be more inclined to support a higher level of Western cooperation.
Structure and Content
To determine the number of conceptual dimensions, a factor analysis of survey data was used as an exploratory guide. The widespread use of factor analysis in similar research throughout the social sciences, and its readily




interpretable results, testify to its appropriateness for this task, although other techniques, such as cluster analysis and LISREL, would also be applicable. Groups of survey items identified with the separate factors can be interpreted as representing different attitudinal dimensions. Since no preconceived ideas about the structures existed, nor was there any a priori reason to believe that the dimensions should be orthogonal, the principal components method of factor analysis with both varimax and oblique rotation was used (Kim and Mueller, 1978).
The results of the principal components factor analysis of the variables just discussed are displayed in Table 3-2. Respondents from four countries were included: France, West Germany, Italy, and Britain. The samples from each of these countries were weighted to reflect their proportions of the aggregate population.6
Table 3-2 reflects varimax orthogonal rotation. Only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were rotated.7 The center column (h2) displays the communalities.8 The orthogonal (uncorrelated factors) solution is actually a subcase of the oblique (correlated factors). If orthogonality empirically exists between the clusters of variables, then an oblique rotation will result in an orthogonal solution and the two sets of computer output would be identical (Rummel, 1970:386). A separate oblique solution was generated which displayed the same factor




TABLE 3-2
THE DIMENSIONALITY OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES (Principal Components Factor Analysis)

Unrotated Orthogonally
Factors Rotated Factorsa
I II III h2 I
NATOSPT .61 -.44 .04 .57 .75 .00 .03
NATOESS .70 -.27 -.06 .57 .73 .18 -.08
SCTYPOL .66 -.16 .06 .46 .63 .26 .03
DEFPRI .30 -.53 .05 .37 .55 -.24 .07
TRUSTUS .54 -.08 -.15 .32 .48 .23 -.19
EECMEM .41 .67 -.01 .61 -.07 .78 -.08
UNIEUR .50 .52 .04 .51 .10 .71 -.03
ECPOL .44 .39 .11 .35 .12 .58 .05
FORPOL .55 .12 .11 .33 .38 .43 .07
INTLEXP -.08 -.05 .98 .96 -.03 .01 .98

Source:

Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980).

aVarimax rotation. Only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 have been rotated. (Eigenvalues: Factor I=2.59; II=1.46; III=1.01.)
Note:
- Mean substitution of missing data (N=4234).
- Four nations: Britain, France, West Germany, Italy. National samples weighted to reflect their proportion of the aggregate population.
- The total variation accounted for by the 3 factors is
50.6%.
- All loadings rounded to two places.
- Loadings equal to or greater than an absolute value of .40 are underlined.




structure with only minor deviations in the loadings from those on Table 3-2, so the factors can be accepted as being orthogonal.9
The first two orthogonally rotated factors in Table 3-2 each contain several variables and appear to be distinct attitudinal dimensions based on the .40 criterion for loadings. 10Factor I is comprised of primarily military items and could perhaps be labeled military cooperation. This dimension includes both of the NATO variables, the security policy question, the defense priority variable, and the question on trust for the United States. The second rotated factor is broader in scope and could perhaps be labeled nonmilitary cooperation. It includes the two regional questions dealing with membership in the EEC and the unification of Europe, as well as the two general variables regarding collective Atlantic economic and foreign policies. International expectations (INTLEXP) are not related to either the military or nonmilitary cooperation factors. Whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about future international tensions is not related to one's views on Atlantic cooperation, so for the purposes of this study, INTLEXP and the third factor will not be considered further.
The variables loading on the factors form distinct conceptual clusters. In regard to military security and defense, respondents scoring high on the military cooperation dimension are likely to support NATO (NATOSPT and NATOESS), to hold the United States in high esteem




(TRUSTUS), and to place a high priority on strong defense forces within their country (DEFPRI), as opposed to preferring a purely European, independent, or neutralist security posture. Those scoring highest on the nonmilitary cooperation dimension place a high value on economic and foreign policy cooperation among Western nations (ECPOL and FORPOL), support regional cooperation (EECMEM), and favor European unification (UNIEUR).
The results displayed in Table 3-2 indicate a bidimensional structure for European attitudes along two distinct aspects of Atlantic cooperation. (Separate analyses by nation support this conclusion. 1) The two dimensions can be interpreted as distinguishing between both the ends and means of policy. Military and nonmilitary issues are different policy ends, so Europeans discriminate between these policies and formulate their attitudes accordingly. However, if Atlantic cooperation is viewed as a unifying concept, then the means of cooperation appear to be determinants of how beliefs are structured, with military cooperation and nonmilitary cooperation being supported or opposed for quite different reasons. At present, European beliefs seem to be avoiding the potential polarization that could result from a unidimensional structure. However, this bidimensional structure is relatively parsimonious and contains considerable explanatory value.
Europeans appear to place domestic military priorities within the context of Atlantic military cooperation. If




domestic military concerns were evaluated apart from the Alliance, the defense priority variable (DEFPRI) would have loaded onto a unique factor much the same as the question on international expectations. However, DEFPRI is strongly related to the military cooperation factor. Thus, when Europeans consider their defense budgets and force allocations, they do so as if from the perspective of Western cooperation and Atlantic defense, rather than from a strictly nationalistic, independent perspective. In other words, this suggests that Europeans may view their armies as if they were Atlantic (or perhaps European) entities. This may be stretching a point, and certainly cross-national variations exist (one wonders to what extent Frenchmen consider the force de frappe an Atlantic rather than French force); however, this relationship between domestic military priorities and Atlantic military cooperation is a notable finding with major implications for Alliance decision makers to consider.
The variable measuring trust for the United States (TRUSTUS) is also suggestive. Apparently, when military security and the defense of Europe are at issue, the United States is highly trusted among those who support military cooperation; but on other items dealing with economics, internal European affairs, or foreign affairs in general, views toward the United States are less consistent. Respondents can favor nonmilitary cooperation without trusting the United States and vice versa. Perhaps this helps to explain




why European publics see no contradiction in opposing United States policy in Central America or the Middle East while at the same time continuing to support the Western Alliance. Military cooperation refers primarily to the defense of Europe.
Thus, the bidimensional structure of European foreign policy attitudes provides some novel insights into the European belief system. Europeans perceive military affairs as conceptually distinct from cooperation in other areas of foreign policy. National military forces are considered elements of the Alliance rather than as independent entities. Attitudes toward the United States are related primarily to the American role of defender of Europe rather than that of world leader. The two dimensions, military and nonmilitary cooperation, are orthogonal: while Europeans may score high on both factors or low on both, they may also diverge their thinking by supporting one and opposing the other.
Distribution of opinion
Based on the results of the factor analysis, the
numerically coded responses to the items loading on the two rotated factors were summed for each respondent to create two Likert type scales: military cooperation (MILCOOP) and nonmilitary cooperation (NONMIL). 12 These scales represent the two orthogonal attitudinal dimensions discussed above. In this way the data were aggregated and




respondents were scored along a range of values from 5 to 35 for MILCOOP and from 4 to 28 for NONMIL. 13High scores represent support for the dimensional concept, and low scores represent opposition.
Cronback's alpha coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the scales. 14 MILCOOP achieved an alpha = .70 and NONMIL an alpha = .60. These are relatively high values. Additionally, no item unduly depressed the value of alpha; in other words, the deletion of any item from either scale would not have substantially increased the value of alpha for that scale. For these reasons, along with the clear indications received from the factor analysis, both scales are accepted as reliable measures. 15
Interpreting scores along a summnated scale raises
problems. The scale represents an underlying attitudinal continuum; however, one cannot provide an absolute interpretation of a respondent's score in terms of that continuum because the Likert technique, unlike the Guttman method, does not rank the survey items. The interpretation of a score anywhere along a summnated scale is dependent on the distribution of the scores of the group of respondents. In other words, scores can be defined as being favorable or unfavorable toward the underlying concept only relative to the other scores of the group. This is because the "neutral" point on the continuum is not known, and there is no evidence to suggest that it corresponds to the midpoint of the scale values (Mclver and Carmines, 1981:27,28).




The interpretation of scores is possible, however, when made relative to the mean. With the mean score for the group as the point of origin, the scores for individual respondents can be expressed as deviations from the mean. By assuming that the mean represents the typical or average attitude of the sample, scores that are higher than the mean can be interpreted as being more favorable to the measured concept than the average for the group, and scores that are lower than the mean can be interpreted as being less favorable than the average (McIver and Carmines, 1981:28). In this way the sample of respondents can be dichotomized along each scale into those who support and oppose the concept. 16
This technique was applied to the European sample.
Table 3-3 displays the distribution of the sample in relation to the mean of each scale. Respondents' positions on these dimensions relative to the scale means were used to partition the sample into four mutually exclusive categories. This joint distribution of the sample allows for generalizations to be made about attitudinal types. 17
Figure 3-1 labels and depicts attitudinal types and their percentage distribution within a four-cell model. Atlanticists score positively on both dimensions. They support the Western military Alliance and other security measures, and they also favor Atlantic and European cooperation in areas such as the economy, foreign policy, and the Common Market. Isolationists on the other hand oppose both military and nonmilitary Atlantic cooperation. A third




TABLE 3-3
DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES
ALONG TWO DIMENSIONS
(Percentages)

Military Cooperation (MILCOOP)

Nonmilitary Cooperation
(NONMIL)

55%

54%

100%
4234

100%
4234

Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980).
Note:
- Four nations: France, West Germany, Italy, Great Britain.
- National samples weighted to reflect their proportions of
the aggregate population.
- Percentages represent sample distribution above and below
the mean for each scale.

Support Oppose

Total




Support
Military Cooperation

MILITARY ALLIES

21%

IATLANTICISTS

34%

Oppose Nonmilitary Cooperation

S upport Nonmilitary Cooperation
ISOLATIONISTS I DOVISH PARTNERS

25%

20%

Oppose
Military Cooperation
Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980).
Note:
- Four nations: Great Britain, West Germany, France, and
Italy.
- Original N = 4234; national samples weighted to reflect
their proportions of the aggregate population.
- Categories derived from the joint distribution along the
two orthogonal attitudinal dimensions: military and
nonmilitary cooperation.
Figure 3-1. Structure and distribution of European
attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation: A
typology.




group, the Dovish Partners, disagree with the need for defense alliances and military preparations; however, they welcome Atlantic cooperation in nonmilitary areas. Those in the final category, the Military Allies, see a need for cooperation to ensure their military security, but beyond that they are less cooperative and more independent; they are less willing to contribute to the EEC or forge a common Western economic policy, but instead see greater opportunities arising from independent efforts in these nonmilitary areas.
The distribution of respondents among the four attitudinal types is revealing. The largest single category is that of the Atlanticists with only 34%. Nevertheless, the overall message conveyed by this model is clear; West Europeans overwhelmingly support cooperation of one type or another (the Isolationists account for only 25% of the sample), but Europeans are far from united about the nature or type of Atlantic cooperation that should be pursued. There is sufficient opposition within each of the two attitudinal dimensions, as Table 3-3 illustrated, to stir up the public debate on specific issues despite the large percentage of the population that is not categorized as being Isolationist.
There is obviously considerable variation among the
individuals constituting each of the categories that cannot be accounted for. Respondents may be positioned on vectors very close to adjacent categories blurring distinctions, or




there may also be differences in intensity of opinion among respondents in the same category as defined by their distance from the origin. However, problems of this nature exist whenever data are being aggregated and must be endured in some measure to achieve the research goal of generalization.
Cross-National Variation
The four national samples were each dichotomized on both scales using the means derived from the European sample. The national samples no longer required weighting since they were being analyzed separately. Support and opposition for the two dimensions of Atlantic cooperation are presented in Table 3-4 by nation.
West Germans display the highest support for both types of cooperation. This is significant because "much of the current concern about a 'crisis' in the Atlantic Alliance can be traced to worries about developments in the Federal Republic of Germany" (Capitanchik and Eighenberg, 1983:57). Given the large peace demonstrations, the growth of the unilateralist Green party, the defense program of the SPD, serious questions have been raised about the future role of West Germany within the Alliance. Policy makers in other Western nations are not accustomed to being concerned with pacifism in West Germany. In the past, the fear of German militarism guided much of European diplomacy; thus, "as Willy Brandt and others have observed, it is novel indeed to




TABLE 3-4
DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES
ALONG TWO DIMENSIONS BY NATION
(Percentages)

France

W. Ger.

Italy Britain

Military Cooperation

Support Oppose

19% 81
100%

Total

983

79%
21

100% 995

Nonmilitary Cooperation

Support Oppose

Total

100% 986

101% 1008

Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980). Note: Percentages represent sample distribution above and
below the mean for each dimension.

41% 59

72% 28

100% 1108

100% 1131

99% 1108

101% 1132




hear complaints about Germans marching for peace" (Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983:57). Although the concerns about West German sentiment might continue, Table 3-4 is clear in showing a substantial reservoir of support for Atlantic cooperation among the West German public.
The bifurcated national samples were also crosstabulated as in the previous section to create the four attitudinal classifications. These sample distributions by type for each nation are displayed in Table 3-5. The largest single group among the four countries is West Germany's Atlanticists who comprise 58% of the German sample. The French have the smallest percentage of Atlanticists and the largest percentage of Isolationists. The British are largely Military Allies and the Italians Dovish Partners.
The Atlanticist outlook of the West German respondents may have resulted from the unique circumstances in which the Federal Republic evolved and from the diplomatic strategy it has undertaken. Upon its establishment in 1949, the Federal Republic enjoyed little international legitimacy and possessed no military power or diplomatic influence. With an absolute security deficit initially, West Germany had to be dependent on the United States to balance the power of the Soviet Union. In pursuit of respectability and national sovereignty, Chancellor Adenauer became a "compulsive joiner," believing that membership in international organizations would create the appearance of equality and




TABLE 3-5
DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES
BY TYPE OF NATION
(Percentages)

France W. Ger. Italy Britain

Atlanticists

Military Allies Dovish Partners Isolationists Total

12%

58%
21 12

33%
8

29% 43

46 9 22 23

100% 983

100%
995

100% 1108

100%
1131

Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980).
Note: Categories derived from the joint distribution of the
sample along the two orthogonal attitudinal dimensions: military and nonmilitary cooperation.




provide opportunities to influence events (Joffe, 1985:79). West Germany became the most integrationist of the European nations.
While pursuing the policies of integration abroad, Adenauer also cultivated the legitimizing ideologies of Europeanism and anti-Communism at home. Following the catastrophic results of the Third Reich's ultranationalism, the notion of a "European fatherland" provided a necessary and legitimate outlet for the demoralized population (Joffe, 1985:88). It is within this framework of dependence and transnationalism that the high level of Atlanticist sentiment in West Germany has been fostered.
The Isolationists must be interpreted carefully. This group is not to be viewed as being necessarily pacifist or neutralist. Although respondents holding those views would be in this category, the survey items do not specifically measure those positions. The Isolationists are probably a rather heterogeneous grouping of Gaullists, neutralists, independents, and pacifists who share only the attitudinal trait of opposing Atlantic cooperation for one reason or another. For example, in a 1982 poll in France, only 16% held the view that France should abandon all armaments and adopt an absolutely neutral position in world affairs (Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983:56). This is much smaller than the 46% of the French sample seen in Table 3-5 to be the Isolationist category; these respondents are apparently not all neutralists.




The foreign policy orientations of the French depicted in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 reflect the goals and interests of postwar France. If Adenauer was a "compulsive joiner," General de Gaulle and his predecessors in the Fourth Republic clearly were not. France initially proposed the European Defense Community but then ended it by refusing to join in 1954; de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application to the EEC in 1963 on the grounds that Britain was too closely aligned with the United States; and in 1966 he withdrew French forces from the integrated military command of NATO. The General aspired to revive France's former rank and status as a great power. To do this he demanded for France the ability to decide its own fate in international relations, independent of any limiting arrangements. He also pursued for France the role of maintaining a balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union by not being singularly aligned to either. Long after de Gaulle's departure, his views in large measure continue to underlie French attitudes.
The British appear in Table 3-5 to be predominantly
Military Allies, supporters of NATO and coordinated defense planning but opposed to other forms of cooperation. Geography and history have created within the British a traditionally weak "European" identity. This, together with the recent memory of being denied membership into the EEC by France until 1973 and the continuing quarrel between Britain and all the other Common Market countries about EEC budgets




and disbursements, may explain the British distaste for nonmilitary cooperation. On the other hand, the high support (72%) for military cooperation among the British respondents seen in Table 3-4 may be a result of the generally favorable experiences of Anglo-American cooperation during World War II and the postwar circumstance in which Britain was the only major European nation which was neither defeated nor occupied. This condition enabled Britain to retain for some time its great power status and explains the absence of any deep-seated need for national reassertiveness of the kind felt by the French.
Italy's categorization as Dovish Partners (37% in
Table 3-5) seems to fit its distinctive relationship with the Alliance. Originally a reluctant participant, it was Allied diplomatic pressure and Italy's dependence on the Marshall Plan that compelled Italy to become a member. This lack of support for military cooperation is reflected in Italy's remarkably low material contribution to NATO: defense spending that is well below the NATO average and one of the lowest levels of military manpower as a percentage of males aged 18 to 45 (Putnam, 1977:296). At the same time, Italy enthusiastically supports the Common Market, shows no signs of desiring a Gaullist type of foreign policy, and seems content to remain dependent on the American presence as its security guarantee at very little cost to Italians. Pierre Hassner' s description of Italian attitudes as




"pacifist Atlanticism" appropriately fits the data from Italy in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 (cited in Putnam, 1977:296).
The model presented here offers empirical support at the mass level for distinctive national characteristics. The typology of attitudinal categories describes four alternative views of Western cooperation, each of which seems to correspond to one of the four nations selected for this study. These representations are validated to some extent by national traditions, interests, and options. Linkages between this attitudinal model and political behavior, along with the implications raised by this research for the Alliance' s cohesion, represent a substantial agenda for future research.
Conclusion
The primary finding of this chapter is that the
European public is capable of structuring its foreign policy attitudes in a relatively parsimonious manner. The European belief system is not overly complex and as such allows for ease of interpretation and measurement. 18A bidimensional attitudinal structure appears to exist along the lines of Atlantic military and nonmilitary cooperation. This structure avoids the potential dangers of political polarization inherent in a unidimensional belief system. Presently, it appears that Europeans consider military matters to be qualitatively different from other types of Atlantic




cooperation. Additionally, beliefs on one dimension do not automatically affect those on the other.
The analytical approach used demonstrates that it is possible to generalize about the dimensions of European public attitudes underlying various issues and policy disputes. 19The method of probing the data with factor analysis and using Likert techniques to measure support for attitudinal dimensions offers distinct advantages over the single-indicator approach with its inherent instability as a measure of underlying constructs. A maximum amount of information is preserved and combined to create measures of a higher order than individual survey items.
The descriptive purpose of this research--examining the conceptual structure of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation--has been accomplished. What remains is to link the data and the model to some general notions about what has been happening to public attitudes and European politics over the past few years.
Support for the general concept of Atlantic cooperation does not translate into support for specific policies. The data in Figure 3-1 depict the Isolationists as comprising only 25% of the population. This would seem to indicate a large majority favoring some form of cooperation, yet there is considerable opposition to spending more on defense, despite the fact that there has been a specific Alliance policy calling for an annual 3% increase. There continues to be distaste for the deployment of the new intermediate




range nuclear weapons as part of the December 1979 dualtrack decision. Disputes also exist over the Common Agricultural Policy and the admittance of new members into the EEC, and there appears to be little European support for United States policies in Central America and elsewhere.
These divergent tendencies appear to be between general goals and specific policies; a "goals versus instruments" dilemma (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985:382,383). Political goals comprising positive affective evaluations are endorsed, such as Atlantic cooperation, deterrence, European unity, and economic growth. However, the specific means required to promote these goals, such as military spending, particular weapons systems, and economic austerity programs, are normally unpopular with the general public and are therefore opposed. The analytical problem thus becomes determining whether goals or instruments are the correct operational measure; the focus in this chapter has been on the general goal of Atlantic cooperation. The political problem lies in trying to convert the broad support for goals, which this project seems to have uncovered in part, into support for specific policies.
Just as broad affective support for goals does not lead to policy consensus, policy disputes do not portend the imminent peril of the Alliance. The past 40 years are evidence of this reality. However, one can only speculate at what point continued intra-Alliance conflicts, combined




with uncertain international pressures, begin to erode the underlying support for general goals.
The peace movements in Europe reflect in part the
political tensions that challenge Western unity. Generally, these movements seem strongest in West Germany and Britain. France and Italy have experienced nothing resembling the level of protest and political activism over security issues that exists in Britain and Germany. 20 Additionally, the British Labour party and the SPD in Germany have developed positions which strongly challenge NATO policies. The parties of the Left in France and Italy, however, have not taken up these issues. And of course there is no protest party as successful as the German Greens in either France or Italy, although there is an Ecology party in France and the Italian Radicals are very similar to the Greens in social base and program.
This research reveals that these different levels of
protest are highest in those countries with the most support for military cooperation (as shown in Table 3-4). Large majorities in both Britain and West Germany score high on the military cooperation scale, while in Italy and France military cooperation tends to be opposed.
The finding appears to be anomalous. One would intuitively expect the peace movements to be greatest in those countries with the lowest levels of underlying support for Atlantic military affairs, but that is not the case. The Socialists tenure of power from 1981 to 1986 may explain the




French case. The leaders of the bourgeois opposition parties in France were not likely to promote anti-Western proposals and Mitterand's government supported Alliance policies. Additionally, within France the force de frappe has become an object of national pride not criticism, thus deflecting anti-nuclear sentiment (Dumont, 1985). In Italy, the close association of the Communist party with the peace movement as well as the perceived absence of genuine Italian roots in the movement may have contributed to its small following (Rossi and Ilari, 1985). The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been firmly established for many years in Britain and has become a big organization with large resources (Boyd, 1985). It remains capable of generating considerable political activity among its many supporters. Traditional German angst, a contentious younger generation, and the unique geographic situation of the Federal Republic seem likely explanations for the strength of the peace movement there, despite the large amount of Atlanticist sentiment evident in Table 3-5.
There are several possible scenarios which may develop out of this anomalous condition. The one most favorable to the Western Alliance would be a decline in the levels of public protest in Britain and West Germany combined with an increase in the affective support for Atlantic cooperation in France and Italy. The outcome most unfavorable would be an erosion of the high levels of underlying support that exists in Britain and West Germany as a result of continuous




political pressure by the mobilized activists who oppose
military cooperation, along with the politicization of these
issues among those in France and Italy who currently harbor
latent opposition to military cooperation. These alternative possibilities underscore the substantial effects that
European mass attitudes can have on the future cohesion of
the Atlantic Alliance.
Notes
l"Affectivity" is used in the psychological sense to refer to subjective emotions and feelings. The other psychological components of attitudes are the "cognitive" (objective evaluations) and the "behavioral"; see Carl I. Hovland and Milton J. Rosenberg, Attitude Organization and Change (1960:1-14).
2The list of "crises" within the Alliance is long. For an early assessment of some of the disputes, see Henry A. Kissinger, The Troubled Partnership: A Re-appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance (1966); a more recent analysis is Alfred Grosser, The Atlantic Alliance (1982).
3There are several contending descriptions for this new American multidimensional belief system. A relatively complex multidimensional structure with five interpretable dimensions is presented in Barbara Bardes and Robert Oldendick, "Beyond Internationalism: A Case for Multiple Dimensions in the Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes" (1978). American respondents are categorized as conservative internationalists, liberal internationalists, and noninternationalists in Michael Mandelbaum and William Schneider, "The New Internationalism" (1979). American attitudes are described with a four-cell typology with the categories of internationalists, accommodationists, hardliners, and isolationists in Eugene R. Wittkopf, "The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes: An Alternative View" (1981).
4For a discussion of the advantages and techniques of various scaling methods, see John P. McIver and Edward G. Carmines, Unidimensional Scaling (1981).
5The number of response categories varied between
items. A range of 1 to 7 was used to recode the numerical values of the responses so that the range of values would be




equivalent for all items. For example, items with three responses--(1), (2), and (3)--were recoded (1), (4), and
(7); and items with four responses--(1), (2), (3), and
(4)--were recoded (1), (3), (5), and (7). In each case the higher numbers reflect greater support for Atlantic cooperation. For the factor analysis this recoding is not necessary; however, for the summative scales discussed in the next section it is essential.
6Missing data on any questions were automatically
recoded to the mean for that item. In this way no respondents were deleted from the analysis. Additional analyses using pairwise and listwise deletion of missing data yielded essentially identical factor solutions.
7Eigenvalues are produced by the principal components method and are useful in determining the number of relevant dimensions. This statistic is computed for each of the factors generated by the analysis up to the number of variables entered, and it can be interpreted as the total variance explained by each factor. In a principal components analysis, factors are standardized such that total variance equals the number of variables, and each variable has a variance of 1. For this reason, factors with eigenvalues less than 1 are no better than a single variable, and the normal criterion is to accept as valid conceptual dimensions only those factors with eigenvalues greater than
1. See Marija I. Norusis, SPSSx Advanced Statistics Guide (1985).
8Communalities can be interpreted as the proportion of a variable's total variance that is accounted for by all of the factors, and it is derived from the sum of the squared loadings for a variable. These values do not change with rotation. The percent of variance in a variable accounted for by all of the factors is h2 x 100. Variables with extremely low communalities would be deleted because of their limited contribution to the model. The sum of h2 values x 100 equals the percent of total variance in all of the variables accounted for by the factors. See R. J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis (1970).
9The correlations between the rotated factors in the oblique solution are listed below. These low coefficients support the conclusion for orthogonality.
Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor I 1.00
Factor II .20 1.00
Factor III -.01 -.09 1.00
10The figures entered in the factor columns are the
"loadings." These measure the degree to which variables are related to the factors. Specifically, they are correlation




81
coefficients between variables and factors. The square of the loading times 100 equals the percent of a variable's variance accounted for by the factor. Normally, according to Rummel (1970:139), factors are interpreted as consisting only of those variables with loadings equal to or greater than an absolute value of .40; that is, those variables with 16% or more of their variation explained by the factor. Factor loadings meeting the criterion have been underscored, and they can be used to identify which variables belong to which factors. The communalities and loadings together show at a glance how the data are ordered and explained by the factors.
11In separate analyses for each national sample, a
two-factor solution produced the loadings listed below. The international expectations item was not included because of its independent effects indicated in Table 3-2.
France W. Ger. Italy Britain
I II I II I II I II
NATOSPT .72 .07 .66 .09 .70 -.05 .79 .12
NATOESS .72 .08 .55 .41 .76 .12 .72 .23
SCTYPOL .53 .29 .54 .23 .67 .18 .61 .24
DEFPRI .43 .26 .54 -.48 .44 -.48 .59 -.08
TRUSTUS .33 .33 .54 .15 .65 .09 .T1 .30
EECMEM .10 .70 .09 .71 .21 .79 -.02 .74
UNIEUR .10 .6-8 .18 .7-2 .27 .7 .07 .J7 ECPOL .02 .66 .09 .33 .40 .21 .05 .67
FORPOL .39 .31 .49 .02 .56 .27 .26 .54
The interpretation from the aggregate sample is generally supported. The items tend to load on the same factors representing military and nonmilitary cooperation (I and II respectively); however, there are some exceptions. The item measuring trust for the United States (TRUSTUS) is associated strongly with neither factor for the French and the British. Also, the question on foreign policy orientation (FORPOL) for the West Germans and the Italians loads on Factor I, military cooperation, rather than on the nonmilitary dimension as with the European sample.
12Another method would be to use factor scores to
construct "factor scales." Factor scores are estimates for respondents on a factor computed by various types of differential weighing of variables based on the factor loadings. However, if the factor analysis is used primarily as a heuristic device for sorting out major clusters of variables, the simpler method of summative scales is preferred. For a comparison of "factor scales" with "factor-based scales," see Jao-On Kim and Charles W. Mueller, Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues
(1985:60-73).




13No effort was made to vary the weight assigned to the items because it has been found that little is to be gained; unweighted and weighted summative scores regularly correlate quite highly according to McIver and Carmines (1981:27).
14Cronbach's alpha coefficient is the preferred estimate of scale reliability according to McIver and Carmines (1981:29). This statistic provides an estimate of reliability based upon the inter-item correlation matrix. Computer routines that test for reliability with alpha also indicate the effects upon the value of alpha if individual items are deleted from the scale. This item analysis provides another source for checking reliability.
15For similar decision rules, see Eugene R. Wittkopf
and Michael A. Maggiotto, "American Public Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy" (1981); and Eugene R. Wittkopf and Michael A. Maggiotto, "Elites and Masses: A Comparative Analysis Toward America's World Role" (1983a).
16This is the technique used by Wittkopf (1981) and Wittkopf and Maggiotto (1981).
17This again borrows from the techniques used by Wittkopf (1981) and Wittkopf and Maggiotto (1981).
18A note of caution should be raised here. The structure derived from exploratory factor analysis is obviously a function of the items entered. There are many other foreign policy issues related to Atlantic cooperation not available in the data set analyzed. As such, the conclusion in regard to the apparent simplicity of the structure of European foreign policy attitudes at the mass level could be exaggerated. Additionally, there is some uncertainty as to the precise interpretation of the second factor. The nature of the items included may indicate support for European or regional cooperation rather than Atlantic cooperation.
19Another note of caution is necessary here and it
concerns the issue of equivalence in cross-cultural survey research. It is possible that survey items may not be perfectly translatable from one language to another. While there is not much that can be done about this when using existing data sets, cognizance of this possibility is necessary.
20For a brief comparison of the origins, activities, and achievements of the peace movements in several countries, see Werner Kaltefleiter and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, eds., The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States (1985).




CHAPTER IV
SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL DETERMINANTS
OF WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES
Fundamental social and political changes are occurring in Western Europe. Traditional power relationships and decision-making patterns are being altered by the spread of mass education, increased social mobility, generational conflict, new forms of interest intermediation, a new agenda of political issues, new forms of political participation, and the realignment of electoral coalitions (Barnes and Kaase, 1979; Dalton et al., 1984; Inglehart, 1977; Schmitter and Lehxnbruch, 1979; Szabo, 1983b). In the midst of these changes, the specific traditions, interests, and crises of individual nations might undercut any broad social or political generalizations (Verba, 1980:400). This chapter assesses the effects of social attributes, political attributes, and national identity on European mass attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation.
An essential task in the analysis of political attitudes is to break down the societal aggregate into its more tangible component parts. It is then possible to distinguish the way in which the attitudes of each part vary from the views of the others. As the size and power of




these societal segments vary, the relative importance of their respective group attitudes varies also. There is a tendency when observing pluralist societies to err by confusing the views of a segment of society with those of the entire society; in other words, to confuse a part with the whole. The media and policy makers often see the will of the majority in a stormy parliamentary debate or a persistent interest group organization. The concern is that "the articulate and the noisy are liable to monopolize the attention of policy makers, and certainly to claim for themselves wider representative status" (Hill, 1981:57).
A related task is to explain the formation of political attitudes. This reflects the ultimate concern for causality which is an underlying or implicit motivation for more sophisticated forms of data analysis in political science. Determining those factors most influential in producing attitudes contributes greatly to the understanding of political behavior and political culture.
Caution is necessary when deciding what kinds of group and variable differences merit attention. While there is an intrinsic interest in political science with correlations and causal analysis, some findings of such correlations often fail to serve any serious theoretical or practical purpose and may in fact border on the trivial. moreover, statistical significance does not mean substantive significance; attitudinal variations of a few percentage points may signify more about the relative uniformity of opinion across




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE WEST EUROPEAN PUBLIC AND THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE By ANDREW H. ZIEGLER, JR. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1987

PAGE 2

Copyright 1987 by Andrew H. Ziegler, Jr.

PAGE 3

For Uncle Freddy

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Over the years, many people and organizations have been very influential in my life and work. It is not possible to acknowledge or even to remember them all, but I want to recognize the special few who have had the greatest impact on this project. Institutional support was provided by several sources. The data utilized were made available in part by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and by the National Archives of the United States in Washington, D.C. Neither the original collectors of the data nor the suppliers bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretations presented here. Funding was provided in part by a grant from the Army Research Institute that was made available by the Science Research Laboratory of the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York. The Computer Systems Division, USMA, funded the ICPSR membership and the purchase of several data sets from the National Archives. Additional financial support was provided by a grant from the Military Educational Foundation, a nonprofit association of faculty members in the Department of Social Sciences, USMA. The IV

PAGE 5

views expressed herein are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the position of any agency of the United States government. I am particularly grateful for the research opportunities afforded me by the Military Academy. During the summer of 1986 and the spring semester of 1987, I was freed from any teaching or departmental responsibilities and was allowed to work unhindered on this book. Special thanks go to Colonel Lee D. Olvey, Professor and Head of the Department of Social Sciences, for making these opportunities possible. I wish to acknowledge with special appreciation and affection the contributions made by my wife, my children, and my parents. I owe Kalli untold gratitude for the understanding, love, and support she has provided throughout this very long and difficult task. It is not trite to say this book would not have been possible without her. Special thanks go to my daughters, Rebekah and Rachel, for being so patient with me. To my parents, Andy and Audrey Ziegler, I owe a great deal; they have been and will continue to be my personal and professional role models, whose values and examples I strive to follow every day. Conscientious mentors are invaluable in any learning endeavor. I have had the privilege of being guided by two, David P. Conradt and Augustus R. Norton, whose scholarly advice and practical exhortations have been indispensable to me during my academic apprenticeship.

PAGE 6

Space does not allow me to detail the very significant contributions of the following people. They have each influenced this book in a major way, and I extend my thanks to them all: Alan Agresti, George Edwards, Warren Heyman, Keith Legg, Hazel Pridgen, John Spanier, Barbara Thomas, Ken Wald, Katherine Williams, and Jim and Shirley Ziegler. VI

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xiv ABSTRACT XV CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: ATTITUDES, POLITICS, AND THE ALLIANCE 1 The Political Setting 2 Foreign Policy Directions 3 Mass Politicization 11 The Analytical Setting 13 The Theoretical Setting 18 The Research Agenda 21 II RESEARCH DESIGN: A MODEL FOR ANALYSIS .... 24 Components of the Model 26 Attitude Structure, Content, and Distribution 27 Determinants 34 Changes and Linkages 39 Summary 41 Cases and Data 41 Notes 45 III THE STRUCTURE, CONTENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OF WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION 4 7 Goals and Expectations 48 vn

PAGE 8

CHAPTER Page Findings and Analyses 53 Structure and Content 55 Distribution of Opinion 61 Cross-National Variation 67 Conclusion 74 Notes 79 IV SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES 83 Goals and Expectations 86 Generational Influences 87 Value Orientations 94 Class Cleavages 97 Educational Influences 100 Partisanship and Ideology 102 Political Participation 109 National Identity 112 Summary 114 Methods of Analysis 116 Findings and Analyses 123 Data 123 Effects of Social and Political Attributes 129 Cross-National Comparisons 138 Multivariate Analysis of Effects 148 Conclusion 153 Notes 158 V WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE: CHANGE OR CONTINUITY? 160 Assumptions Intrinsic to the Alliance 162 The Threat From the Soviet Union 162 Collective Security 164 The Role of the United States 165 Goals and Methods 167 Findings and Analyses 178 The Threat to Western Europe 178 Attitudes Toward Security 193 Images of the United States 213 vin

PAGE 9

CHAPTER Page Conclusion 224 Notes 226 VI INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES 227 International Politics 228 Alternative Explanations for Attitudinal Change 245 Partisanship 246 Postmaterialism 247 The Successor Generation 251 Conclusion 259 Notes 262 VII CONCLUSION: ATTITUDES, POLICIES, AND ALLIANCE COHESION 264 Summary of Major Findings 266 Attitudes and Policies: Patterns of Linkage 269 Britain 270 France 274 West Germany 279 Italy 283 European Integration 286 Elite-Mass Linkage 290 Summary 299 American Attitudes: A Comparison 302 Toward Alliance Cohesion 309 Notes 315 APPENDICES A QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS USED IN CHAPTER III .... 317 B TESTS FOR INTERACTION FROM CHAPTER IV 323 REFERENCES 334 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 3 59 IX

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 3-1 SURVEY ITEMS MEASURING EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION 54 3-2 THE DIMENSIONALITY OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ... 57 3-3 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ALONG TWO DIMENSIONS 64 3-4 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ALONG TWO DIMENSIONS BY NATION 68 3-5 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES BY TYPE OF NATION 70 4-1 HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DETERMINANTS AND ATTITUDES 117 4-2 EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 130 4-3 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 134 4-4 EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION 139 4-5 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION 144 4-6 EFFECTS OF PARTISANSHIP ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 146 4-7 EFFECTS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 150 4-8 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL EFFECTS ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES 151 4-9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EFFECTS ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION ... 154 x

PAGE 11

TABLE 5•1 52 5-3 54 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-19 5-20 Page INDICATIONS OF THE SALIENCE OF FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES IN WEST GERMANY AND ITALY 172 SALIENCE OF DEFENSE IN GREAT BRITAIN 175 ISSUE SALIENCE IN WESTERN EUROPE, 19 84 .... 176 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION 179 ITALIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION ... 182 EUROPEAN PERCEPTION OF THE MILITARY BALANCE 183 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POSSIBILITY OF WAR 184 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT 185 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CAUSES OF INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS, 1984 187 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS 189 BRITISH ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR WAR AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS 190 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO 194 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND NEUTRALISM 195 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ALLIANCE AND NEUTRALISM 196 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND U.S. TROOPS 197 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD SECURITY POLICY ... 199 PERCENT CATEGORIZED AS PLACING A HIGH PRIORITY ON NATIONAL DEFENSE (DEFPRI) 201 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE EFFORTS 202 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 20 4 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AND THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, JULY 1981 206 XI

PAGE 12

TABLE Page 5-21 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD WAR 209 5-22 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ON HOW TO BEST IMPROVE SECURITY, 1981 211 5-23 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD SECURITY IN THE FUTURE, 1984 212 5-2 4 EUROPEAN VIEW OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES 214 5-2 5 GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD AMERICANS 216 5-26 ITALIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE UNITED STATES 217 5-2 7 EUROPEAN RESPECT FOR THE UNITED STATES .... 218 5-28 EUROPEAN CONFIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 220 5-2 9 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EAST-WEST RELATIONSHIP 222 6-1 EVENTS IN THE EAST-WEST RELATIONSHIP 230 6-2 EVENTS IN THE EURO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP 232 6-3 ANTI -AMERICANISM AND POSTMATERIALISM IN EUROPE, 1982 248 6-4 CHANGES IN PREVALENCE OF MATERIALIST AND POSTMATERIALIST VALUE TYPES, 1970-1984 . 250 6-5 THE EFFECTS OF AGE ON WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND THE U.S 2 53 6-6 THE EFFECTS OF AGE AND EDUCATION ON ITALIAN ATTITUDES, 1981 254 6-7 PERCENTAGE OF UNIVERSITY-EDUCATED PEOPLE WHO FAVOR NATO OVER NEUTRALISM, BY AGE, MARCH 1981 255 6-8 EUROPEAN TRUST FOR THE UNITED STATES: A COHORT ANALYSIS 2 57 7-1 ATTITUDES TOWARD EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 2 88 7-2 ELITE PREFERENCES ON THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES, 1980 294 7-3 ELITE PREFERENCES FOR MILITARY SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, 1980 295 XI i

PAGE 13

TABLE Page 7-4 ELITE PREFERENCES ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 1981 297 7-5 ELITE VIEWS OF FOREIGN POLICY ORIENTATIONS, 1981 298 7-6 AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE SPENDING 303 7-7 AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO 305 7-8 AMERICAN ATTITUDES ABOUT THE USE OF U.S. TROOPS 306 B-l SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF INTERACTION TERMS, BY NATION 325 B-2 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR FRANCE 328 B-3 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR WEST GERMANY .... 329 B-4 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR ITALY 330 B-5 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR BRITAIN 331 Xlll

PAGE 14

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1. Individual level attributes 35 2-2. A model of attitude formation, change, and linkage 42 3-1. Structure and distribution of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation: A typology ... 65 4-1. A model of attitude formation and structure 88 4-2. Social and political correlates of attitude types 136 6-1. West German attitudes toward the United States 238 6-2. Italian attitudes toward the United States 239 6-3. British attitudes toward the United States 240 6-4. European attitudes toward the possibility of war 241 6-5. European perceptions of the military balance 243 xiv

PAGE 15

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE WEST EUROPEAN PUBLIC AND THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE by Andrew H. Ziegler, Jr. May 1987 Chairman: David P. Conradt Major Department: Political Science Using original and previously published survey data, this study explores West European public attitudes about Atlantic cooperation in general and NATO in particular. Alternative viewpoints are categorized into a typology that is used to describe the conceptual nature of European beliefs and to measure the level of public support for the different viewpoints. Long-term trends in these attitudes and causal determinants are also examined. A distinguishing feature of this study is that it is truly comparative. The analysis relies on identical survey items administered in four European countries: Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy. This enables cross-national generalizations to be made with confidence; for example, one of the conclusions reached is that among the nations observed, the West German public is clearly the most "Atlanticist" in outlook. xv

PAGE 16

The longitudinal data examined indicate that some fundamental changes have occurred in European security beliefs. Anti-Americanism has increased dramatically at the same time that attitudes toward the Soviet Union have become more favorable, and the fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear war has increased substantially. Explanations for these shifts in opinion are not found in sociological factors, such as changes in generational experiences, educational levels, or social classes; but instead, European attitudes appear to reflect broad changes in international politics, such as the Vietnam War, nuclear parity, and detente. Favorable opinion for NATO tends to be high, yet specific defense-related measures receive much less support. In other words, "NATO" in an abstract sense is popular, but there is no European consensus on various security policies, and in some cases there is widespread opposition. In Britain and West Germany the parliamentary debate over NATO policies has become particularly intense. Thus, the picture that emerges of European support for the Alliance is complex. Western governments will have to tread a delicate path in attempting to structure security policies that form a credible deterrent on the one hand but that reassure the West European public on the other. xvi

PAGE 17

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: ATTITUDES, POLITICS, AND THE ALLIANCE Political cohesion within the Atlantic Alliance seems to be threatened continually (Cohen, 1982/83; Joffe, 1981) In the early 1980s, the political mobilization of the West European public over security affairs presented a new challenge to Western unity (Stoppa-Liebl and Laqueur, 1985) The implications for Euro-American harmony raised by the politicization of Alliance decisions create the need for a more adequate conceptual understanding of the public's attitudes in this issue area (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985:381) This study examines the mass attitudes of West Europeans toward Atlantic cooperation in general and the NATO Alliance in particular. A comprehensive profile is developed of the structure, content, distribution, determinants, trends, and cross-national variation of European beliefs in these areas. The nations of Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy are studied. This analysis also clarifies many of the conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues that have plagued previous empirical research on this topic. The principal concept, or analytical variable, is Atlantic cooperation. Attitudes that are favorably disposed

PAGE 18

toward Atlantic cooperation would support a common EuroAmerican policy perspective along a wide range of issues, including defense policy, economic policy, and other aspects of foreign affairs. The intent is to examine European attitudes on NATO and military security within a large conceptual context. The focus of this study is on fundamental values and underlying constructs rather than on opinions about specific policies. This approach is intentionally broad in an effort to tap into underlying "affective" orientations (Hovland and Rosenberg, 1960) rather than the fleeting, impressionistic opinions generated by current publicized debates on various policies. This introductory chapter and the research design chapter that follows outline the framework within which this analysis takes place. The political setting in Western Europe and some of the analytical and theoretical issues prevalent in the scholarly literature are examined in this chapter. The model which guides the substance of the study is presented in Chapter II. The Political Setting European publics and governments have had to adjust to major changes in the configuration of world politics that emerged following World War II. Most visible of these was the shift in the balance of world power away from the European continent as the two new superpowers became the principal players in world events. Second, the nature of

PAGE 19

strategic military decisions changed fundamentally as the importance of massive nuclear forces became apparent. Third, decolonization and the diffusion of power, resulting from the increased number of international actors, proportionately reduced Europe's influence in the world. And finally, the globalization of the international economy has increased the economic interdependence of Western nations. The domestic politics and national foreign policies of West European nations have varied in responding to these changes in the international system. The nations of Western Europe differ in their national traditions, interests, and options. Historical events and circumstances have shaped these characteristics into distinct political cultures. The political environments of Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy are unique, and the nature and role of public attitudes are heavily influenced by these various national factors. The following section briefly traces the divergent foreign policy goals and constraints of these four nations. The subsequent section discusses a phenomenon common to each: the politicization of foreign policy decision making. Foreign Policy Directions The postwar history of Great Britain has been influenced primarily by the need to adapt to its decline in national economic and political power (Lieber, 1985:1). Following World War II, Britain remained the only major

PAGE 20

European nation which was not invaded, occupied, or defeated. Victorious and relatively unscathed, the British people could continue to look upon themselves as a great world power: one of the Big Three responsible for piecing together the international system. This victorious status hid for some time Britain's weakened international position that was the result of the drastic changes in the structure of global power. This gap between Britain's relative weakness and its continued claim to great-power status has been explained by the "cognitive lag" concept (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:179-180). This view accuses British leaders of failing to adjust to the postwar realities because of a faulty conception of the world. Recognition that Britain's postwar status and power had diminished became clear as events unfolded. In 1947, Britain ceased being the guardian of the continental balance of power by withdrawing its military and economic support from Greece and Turkey; the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan followed, signalling that the United States had assumed Britain's traditional role. Decolonization began in the late 1940s, and the British learned to live with the idea that their vast imperial possessions were being relinquished. (This was accomplished peacefully and pragmatically for the most part, in contrast to the French experience.) The humiliating withdrawal of the British and French forces from the Suez expedition, in 1956, in response to widespread international criticism and the political and

PAGE 21

financial pressure imposed by the United States, clearly illustrated the reduced world role of Britain. This episode marked the last time Britain would mount an independent military operation of any consequence without being assured of American support (Lieber, 1985:4). Britain's relationship with the other West European nations was strained in the decades following the Second k World War. Having emerged from the war as one of the Big Three, Britain resisted the early attempts at creating a unified Europe (Lieber, 1970) The notion of joining with defeated, second-rank nations was unacceptable to a great power. Additionally, Britain was unwilling to break or jeopardize its "special" relationship with the United States or its ties with the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, by 1961, it seemed clear that entry into the Common Market was in Britain's interests; however, the process of joining proved to be protracted and humiliating. French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application, and formal accession was not completed until 1974, five years after de Gaulle's death. This experience left the British resentful, and there remains "a lingering doubt about long-term British commitment to the Common Market" (Lieber, 1985:7). The "prime foreign policy goal" of Great Britain following the war was to achieve a permanent American commitment to the security of Western Europe (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:189, 190). As the lines of East-West confrontation solidified in the late 1940s, British leaders perceived

PAGE 22

a growing military threat from the Soviet Union. The Prague coup in February 1948, the Berlin blockade in June 1948, and the Korean War in 1950, prompted Britain to seek American assistance in maintaining a stable balance of power in Europe. British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was one of the principal architects of the Atlantic Alliance, and the establishment of NATO represented the realization of Britain's primary postwar goal. For France, the pursuit of great-power status and influence has dominated its postwar foreign policy experience. Having been defeated in 1940 and occupied for five years, French national self-definition required an assertive restoration of its former prominent position in world affairs. Although the nation was drastically weakened following the war, "the aspirations of greatness and rank have persisted" (Macridis, 1985:23). French ambitions included a leadership role among West European nations, independence from the East-West conflict, and the maintenance of colonial possessions. These goals were clearly articulated by General de Gaulle in his Memoirs referring to the period immediately following the defeat of Germany: I intended to assure France primacy in Western Europe by preventing the rise of a new Reich that might again threaten her safety; to cooperate with the East and West and, if need be, contract the necessary alliances on one side or another without ever accepting any kind of dependency; to transform the French Union into a free association in order to avoid the as yet unspecified dangers of upheaval. (1960:204; cited in Macridis, 1985:24)

PAGE 23

Within Western Europe, de Gaulle achieved limited success. After being excluded from the Yalta Conference in 1945, de Gaulle ensured French inclusion in the Big Four by insisting on a French zone of occupation in Germany and a French seat on the Allied Control Council (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:98). French statesmen, especially Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, were the driving force in establishing the institutions of the European Community: The European Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market (Grosser, 1982:101-128). Within this European framework, de Gaulle asserted French influence by vetoing Britain's application for membership into the Common Market. However, one of his principal goals — security from Germany by French control over the Saar and a disarmed Germany — was not achieved because of the overriding effects of the Cold War and the establishment of NATO. France asserted itself most dramatically within the East-West arena. The French objective was to remain independent of both blocs. To this end, national nuclear forces, the force de frappe were produced, and eventually, de Gaulle withdrew France from the integrated military command structure of NATO in 1966. De Gaulle, in 1968, summed up his policies toward the superpowers as follows: "We French have never ceased to work in order to put an end to the regime of the two blocs" (cited in Macridis, 1985:43)

PAGE 24

The "futility of French efforts to retain control over the empire" was illustrated by their complete defeat in Indochina in 1954 (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:139). Later, the war in Algeria brought down the French Fourth Republic in 1958. The losses incurred by France in fighting these colonial wars were devastating — politically, militarily, and morally — at a time when French influence was beginning to return in other areas of world politics. Compared to Indochina and Algeria, there was little French resistance to the decolonization of most remaining possessions. Within this sphere of French postwar goals, maintaining the empire, there was little success. The establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany was in some ways a historical accident. Its existence was the result of "Allied fiat ... an offspring of bipolarity" (Joffe, 1985:77). Rather than a harsh occupation followed by a "super-Versailles," the Cold War realities made a reconstituted Germany a prize for both East and West. Since neither bloc could obtain control over all of Germany, the client states of the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic were established in their respective zones of occupation (Hanrieder and Auton, 1980:50). Within this unique setting, the foreign policy goals and perspectives of West Germany evolved. Initially, the reestablishment of national sovereignty — the right and power to conduct foreign policy at all — was the overriding objective. Deprived of armed

PAGE 25

forces, economic strength, and moral credibility, West Germany in 1949 needed resources it could leverage into political influence. In pursuit of international respectability, the first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, became a "compulsive joiner," reasoning that membership in any international organization would create the appearances of equality as well as offer real chances to influence events (Joffe, 1985:79). This tactic reversed the logic of the European integrationists, such as Jean Monnet, who viewed integration as a means to reduce the effects of sovereignty. Adenauer used each membership as an incentive for the Allies to lift restraints upon German statehood and sovereignty. West Germany became the most integrationist of the West European nations. The Federal Republic was a charter member and leading advocate of the European Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market. Additionally, Adenauer at one time proposed a complete Franco-German union (this was actually a tactic to deflect French intentions to detach the Saarland from Germany) The Korean War and its resultant increase in Cold War tensions forced the Allies to resolve the issue of German rearmament. France proposed but later defeated the European Defense Community which was designed to unite European (including German) military forces under supranational control. Eventually, the Anglo-American desire to rearm West Germany as a member of NATO prevailed. In 19 55, the Federal Republic was admitted into NATO, and the foreign

PAGE 26

10 occupation forces became Alliance forces, thus officially ending the period of occupation. Its entrance into NATO exemplified the realization of West Germany's principal postwar goal: "sovereignty through integration" (Joffe, 1985:78-81) In Italy, foreign policy decisions have been manipulated for domestic political consumption (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:87). There were no postwar aspirations or claims for great-power status as in France and Britain. Additionally, Italy was spared the dismemberment and dramatic loss of sovereignty suffered by Germany. The twin fears of an economic disaster and a radical shift in domestic political alignments were more important factors in Italy's postwar foreign policy than were fears of Soviet aggression or the ideals of integration. With the political climate deeply polarized between the pro-Soviet Left and the pro-Western Right, the ruling Christian Democrats committed Italy to its two fundamental "pillars" of foreign policy: the Atlantic Alliance and the European Community (Bonvicini, 1983:71) Italy's initial decision to join NATO was made reluctantly (Putnam, 1977:295). However, faced with American diplomatic pressure, Italian dependence on Marshall Plan aid, and a desire for international guarantees of the domestic order, Italy became an unenthusiastic member. Throughout its tenure of membership, Italy's material contribution to NATO has been remarkably low.

PAGE 27

11 Gradually, the Italian Socialist and Communist parties have come to accept both of these two postwar foreign policy choices of Italy. Support for NATO and the EEC are in large measure prerequisites for legitimate participation in governing Italy. In this respect the Socialist party has succeeded for some time, but questions remain about the legitimacy of the PCI. However, about a third of the Italian electorate remain loyal to the Italian Communist party. Thus, the foreign policy directions of these countries have been guided largely by the particular "identity problems" experienced by each (Grosser, 1982:324-326). The most severe identity "crisis" was undergone by the Federal Republic which owes it existence primarily to American power. Concern with international identity was least serious in Italy; however, internal social change and development represent more significant issues for Italy than for the other cases. France and Great Britain each had to deal with their declining status and power, especially in relation to the United States. France has pursued an independent, reassertive course, while Britain has attempted to retain influence through its "special" Anglo-American relationship. Mass Politicization The politicization of foreign and defense policy making in Western societies is one of the more significant

PAGE 28

12 political developments of the postwar era (Bertram, 1983; Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983) Once the domain of political elites, issues relating to alliances, national security, the international economy, and other foreign policy concerns are now well within the matrix of political attitudes and interests of the mass public in Western democracies. Bertram argues that this politicization has been accompanied by the decline of consensus and an increasing skepticism: "An important part of the public in [Western] societies is no longer willing to trust governments or experts or even the media on matters of defense policy" (1983:1) In Western Europe, the increased role of the public in foreign and security affairs is substantial (Howard, 1983; Schneider, 1983). In 1975, a referendum in Britain was necessary to legitimize its membership in the Common Market, and in 1986, the public in Spain voiced its approval of membership in NATO also by referendum. The 19 83 elections in Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany were contested largely over NATO, missiles, and foreign policy. In general, the greater politicization reflects opposition to established Alliance policies. Peace movements are active, with varying degrees of success, in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Britain, West Germany, France, and Italy (Kaltefleiter and Pfaltzgraff 1985) Opposition to NATO's decision to modernize its intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) served as a catalyst for mass demonstrations

PAGE 29

13 and protests across Europe in the early 1980s. The Dutch Parliament delayed its vote on INF emplacement following massive public resistance. In West Germany, disagreement over INF deployment within the Social Democratic Party (SPD) contributed to the fall of Helmut Schmidt's government in 1982 (Joffe, 1985:110). Within the Atlantic Alliance, the threat of disunity among the member nations has long been a principal concern of policy makers (Grosser, 1982; Kissinger, 1966); however, with increasing mass participation in the foreign policy arena, decision makers are increasingly worried about the level of domestic support for security policies. According to Richard Eichenberg: "The growing importance of the public has led many observers to conclude that domestic consensus is now the primary task of the Alliance" (1985a:4). In the future, as with the 1979 dual-track decision on INF, "the viability of NATO policies will depend on the level of support that they receive among attentive publics and in national legislatures" (Sloan, 1985:135). The Analytical Setting Political scientists and policy makers have realized for some time the importance of public support in the United States for foreign policy and national security affairs (Mueller, 1973; Rosenau, 1961; Verba et al. 1967). The Vietnam War more than anything else highlighted the challenges that can arise within this policy arena from a lack

PAGE 30

14 of public consensus and acceptance. Considerable empirical research at the mass and elite levels has been directed at the content, structure, changes, and determinants of American foreign policy attitudes (Bardes and Oldendick, 1978; Holsti, 1979; Holsti and Rosenau, 1984; Mandelbaum and Schneider, 1979; Wittkopf, 1981, 1983; Wittkopf and Kegley, 1982, 1983; Wittkopf and Maggiotto, 1981, 1983a, 1983b). Only recently have West European foreign policy attitudes received similar attention. In view of the extent and intensity of the protest against NATO's 1979 dual-track decision and against the subsequent preparations for INF deployment, security analysts in many countries "discovered" public opinion and survey research which were formerly not central to their attention (Rattinger, 1986:1, 2). According to Bertram: "As long as domestic consensus on these matters existed, there was no real pressure to address them; that idyllic state of affairs no longer exists" (1983:1). Research into European foreign policy and defense attitudes thus far has not produced a consistent and cumulative body of knowledge. Many substantive, methodological, and theoretical issues remain unresolved. The impression received from the existing literature is that some rather broad generalizations have been derived from a few rudimentary analyses of opinion data. The substantive issue of whether or not European attitudes have changed at all is not clear, although several authors make this claim. Feld and Wildgen state that "in

PAGE 31

15 Western Europe support for NATO appears to be slipping" (1982:182); however, they commit the cross-sectional fallacy in that they reach this conclusion on the basis of data from only one time period. From the same data they reach a rather dramatic conclusion: "The total trend picture of public opinion in Western Europe appears to be producing a widening gulf between the two sides of the Atlantic that eventually could endanger both NATO and the Atlantic defense in general" (133) Other authors reach similar conclusions. Alting von Geusau in a nonempirical analysis claims: "At stake is the survival itself of the North Atlantic Alliance, formed in 1949. [There is] a climate in which the need for sustaining the partnership itself is now being questioned [in Europe]" (1982:153). Haseler (1983), Adler and Wertman (1981), Schneider (1983), Inglehart (1984b), and Russett and DeLuca (1981, 1983) all claim in one manner or another that values in Western Europe have changed in regard to foreign policy and defense issues, and that this change is away from the traditional consensus on Atlantic, Euro-American cooperation. This is not to say that these conclusions are wrong; the point is that there appears to have been little in-depth, systematic data analysis in these studies. Conclusions were reached based upon one or two opinion items, and trends inferred. In a recent paper, Eichenberg argued that in regard to fundamental attitudes toward

PAGE 32

16 military force and national security in Europe, "there remains a substantial base of general consensus" (1985:11). Other studies support the notion of there being little attitudinal change in Europe in this area. According to Capitanchik and Eichenberg: "Public support for NATO remains high in all the European member states" (1983:388). Flynn and Rattinger write of the current "high level of popular consensus over national security issues at the mass level" (1985:388). Similar findings of European support for Atlantic cooperation can be seen in Noelle-Neuman (1981a, 1981b, 1983), Putnam (1977), Schweigler (1984), and Szabo (1983b) A significant methodological issue is that there has been no effort to map these attitudes toward NATO or EuroAmerican cooperation in regard to conceptual structure or internal consistency. Such a descriptive analysis is a necessary first step to a systematic study of changes and causal relationships. Specifically, this is the principal analytical variable, and it must receive a considerable amount of attention. Can European foreign policy values be arrayed unidimensionally, or are they more complex? In what manner do Europeans set priorities and structure these issues? Existing studies tend to look only at single survey items and then generalize well beyond their scope with no effort to relate groups of items into more descriptive measures. According to Flynn and Rattinger: "Perhaps the most urgent task for future research is the construction of

PAGE 33

17 a more adequate conceptual breakdown of the types of attitudes we are dealing with in this issue area" (1985:381). The methods used to analyze the social and political correlates of attitudes raises another issue. Previous studies have relied on the cross-tabulation of univariate relationships to measure the effect of variables such as age, sex, political party, and so on. No attempts have been made to apply multivariate techniques to distinguish the relative effects of several variables. A comprehensive understanding of attitude formation and change requires a multivariate explanation. A final methodological issue is about the very nature of comparative analysis. Many existing studies of European security attitudes are not truly comparative, but instead they employ some type of case study method (as distinguished from the comparative method by Lijphart, 1975) For example, Flynn and Rattinger (1985) Kaltefleiter and Pfaltzgraff (1985), and Szabo (1983b) have edited volumes each comprising several country studies written by separate authors. Capitanchik and Eichenberg (1983) organize their book into chapters, each dealing with a separate country and drawing on an assortment of data. Other books and separately published articles are also about single countries, such as Crewe (1984), Dackiw (1985), Dalton and Duval (1986), Deutsch and Edinger (1959), Gress (1983), Hill (1981), Noelle-Neuman (1981a, 1981b, and 1983), Rattinger (1986), Schweigler (1984), and Thompson and Netlig (1984).

PAGE 34

18 There are only a few truly comparative analyses of European foreign policy attitudes in which identical survey items are compared cross-nationally; these are Adler and Wertman (1981), Eichenberg (1985a), Feld and Wildgen (1982), Inglehart (1984b), Merritt and Puchala (1968), and Shaffer (1982) This study intends to overcome the difficulties discussed above. The research methods to be employed will allow for accurate longitudinal conclusions to be reached, as well as for an analysis of the conceptual structure of the European belief system. Additionally, the multivariate techniques to be used should provide for greater understanding of the correlates of European attitudes. Finally, the study will be truly comparative with identical survey questions being observed cross-nationally. The Theoretical Setting Several theoretical alternatives have been offered as explanations for the public mobilization over national security issues and the attitudinal shifts away from established Atlantic defense policies. One such explanation was borrowed from political sociology and holds that generational replacement is producing a long-term value change (Atlantic Council, 1981; Szabo, 1983a, 1983b, 1984). This Successor Generation argument is based on the effect of changing historical perspectives and socialization experiences of succeeding age cohorts. Several studies support

PAGE 35

19 this view (Adler and Wertman, 1981; Lacqueur, 1985; Levi, 1982; Russett and DeLuca, 1983). A closely related explanation is found within the Postmaterialist school of thought (Inglehart, 1977) This view combines the socialization effects of generational change with a scarcity hypothesis based roughly on the psychological formulation of a hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954) The Postmaterialist argument is that as a result of unprecedented economic prosperity and military security in the postwar era, the younger generations are placing less emphasis on economic growth and military security and paying greater attention to a new Postmaterialist agenda: quality of life, the environment, anti-nuclear power, and cultural issues. Inglehart (1984b) presents some preliminary findings linking Postmaterialist values with anti-Americanism, the peace movements, and opposition to a common EuroAmerican foreign policy. Two additional theoretical interpretations are presented by Flynn and Rattinger (1985:2). In the first, the increased politicization of defense issues is placed within the broader processes of modernization and democratization. The postwar growth of comprehensive mass education in Europe is seen as having stimulated increased public awareness of and interest in the politics of a wide range of new issues. Enlarged media networks and improved transport and communication technology have similarly encouraged the active

PAGE 36

20 political participation of larger portions of the public (Deutsch, 1963; Huntington, 1974). Within this view, increased popular participation in determining defense priorities is seen as being natural and irreversible. The current tendency for partisan politics to divide along the various lines of the security debate is seen as a natural response to the increased information and interest within the public. Governments and parties, therefore, must adjust policies and policy making to take account of these new political realities. This is the view of Kurt Biedenkopf who argues for Alliance policies that are plausible, that "make sense to a well-educated public" (1983:8) The other theoretical assessment mentioned by Flynn and Rattinger (1985:2) explains the public involvement in national security affairs and the attitudinal trends away from Atlanticism as the result of alienation and anxiety in the face of profound changes in the international state system. These changes include nuclear parity between the superpowers and Western Europe's robust postwar economic recovery yet continued dependence on the United States for military security. In this view, public activism and opinions are not permanent, and may be mitigated by policies and rhetoric that seek to "reassure" in the midst of changing international politics (Howard, 1983; Huntington, 1983)

PAGE 37

21 To summarize, there are at least four theoretical explanations for the politicization of and changes in West European attitudes about defense and security: the Successor Generation, Postmaterialism, modernization, and international politics. The first three of these will be examined simultaneously in Chapter IV, but the impact of international politics will be examined separately in a more descriptive approach in Chapter VI. The Research Agenda This study is organized into seven chapters. This chapter introduced the topic and its importance; framed the political, analytical, and the theoretical settings; and reviewed some of the relevant literature. Chapter II will present the research design for the main body of the research. This will include a detailed specification of the model of attitude formation, changes, and political linkages that will be developed throughout the remaining chapters. The data, methods, and cases to be used will also be discussed. In Chapter III, an analysis of original, machinereadable survey data will explore the conceptual structure of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. Attempts will be made to aggregate the data into scales or typologies to allow for generalizations to be made. The results of this step will serve as the dependent variable for Chapter IV in which several determinants of attitudes,

PAGE 38

22 corresponding to the alternative theoretical explanations discussed above, will be examined. These determinants (or correlates) will be compared and combined to seek a multivariate model of attitude formation. Cross-national comparisons of the aggregate measures developed in Chapter III and the correlates examined in Chapter IV will also be observed. Chapter V will seek to determine the extent of change that has occurred in European foreign policy and defense beliefs. Published accounts of existing opinion data will be used in this chapter to assess the trends in public support for several assumptions fundamental to the Alliance. These trends will then be juxtaposed to changes in the international system in Chapter VI to examine the effects of international politics on European attitudes. The final chapter, Chapter VII, will draw some tentative conclusions about the linkages between European attitudes and broad national policy orientations. The goal will be to observe possible indications of future Alliance cohesion or disunity. A brief examination of American foreign policy attitudes will also be included, along with a summary of major findings from the entire study. The research agenda for this project grows out of the concern that foreign policy attitudes are becoming linked more and more directly to Western harmony (Eichenberg, 1985a:4; Sloan, 1985:135). In other words, the future cohesion or disunity of the Alliance will be influenced in large measure by the West European public. Therefore, a

PAGE 39

23 better understanding of the nature of West European security beliefs, their conceptual structure, determinants, and trends, should provide an indication of things to come, or at least help theorists and policy makers better understand events as they occur within the arena of Euro-American relations.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER II RESEARCH DESIGN: A MODEL FOR ANALYSIS The goal of this research is to assess the potential contribution of West European mass attitudes on the future cohesion or disunity of the Atlantic Alliance. To this end, European attitudes will be examined within a comprehensive model of attitude formation, change, and political linkage. This chapter discusses the various components of this model. The assumption is that mass attitudes favorable to Atlantic cooperation will foster national policies conducive to Alliance cohesion. Systematic empirical research into mass attitudes as a component of political culture is a relatively new field of inquiry. However, the notion of political culture and many of its central concepts — like socialization, subculture, and values — have been around for some time and are even evident in classical writings, such as Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics Recently, the postwar technological advances in survey research methodology, along with the inter-disciplinary influences of sociology, social psychology, and anthropology, created a "revolution" in political science research into political culture and attitudes (Almond, 1980:1-16). These technical and conceptual 24

PAGE 41

25 advances enabled research to move from relatively loose and speculative inferences to more systematic and reliable measures. The path-breaking comparative study in this field was The Civic Culture by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba in 1963. This examination of West European foreign policy attitudes belongs within this broad tradition of political inquiry. Political culture is "the set of attitudes, beliefs, and feelings about politics current in a nation at a given time" (Almond and Powell, 1978:25). The focus for research is on the individual as the appropriate unit of analysis. It is the individual, through perceptions, interests, and ideologies, who develops a belief system by imposing some sense of consistency and constraint across various political phenomena (Converse, 1964) The attitudes of individuals, when aggregated for a population (or sample) can provide a conceptual map or image of the belief structure of a multi-country region, a single nation, or a subculture within a nation. This research observes attitudes in Western Europe as a region and also makes crossnational comparisons of separate national samples. Attitudes toward political objects can be distinguished by three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Hovland and Rosenberg, 1960:1-16). Knowledge of the political system, its leading figures, and current policy problems is the cognitive aspect. Deeply-held feelings of rejection or support toward the system or politics comprise

PAGE 42

26 the affective component; these feelings often are the result of long-held cues received from family, class, and other attributes. The third aspect is that of political action and involvement: the behavioral component. The focus in this study is on the affective, in an effort to tap into fundamental values and underlying constructs. Several factors combine to influence political attitudes. These elements (or agents) of the socialization process include a myriad of social, political, cultural, and international stimuli (Dawson and Prewitt, 1969; Dennis, 1973) The relative significance of these various determinants in regard to attitude formation and change is a recurring subject for comparative research. This study explores several determinants to assess their influence on the formation and change of European attitudes. The political significance of West European mass attitudes, as discussed in the previous chapter, is considerable. Several distinct research tasks are necessary for a thorough examination of these attitudes. In the sections that follow, these tasks are presented within the framework of a comprehensive model of attitude formation, change, and linkage. Components of the Model The model which guides this study contains several components. The first is the conceptual orientation of West Europeans toward Atlantic cooperation. In other words, this

PAGE 43

27 concerns the attitudes themselves. How do Europeans view the Alliance, a coordinated economic policy, military issues outside of Europe, and other foreign policy concerns? Are these issues all linked conceptually? Or, are they structured in a more complex manner? The second element involves the forces active in determining the nature of attitudes. There are three types or levels of determinants (independent variables) that affect the formation and change of attitudes. These are individual level variables, national level variables, and international level variables. The third aspect of the model is the extent to which European attitudes and support for Atlantic cooperation have changed. Is there more or less European support for Atlantic cooperation? Finally, the last element concerns the linkages between attitudes and national policies. To what extent do attitudes and policies cohere together? Is there a causal pattern, and if so in what direction? What are the indications for future Alliance cohesion or disunity? Attitude Structure, Content, and Distribution Chapter III will first attempt to develop a typology describing West European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation, and second to make some generalizations about the distribution of European support in regard to the categories. As a result, opinion on NATO and national security will be examined in a broader perspective, and a more

PAGE 44

28 theoretical understanding of European attitudes and policies will result. Several survey items will be aggregated in an effort to discover the conceptual constructs that underlie the attitudes, thus avoiding the inherent instability of single-item indicators. Previous attempts to categorize European beliefs on these issues have been less than satisfactory. Feld and Wildgen (1982) used one survey item to dicotomize their European sample into "Euro-hawks" and "Euro-doves," but this provided no depth of understanding in regard to the relationship between various aspects of the security and foreign policy arena. An earlier attempt was made by Deutsch et al. to devise a tentative typology of attitude positions based on elite interviews (1967:87-91). Three types were identified: Nationals Europeans and Atlantics. The Nationals were those who favored the resurgence of the unqualified nation-state, and for whom Europe was only a camouflage to hide national aspirations. The typical Nationals were French Gaullists. The Europeans were those who favored some sort of European political union, whether it be confederal or federal. The Atlantics viewed close ties with the United States as being essential. Although not supportive of an Atlantic federation, NATO was strongly backed by the Atlantics as well as increased cultural, political, and economic ties among Atlantic nations. These profiles developed by Deutsch et al. (1967) are useful for broad generalizations, but the underlying dimensions are not

PAGE 45

29 known, and the concepts of military policy, economic policy, and integration policy are blurred together. There are four aspects to Chapter III. The first is to determine the number of dimensions necessary to describe the conceptual structure. The second is to impute substantive meaning to each dimension. The third is to measure the distribution of European opinion in regard to the different dimensions, and the fourth is to observe cross-national variation. To determine the number of conceptual dimensions, a factor analysis of survey data will be used. Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to identify a relatively small number of factors (or dimensions) underlying a larger set of variables. Groups of survey items identified with the separate factors can be interpreted as representing different attitudinal dimensions. The meaning usually associated with the concept "dimension" is that of a cluster or group of highly intercorrelated characteristics, and factor analysis "can uncover unsuspected relationships which may at first seem startling but later appear to be common sense" (Rummel, 1970:31). Factor analysis is based on the assumption that underlying dimensions exist, and that they can be used to explain complex phenomena (Norusis, 1985). There are several forms of factor analysis available. The principal components technique will be used because it generates the eigenvalue statistic which "serves as the most widely used practical means of solving the number-offactors

PAGE 46

30 question" (Kim and Mueller, 1976b:21). Additionally, principal components analysis is the common choice of analysts using research designs similar to this one for American attitudes (see Bardes and Oldendick, 1978; Wittkopf, 1981, 1983; Wittkopf and Maggiotto, 1981, 1983a, 1983b; Wittkopf and Kegley, 1982, 1983). There are four possible results to the number of dimensions question in regard to European attitudes. The first is a unidimensional structure in which all or most of the survey items load on one factor, and only one factor achieves an eigenvalue greater than 1. This would provide for ease of theoretical interpretation, and politically it would indicate limited policy alternatives and potential polarization. The second possible structure is bidimensional in which there are two distinct conceptual underpinnings to European attitudes represented by two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. This case may reflect policy makers having more latitude than in the first, and this structure, if orthogonal, may lend itself conceptually to the construction of a four-cell typology as in Wittkopf (1981) The remaining two possibilities are more complex. A multidimensional structure would have three or more dimensions indicating a rather complex belief system. This result may preclude generalizing beyond the individual factors. A fragmented result with no interpretable dimensions would indicate that West Europeans do not interrelate

PAGE 47

31 foreign policy issues at all, that there are either no conceptual constraints underlying mass opinion, or else the constructs are too complex or vague to be identified through empirical analysis. The second step in Chapter III will be to interpret the substantive content of the dimensions discovered in the first step. This involves affixing descriptive labels to the factors. These labels are concepts from the substantive area of concern and reflect or embody the pattern of interrelationships defined by the factors. The descriptive label is meant to be typological — to categorize the conceptual characteristics of the findings. (Rummel, 1970:175) This is a somewhat subjective process, and it requires comparing the survey items belonging to each dimension to determine what relates them together conceptually. As a result of this evaluation, labels are chosen to serve as readily understood concepts to ease communication and discussion. There are several substantive labels that may emerge from this interpretive step. One is the concept of Atlantic cooperation which embodies the goals of the study. This could be used to describe a unidimensional structure in which respondents seem to evaluate issues and policies in regard to their fundamental attitude toward cooperation. Respondents could perhaps be categorized as internationalists and isolationists. However, there could be two cooperative dimensions with one representing cooperation with the United States and the other reflecting European

PAGE 48

32 cooperation. Or, rather than regional distinctions there may be substantive ones in which perhaps military and economic issues represent dimensions of cooperation. Additional factors may relate to constructs such as neutralism, protectionism, and interventionism. The expectations for this study are that a unidimensional belief system representing a cooperative-noncooperative continuum in regard to relations among the Atlantic community of nations will be uncovered. The hypothesized structure seems to be the best representation of European attitudes in the midst of the new developments of the 1980s. Specifically, the economic difficulties arising since 1973 are believed to have blurred the distinctions between security and economic issues such that Europeans seem now to be either favorably or unfavorably disposed toward Atlantic cooperation in general. The third part of Chapter III will be to measure the distribution of European opinion for each of the dimensions. The labels affixed in the previous step can be regarded as assertions, so that the task here is to determine the level of support for each assertion. For example, for a dimension regarding neutralism, percentages must be calculated for those portions of the sample that favor neutralism and oppose it. Inferences can then be made for the population as a whole. To do this, scaling techniques will be employed. The survey items comprising each dimension as determined by the

PAGE 49

33 factor analysis will be used to construct Likert scales, which is to say that for each respondent, responses will be summed to produce a composite score for a set of items. This requires that the items be monotonically related to the underlying attitudinal continuum; in other words, the coding must be uniform such that a high score represents a favorable response on all items and a low score represents an unfavorable response on all items (or vice versa, but usually high scores indicate favorable responses) No effort will be made to vary the weight assigned to the items because it has been found that little is to be gained since unweighted and weighted summative scores regularly correlate quite highly (Mclver and Carmines, 1981). The reliability of any constructed scale must be assessed statistically. Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficient is the preferred estimate of scale reliability (Mclver and Carmines, 1981) This statistic provides an estimate of reliability based upon the inter-item correlation matrix. The final step in Chapter III will be to measure cross-national variation. Whatever scales or categories are devised from the earlier steps will be applied to the separate national samples and the percentages of favorable and unfavorable opinion compared across nations. Thus, Chapter III will be a complex, descriptive analysis of the conceptual structure, content, and distribution of West European attitudes.

PAGE 50

34 Determinants Once the structure and content of West European attitudes have been established in Chapter III, the various influences, or determinants, affecting these attitudes will be assessed in the following chapters. These determinants, or independent variables, are categorized for this study into three levels: individual attributes, national cultures, and international events. The individual attributes are subdivided further into social and political characteristics. The social variables are generation, value orientations, class, and education. The political variables are partisanship, ideology, and participation. Figure 2-1 depicts these individual attributes. Chapter IV examines the individual and national level variables, and Chapter VI analyzes the influence of international events. The individual attributes will each be discussed at length in Chapter IV in regard to their theoretical relevance and empirical effects on West European security and foreign policy views. These seven factors are assumed to contribute to an explanation of the variation of opinion within Europe. Specific hypotheses will be developed and tested for each. The analyses in Chapter IV will go well beyond previous studies of these attributes and their effect on security attitudes. In the past, univariate relationships usings tables of cross-tabulations of percentages have been used (see for example, Feld and Wildgen, 1982; and Flynn and

PAGE 51

35 Social Variables > Generation > Value Orientations > Class > Education Political Variables > Partisanship > Ideology > Participation Figure 2-1. Individual level attributes.

PAGE 52

36 Rattinger, 1985) This descriptive method fails to provide useful explanatory statistics for comparing the relative significance of variables, and more importantly, it prohibits multivariate analyses in which separate effects can be observed after adjusting, or controlling, for the effects of other variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques provide the capability for more sophisticated analyses and these will be used in Chapter IV. ANOVA is designed to test the statistical significance of the differences among a set of group means on an interval dependent variable (Agresti and Agresti, 1979:417). The groups can represent survey respondents within various social classes, generations, political parties, and so on. The interval dependent variables for Chapter IV will be the scales or typologies derived from the analyses presented in Chapter III. There are two types of ANOVA. One-way ANOVA examines the relationship between the mean of an interval dependent variable and the levels of a single categorical variable. Two-way ANOVA, however, simultaneously controls for the effects of one or more independent variables and thus produces in effect a multivariate model. The various statistics and coefficients associated with ANOVA are discussed in detail in Chapter IV. Chapter IV includes several steps. Initially, each of the individual attributes listed in Figure 2-1 will be assessed separately using one-way ANOVA. Then, these

PAGE 53

37 variables will be combined using two-way ANOVA to examine the effects of each while adjusting for the others. Each of these techniques will be applied to both the European sample as a whole as well as to the separate national samples. Cross-national comparisons will provide an initial examination of the effects of nationality. The effects of the second level variable, national character, will also be examined more directly. Using the national identity of respondents as a nominal variable, the separate national samples can be compared by applying ANOVA to the combined European sample. In this way the differences between the means for the separate national samples can be observed. Additionally, the national identity variable will be entered into the multivariate analysis of the two-way ANOVA. Thus, the relative strength of national identity can be compared to the individual level attributes. Chapter IV (as well as Chapter III) begins with the premise that the European sample can be treated in a homogeneous manner. This is an attempt to achieve some universal theoretical understanding of the influences affecting European attitudes. "To the extent that general statements can be validly formulated without regard to the social system from which the samples were drawn, systemic [national] factors can be disregarded" (Przeworski and Teune, 1970:36). The amount of variation between the separate samples will indicate the extent to which the

PAGE 54

38 second level variable, national character, can be given a special place among the predictors of European beliefs. The final level of determinants, international events, will be examined in Chapter VI. This will follow an assessment of the extent to which European attitudes toward Atlanticism have changed. (Chapter V explores the amount and nature of attitudinal change in Europe.) The assertion that beliefs are affected by the international arena assumes that attitudes have changed. For this reason, the chapter on the nature and extent of any shift in European security views will precede the examination of international events. The study of international events and their influence on attitudes is also known as "period effects" (Adler, 1983) These are broad, historic changes in the international system — such as, war and peace, depression and prosperity, or shifts in the balance of power — as well as specific critical incidents, like the Cuban missile crisis. Many such international events will be observed and categorized in Chapter VI in an effort to uncover patterns and linkages that relate to attitudinal changes. Disentangling period effects from the other determinants, especially generational influences, is difficult. The technique of cohort analysis will be employed in an attempt to distinguish between them (Glen, 1977) Thus, three types or levels of determinants will be examined in an effort to explain the formation and change in European security attitudes. These are individual

PAGE 55

39 attributes, national political cultures, and international events. Changes and Linkages Chapter V seeks to assess changes in European attitudes about some fundamental assumptions upon which the Alliance is based. These assumptions are the following: (1) the Soviet Union poses a military and political threat to the security of Western Europe; (2) a collective security policy is the only way to deter and defend against the Soviet threat; and (3) the United States must be a leading member of the joint defense effort to balance Soviet power. After discussing and operationalizing these assumptions, Chapter V will draw upon previously published opinion data from a multitude of sources to assess trends in the level of European support for each. There are inherent difficulties in attempting a crossnational and longitudinal analysis of this type. The available data are scarce and are often not comparable either between countries or time periods. The result is that the analyst is forced to jump from one survey question or source to another, constantly confronting interpretations of promising time series or modifications in item construction. These difficulties illustrate the complexity of the task, but they do not preclude it. Chapter V should be able to offer some indications of how European mass attitudes on security matters have evolved.

PAGE 56

40 The hypothesis guiding Chapter V is that attitudes in Europe have changed in the direction of being less favorably disposed toward the Alliance and Atlantic cooperation. This is the assessment of several of the analysts mentioned in Chapter I: Adler and Wertman (1981), Bertram (1983), Feld and Wildgen (1982), Geusau (1982), Haseler (1983), Inglehart (1984b), Russett and DeLuca (1981, 1983), and Schneider (1983). The emergence of the peace movement and the apparent prevalence of anti-Americanism in Europe would seem to support this view, although other authors disagree: Capitanchik and Eichenberg (1983), Flynn and Rattinger (1985), Noelle-Neuman (1981a, 1981b, 1983), Putnam (1977), Schweigler (1984), and Szabo (1983b). The concluding chapter of this study will explore (among other things) some tentative linkages between European attitudes, national policies, and the prospect for future Alliance cohesion or disunity. Various national policies, Alliance decisions, and mass support or opposition will be observed for evidence of coherence. This will be a subjective appraisal. No rigorous quantitative methods will be employed, because none are suitable. This topic of linkage between attitudes and policies is the "Achilles heel" of attitudinal studies. "One of the most ambiguous, imprecise, and elusive aspects of security [is] that of the domestic political factors influencing defense policies, doctrines, and burdens" (Bertram, 1983:1). This is why the subject has generally been unexplored in

PAGE 57

41 most studies; although the existence of a relationship is always assumed or inferred, sometimes implicitly. Therefore, Chapter VII will be cautious in its attempt to relate the attitudinal findings from the earlier chapters with the broad policy orientations of European nations. Summary The foregoing discussion has presented the various components of a comprehensive model of attitude formation, change, and linkage. Figure 2-2 depicts the complete model that guides the analysis in the following chapters. Each chapter that follows focuses on some aspect of the model. Chapter III develops some aggregate measures for the structure, content, and distribution of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. Chapter IV examines the effects of individual and national level variables on the formation of these attitudes. Chapter V assesses the nature and extent of any changes in European security attitudes. Chapter VI observes the influences of international politics to explain the trends in European attitudes. And finally, Chapter VII explores the linkages between attitudes, policies, and Alliance cohesion. Cases and Data The nations selected for this study are Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy. These four were chosen because they possess the bulk of the European resources

PAGE 58

42 Determinants Attitudes Politics r 1 [Individual Level Variables: > Social Attributes > Political Attributes r |Nat'l Level Var: | > British Culture | | > French Culture 1 > German Culture 1 > Italian Culture L Int 1 Level Var: 1 > 1 > Period Effects Svstemic Chancre I 1 Structure Content Distribution Change i : i |National Policies | 1 Alliance Cohesion or 'Disunity L :_j Figure 2-2. A model of attitude formation, change, and linkage.

PAGE 59

43 available to the Alliance and because of their obviously critical importance to Western solidarity. Any shift in the relationship between these nations and the Atlantic security posture might result in some fundamental multilateral realignment. It is recognized that other interesting cases have been excluded from the analysis. For example, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark would be obvious candidates for inclusion in any future studies of this sort. Data are lacking, however, for any substantial analysis of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, or Norway. Thus, to keep this project manageable and focused on key nations, the cases were limited to the four countries listed above. The data set used in Chapters III and IV is the Eurobarometer 14 survey. The Eurobarometers are a series of semiannual surveys administered in EEC countries and sponsored by the Commission of the European Community. The data are in their original, machine-readable form, making sophisticated analyses possible. The data were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research of the University of Michigan. The quality of the Eurobarometers is excellent and equal to that of most American surveys. Stratified national quota samples of approximately 1000 respondents are drawn in each nation, taking into account region and the size of localities. Respondents are chosen within selected sampling points to provide a regionally representative sample with

PAGE 60

44 respect to sex, age, and occupation. Some of the sampling may in fact be superior to that conducted in the United States because the availability of very complete and up-todate electoral lists in Europe permits excellent probability sampling. Further, all the data are based on personal interviews in the home, while many American public opinion polls, such as ABC-Louis Harris and CBSNew York Times are conducted by telephone (Adler, 1983). Original multi-country data sets other than the Eurobarometers are rarely available for the kind of analysis performed here. This is why most studies in this field have relied on a secondary analysis of single items from published opinion polls such as Gallup and Harris. Another difficulty is that the number of foreign policy and security items included in any one survey is usually very limited, thus preventing a meaningful analysis of underlying dimensions. Eurobarometer 14 was chosen for this project, despite its being somewhat dated (October 1980) because among the Eurobarometers it contains the largest selection 3 of foreign policy items. Other potential sources for machine-readable data sets are those produced by the United States Information Agency (USIA) These are available from the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and the Roper Center in New Haven, Connecticut. However, the documentation and code books provided are often incomplete and inaccurate, and the data 4 are not "cleaned" adequately.

PAGE 61

45 In comparison with the rather limited supply of data on European foreign policy attitudes, analysts of American foreign policy beliefs have available the surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. These surveys, administered periodically since 1974, each contain over 200 questionnaire items specifically on foreign policy issues. Currently, there are no data sets on European attitudes remotely equivalent to this rich source. The data used in Chapters V and VI are drawn from a multitude of previously published sources. These are not original, machine-readable data but instead are reproduced figures (usually percentages of marginals) from both scholarly and journalistic publications. Many of the difficulties inherent in relying on data of this type are discussed in Chapter V. This chapter has presented the research design for the analysis of West European security attitudes that follows. The model guiding the analysis was discussed in detail, and the cases selected for observation and the data to be used were also discussed. Notes Almond and Powell (1978:26) substitute "evaluative" for the third component of attitudes. This refers to any moral judgment of political objects in terms of ideology or ethics 2 This assertion takes into account the current status of France within the Alliance: a member but not part of the integrated military command structure. Despite this position, France plays an essential role in Western security plans and assumptions.

PAGE 62

46 3 Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) contains 11 questionnaire items suitable for a factor analysis within the conceptual boundaries of "Atlantic cooperation." Other Eurobarometer surveys with foreign policy items contain the following numbers of items: Eurobarometer 6 (October 1976) 7 items, Eurobarometer 8 (October 1977) 4 items, Eurobarometer 10 (October 1978) 7 items, Eurobarometer 11 (April 1979) 8 items, Eurobarometer 13 (April 1980) 5 items, Eurobarometer 16 (October 1981) 6 items, Eurobarometer 17 (April 1982) 13 items (7 deal only with the U.S. and none are on NATO), Eurobarometer 18 (October 1982) 4 items, Eurobarometer 19 (April 1983) 6 items. 4 Four USIA data sets were obtained from the National Archives by the author. These were the following: Alliance/Security Survey (1981) International Attitudes Survey (1976), International Survey (1955), and International Survey (1969) Each of these purported to include samples from several European nations and to contain 20 to 30 foreign policy questionnaire items. However, the documentation and code books were very sketchy, and the data on the tapes were not interpretable by any computer routine at the United States Military Academy at West Point or the University of Florida. Extensive efforts by the author and others to use these data in their machine-readable form were unsuccessful. Russell Dalton (Florida State University) Richard Eichenberg (Tufts University) and Mark Dehaven (University of Florida) concur that these data in their current condition are not usable. This leaves only the Eurobarometer surveys available for original, machinereadable data analysis of European foreign policy attitudes.

PAGE 63

CHAPTER III THE STRUCTURE, CONTENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OF WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION American and European policy makers (as well as those in the Soviet Union) are vitally interested in the public support in the West for security policies, because in today's Western, pluralistic societies the electorate in large measure establishes at least the margins if not the outlines for policy alternatives. The increasing importance of public opinion and mass attitudes on national security and foreign policy decision making in the postwar era has been clearly documented (Bertram, 1983; Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983; Flynn and Rattinger, 1985). In regard to the Atlantic Alliance, West European attitudes are critical to the future cohesion or disunity among the member nations. This chapter examines how Europeans structure their system of beliefs about Atlantic cooperation. These attitudes can be defined as diffuse affectivity toward other West European nations and the United States and can be favorable or unfavorable. Atlantic cooperation is operationalized by aggregating survey items that deal with broad goals and fundamental beliefs. This concept is used 47

PAGE 64

48 in an effort to generalize beyond specific issues and policy opinions to determine the structure of the underlying belief system. This research agenda grows out of the concern that attitudinal structure may be related to Western harmony. The cohesion within the Alliance is increasingly believed to be under great strain. This perception has existed for about a decade, since the mid to late 1970s when the EastWest detente started to erode. Concern over Western unity 2 is nothing new. However, intra-Alliance policy debates have tended to become disputes about fundamental issues (Cohen, 1982-83; Hoffmann, 1981; Joffe, 1981). These have included questions about the extent of Europe's dependence on the United States for its security, the nature of the Soviet threat, and the value and desirability of cooperation in areas other than the defense of Western Europe. An understanding of how these and other issues are arrayed within the matrix of beliefs held by European publics should provide some insight into the nature and extent of the underlying support for the Alliance. Goals and Expectations Analysts differ in regard to their theoretical expectations about the structure of belief systems. Some look for simplicity, others look for complexity, and in differing degrees both groups find empirical support for their expectations. These contending views have been labeled the

PAGE 65

49 "unidimensionalist" and "multidimensionalist" (Stimson, 1975) The first of these is represented by Philip Converse who emphasizes consistency and simplicity, in which a single powerful liberal-conservative axis should be sufficient to orient beliefs. People whose attitudes display such a pattern of constraint are labeled "ideologues" (Converse, 1964) The alternative view is that people structure their political attitudes in a manner too complex to be explained unidimensionally. This multidimensional approach challenges the value placed on parsimony by Converse. Marcus et al. argue for the necessity of distinguishing between the structure and the content of belief systems. "Without knowing the general principles one uses in forming his opinions, we cannot classify any one individual on the basis of his responses to specific political issues as demonstrating high or low levels of structure" (1974:407). Thus, they allow for the existence of complex belief systems structured in any number of ways. It becomes the task of the analyst to discover the structure rather than find the ideologues. The intent of this chapter is to develop a conceptual map for the constructs underlying the European belief system toward Atlantic cooperation. Are the attitudes toward the EEC and NATO related? If so, perhaps some sort of an internationalist-isolationist continuum exists. Are the views of Europeans toward the United States affected by their views toward defense spending or the military

PAGE 66

50 Alliance? In this case a hawk-dove dimension may be the best explanation. How many of these conceptual dimensions must be created to describe European attitudes adequately? Is there any structure at all? Perhaps European attitudes toward these issues are fragmented with no systematic, conceptual connectedness. Understanding the manner in which Europeans structure their attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation is essential for furthering our theoretical knowledge of European political culture and for providing the basis for informed policy initiatives. With a unidimensional continuum underlying these beliefs, interpretation and measurement are relatively easy; however, policy makers may have little room for alternatives, depending on the distribution of opinion. In this case, all foreign policy issue areas would be viewed by the public in terms of a single ideological construct, and opinion could easily become polarized, with compromise difficult and ideological disputes probable. On the other hand, with a bior multidimensional structure, Europeans would distinguish between types of issues, perhaps based upon regional, military, economic, or other conceptual criteria, and the distribution of opinion for these various constructs would be independent and crosscutting rather than overlapping. As a result, conceptual interpretation would be more complex; however, policy elites might have more latitude to build or draw upon support in one issue area without affecting others.

PAGE 67

51 Observers of American mass opinion have engaged in a rich empirical dialogue over the manner in which the American public structures it attitudes toward foreign policy. There is agreement among these analysts that the traditional unidimensional (internationalist-isolationist) structure of foreign policy opinion ended with Vietnam, and that a new multidimensional belief system has emerged. The focus of the current debate is on the number of conceptual dimensions necessary to explain adequately the new structure of Ameri3 can foreign policy attitudes. A similar debate about the structure of European foreign policy beliefs has not occurred. Existing studies of European attitudes toward foreign policy seem to concentrate on current events and politicized issues rather than on underlying constructs. For example, Werner J. Feld and John K. Wildgen (1982) in their extensive examination of European opinion on foreign policy and security issues, NATO and the Atlantic Defense: Perceptions and Illusions interpreted a number of cross-national comparisons of single survey items. Kenneth P. Adler and Douglas Wertman (1981) as well as David Capitanchik and Richard Eichenberg (1983) reported on similar data in which respondents from several West European countries were compared with regard to their support for NATO, defense spending, and other concerns. Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger's (1985) edited volume, The Public and Atlantic Defense includes contributions for Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and

PAGE 68

52 Norway, and it contains over 200 tables and figures of European opinion data, but all are of single questionnaire items. Studies of this type are essential for discerning European opinion and trends on specific issues, but they do not address the broader questions of the nature and structure of belief systems. The employment of scaling and modeling techniques to examine public support for underlying constructs distinguishes this study from others preceding it. As just mentioned, existing studies of European foreign policy attitudes rely almost exclusively on single-item measures, such as support for defense spending, support for the new missiles in Europe, opinions on NATO, and so on; however, there are important reasons why the multi-item scales used here are superior to single-item indicators. First, it is very unlikely that a single survey question can fully represent a complex theoretical concept. Second, singleitem indicators lack the precision to discriminate among fine degrees of an attitude; and third, they are usually less reliable than multi-item scales because single items 4 are more prone to random error. For these reasons, the methods employed here should result in a considerable advance in our theoretical understanding of European attitudes.

PAGE 69

53 Findings and Analyses To examine the structure of West European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation the survey Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) was used. The Eurobarometers are a continuous, semiannual series of sample surveys administered in Europe. Eurobarometer 14 was chosen for this study, despite its being somewhat dated, because among the Eurobarometers it contains the largest selection of foreign policy items. Of the approximately 50 substantive questionnaire items, 11 dealt with international affairs and foreign policy concerns suitable for this study. Table 3-1 lists these items. Each is identified by an abbreviation followed by a simple assertion that summarizes it. The responses to these items required recoding to achieve the uniformity and monotonic, ordinal ranking necessary for eventual Likert scaling. Responses were given a higher numerical score the more strongly they agreed with the assertion, and a lower numerical score the more strongly they disagreed with it. Scores for all items were recoded to range from 1 to 7 to ensure that items and responses were 5 weighted equally for eventual scaling. The original question wordings and the coded response categories are provided in Appendix A. The variables listed in Table 3-1 cover a wide range of attitudes suitable for placing security issues into the broader perspective of Atlantic cooperation. The items on the unification of Europe and EEC membership (UNIEUR and

PAGE 70

54 TABLE 3-1 SURVEY ITEMS MEASURING EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ATLANTIC COOPERATION INTLEXP: (International Expectations) The coming year will be one troubled with much international discord. DEFPRI: (Defense Priority). Maintaining strong defense forces should be given top or second priority within our nation for the next 10 years. UNIEUR: (Unify Europe) Efforts being made to unify Europe should be pursued. EECMEM: (EEC Membership) Membership in the Common Market by our nation is a good thing. NATOESS: (NATO Essential). NATO is still essential to our country's security. NATOSPT: (Support of NATO) Our defense spending in support of NATO should be increased. TRUSTUS: (Trustworthiness of Americans) The Americans are very trustworthy. FORPOL: (Foreign Policy) In the conduct of its foreign policy, our country should join with the other EEC member states and the United States to develop a common Atlantic foreign policy. ECPOL: (Economic Policy) In the conduct of its economic policy, our country should develop a common economic policy by working closely with the other EEC member states, the United States, and Japan. SCTYPOL: (Security Policy) Our country should provide for its security in the 1980s by continuing in NATO with the countries of Western Europe, the United States, and Canada. Source: Eurobarometer 14, October 1980.

PAGE 71

55 EECMEM) focus specifically on regional cooperation. The defense priority variable (DEFPRI) measures support for domestic defense efforts as distinct from the defense of the Alliance. Economic concerns are addressed by two questions, those on economic coordination and the Common Market (ECPOL and EECMEM) The Alliance is not mentioned at all in seven of the questions, so these should provide particularly good indicators of the relationship between attitudes on NATO and other Western cooperation issues. The variable measuring trust for the United States (TRUSTUS) is essential to this research, because views of the United States are fundamental to what was defined earlier as Atlantic cooperation. Respondents believing the United States to be untrustworthy would probably have low support for Atlantic cooperation. The question on international expectations (INTLEXP) is a broad variable which asks for a prediction of the level of international tension in the coming year. Attitudes on this question may be related to cooperation; for example, respondents expecting a high level of international tension may be more inclined to support a higher level of Western cooperation. Structure and Content To determine the number of conceptual dimensions, a factor analysis of survey data was used as an exploratory guide. The widespread use of factor analysis in similar research throughout the social sciences, and its readily

PAGE 72

56 interpretable results, testify to its appropriateness for this task, although other techniques, such as cluster analysis and LISREL, would also be applicable. Groups of survey items identified with the separate factors can be interpreted as representing different attitudinal dimensions. Since no preconceived ideas about the structures existed, nor was there any a priori reason to believe that the dimensions should be orthogonal, the principal components method of factor analysis with both varimax and oblique rotation was used (Kim and Mueller, 1978) The results of the principal components factor analysis of the variables just discussed are displayed in Table 3-2. Respondents from four countries were included: France, West Germany, Italy, and Britain. The samples from each of these countries were weighted to reflect their proportions of the aggregate population. Table 3-2 reflects varimax orthogonal rotation. Only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were rotated. o The center column (h2) displays the communalities. The orthogonal (uncorrelated factors) solution is actually a subcase of the oblique (correlated factors) If orthogonality empirically exists between the clusters of variables, then an oblique rotation will result in an orthogonal solution and the two sets of computer output would be identical (Rummel, 1970:386). A separate oblique solution was generated which displayed the same factor

PAGE 73

57 TABLE 3-2 THE DIMENSIONALITY OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES (Principal Components Factor Analysis) Unrotate< Factors a h 2 Orthogon Rotated F I II ally actors a I II in III NATOSPT .61 -.44 .04 .57 .75 .00 .03 NATOESS .70 -.27 -.06 .57 .73 .18 -.08 SCTYPOL .66 -.16 .06 .46 .63 .26 .03 DEFPRI .30 -.53 .05 .37 .55 -.24 .07 TRUSTUS • _54 -.08 -.15 .32 .48 .23 -.19 EECMEM .41 .67 -.01 .61 -.07 .78 -.08 UNIEUR .50 .52 .04 .51 .10 .71 -.03 ECPOL .44 .39 .11 .35 .12 .5_8 .05 FORPOL .55 .12 .11 .33 .38 .43 .07 INTLEXP -.08 -.05 •21 .96 -.03 .01 .98 Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) Varimax rotation. Only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 have been rotated. (Eigenvalues: Factor 1=2.59; 11=1.46; 111=1.01.) Note : Mean substitution of missing data (N=4234) Four nations: Britain, France, West Germany, Italy. National samples weighted to reflect their proportion of the aggregate population. The total variation accounted for by the 3 factors is 50.6%. All loadings rounded to two places. Loadings equal to or greater than an absolute value of .40 are underlined.

PAGE 74

58 structure with only minor deviations in the loadings from those on Table 3-2, so the factors can be accepted as being 9 orthogonal. The first two orthogonally rotated factors in Table 3-2 each contain several variables and appear to be distinct attitudinal dimensions based on the .40 criterion for loadings. Factor I is comprised of primarily military items and could perhaps be labeled military cooperation. This dimension includes both of the NATO variables, the security policy question, the defense priority variable, and the question on trust for the United States. The second rotated factor is broader in scope and could perhaps be labeled nonmilitary cooperation. It includes the two regional questions dealing with membership in the EEC and the unification of Europe, as well as the two general variables regarding collective Atlantic economic and foreign policies. International expectations (INTLEXP) are not related to either the military or nonmilitary cooperation factors. Whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about future international tensions is not related to one's views on Atlantic cooperation, so for the purposes of this study, INTLEXP and the third factor will not be considered further. The variables loading on the factors form distinct conceptual clusters. In regard to military security and defense, respondents scoring high on the military cooperation dimension are likely to support NATO (NATOSPT and NATOESS) to hold the United States in high esteem

PAGE 75

59 (TRUSTUS) and to place a high priority on strong defense forces within their country (DEFPRI) as opposed to preferring a purely European, independent, or neutralist security posture. Those scoring highest on the nonmilitary cooperation dimension place a high value on economic and foreign policy cooperation among Western nations (ECPOL and FORPOL) support regional cooperation (EECMEM) and favor European unification (UNIEUR) The results displayed in Table 3-2 indicate a tridimensional structure for European attitudes along two distinct aspects of Atlantic cooperation. (Separate analyses by nation support this conclusion. ) The two dimensions can be interpreted as distinguishing between both the ends and means of policy. Military and nonmilitary issues are different policy ends, so Europeans discriminate between these policies and formulate their attitudes accordingly. However, if Atlantic cooperation is viewed as a unifying concept, then the means of cooperation appear to be determinants of how beliefs are structured, with military cooperation and nonmilitary cooperation being supported or opposed for quite different reasons. At present, European beliefs seem to be avoiding the potential polarization that could result from a unidimensional structure. However, this bidimensional structure is relatively parsimonious and contains considerable explanatory value. Europeans appear to place domestic military priorities within the context of Atlantic military cooperation. If

PAGE 76

60 domestic military concerns were evaluated apart from the Alliance, the defense priority variable (DEFPRI) would have loaded onto a unique factor much the same as the question on international expectations. However, DEFPRI is strongly related to the military cooperation factor. Thus, when Europeans consider their defense budgets and force allocations, they do so as if from the perspective of Western cooperation and Atlantic defense, rather than from a strictly nationalistic, independent perspective. In other words, this suggests that Europeans may view their armies as if they were Atlantic (or perhaps European) entities. This may be stretching a point, and certainly cross-national variations exist (one wonders to what extent Frenchmen consider the force de frappe an Atlantic rather than French force) ; however, this relationship between domestic military priorities and Atlantic military cooperation is a notable finding with major implications for Alliance decision makers to consider. The variable measuring trust for the United States (TRUSTUS) is also suggestive. Apparently, when military security and the defense of Europe are at issue, the United States is highly trusted among those who support military cooperation; but on other items dealing with economics, internal European affairs, or foreign affairs in general, views toward the United States are less consistent. Respondents can favor nonmilitary cooperation without trusting the United States and vice versa. Perhaps this helps to explain

PAGE 77

61 why European publics see no contradiction in opposing United States policy in Central America or the Middle East while at the same time continuing to support the Western Alliance. Military cooperation refers primarily to the defense of Europe. Thus, the bidimensional structure of European foreign policy attitudes provides some novel insights into the European belief system. Europeans perceive military affairs as conceptually distinct from cooperation in other areas of foreign policy. National military forces are considered elements of the Alliance rather than as independent entities. Attitudes toward the United States are related primarily to the American role of defender of Europe rather than that of world leader. The two dimensions, military and nonmilitary cooperation, are orthogonal: while Europeans may score high on both factors or low on both, they may also diverge their thinking by supporting one and opposing the other. Distribution of Opinion Based on the results of the factor analysis, the numerically coded responses to the items loading on the two rotated factors were summed for each respondent to create two Likert type scales: military cooperation (MILCOOP) and nonmilitary cooperation (NONMIL). 12 These scales represent the two orthogonal attitudinal dimensions discussed above. In this way the data were aggregated and

PAGE 78

62 respondents were scored along a range of values from 5 to 35 for MILCOOP and from 4 to 28 for NONMIL. 13 High scores represent support for the dimensional concept, and low scores represent opposition. Cronback's alpha coefficient was used to assess the 14 reliability of the scales. MILCOOP achieved an alpha = .70 and NONMIL an alpha = .60. These are relatively high values. Additionally, no item unduly depressed the value of alpha; in other words, the deletion of any item from either scale would not have substantially increased the value of alpha for that scale. For these reasons, along with the clear indications received from the factor analysis, both scales are accepted as reliable measures. Interpreting scores along a summated scale raises problems. The scale represents an underlying attitudinal continuum; however, one cannot provide an absolute interpretation of a respondent's score in terms of that continuum because the Likert technique, unlike the Guttman method, does not rank the survey items. The interpretation of a score anywhere along a summated scale is dependent on the distribution of the scores of the group of respondents. In other words, scores can be defined as being favorable or unfavorable toward the underlying concept only relative to the other scores of the group. This is because the "neutral" point on the continuum is not known, and there is no evidence to suggest that it corresponds to the midpoint of the scale values (Mclver and Carmines, 1981:27,28).

PAGE 79

63 The interpretation of scores is possible, however, when made relative to the mean. With the mean score for the group as the point of origin, the scores for individual respondents can be expressed as deviations from the mean. By assuming that the mean represents the typical or average attitude of the sample, scores that are higher than the mean can be interpreted as being more favorable to the measured concept than the average for the group, and scores that are lower than the mean can be interpreted as being less favorable than the average (Mclver and Carmines, 1981:28). In this way the sample of respondents can be dichotomized along each scale into those who support and oppose the concept. This technique was applied to the European sample. Table 3-3 displays the distribution of the sample in relation to the mean of each scale. Respondents' positions on these dimensions relative to the scale means were used to partition the sample into four mutually exclusive categories. This joint distribution of the sample allows for 17 generalizations to be made about attitudinal types. Figure 3-1 labels and depicts attitudinal types and their percentage distribution within a four-cell model. Atlanticists score positively on both dimensions. They support the Western military Alliance and other security measures, and they also favor Atlantic and European cooperation in areas such as the economy, foreign policy, and the Common Market. Isolationists on the other hand oppose both military and nonmilitary Atlantic cooperation. A third

PAGE 80

64 TABLE 3-3 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ALONG TWO DIMENSIONS (Percentages) Military Nonmilitary Cooperation Cooperation (MILCOOP) (NONMIL) Support 55% 54% Oppose 45 46 Total 100% 100% N = 4234 4234 Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) Note : Four nations: France, West Germany, Italy, Great Britain. National samples weighted to reflect their proportions of the aggregate population. Percentages represent sample distribution above and below the mean for each scale.

PAGE 81

65 Support Military Cooperation MILITARY ALLIES 21% I I ATLANTICISTS 34% Oppose Nonmilitary Cooperation /_ \ ISOLATIONISTS 25% T I I I I \'/ -y Support Nonmilitary Cooperation DOVISH PARTNERS 20% Oppose Military Cooperation Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) Great Britain, West Germany, France, and Note : Four nations Italy. Original N = 4234; national samples weighted to reflect their proportions of the aggregate population. Categories derived from the joint distribution along the two orthogonal attitudinal dimensions: military and nonmilitary cooperation. Figure 3-1. Structure and distribution of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation: typology.

PAGE 82

6 6 group, the Dovish Partners disagree with the need for defense alliances and military preparations; however, they welcome Atlantic cooperation in nonmilitary areas. Those in the final category, the Military Allies see a need for cooperation to ensure their military security, but beyond that they are less cooperative and more independent; they are less willing to contribute to the EEC or forge a common Western economic policy, but instead see greater opportunities arising from independent efforts in these nonmilitary areas. The distribution of respondents among the four attitudinal types is revealing. The largest single category is that of the Atlanticists with only 34%. Nevertheless, the overall message conveyed by this model is clear; West Europeans overwhelmingly support cooperation of one type or another (the Isolationists account for only 25% of the sample) but Europeans are far from united about the nature or type of Atlantic cooperation that should be pursued. There is sufficient opposition within each of the two attitudinal dimensions, as Table 3-3 illustrated, to stir up the public debate on specific issues despite the large percentage of the population that is not categorized as being Isolationist There is obviously considerable variation among the individuals constituting each of the categories that cannot be accounted for. Respondents may be positioned on vectors very close to adjacent categories blurring distinctions, or

PAGE 83

67 there may also be differences in intensity of opinion among respondents in the same category as defined by their distance from the origin. However, problems of this nature exist whenever data are being aggregated and must be endured in some measure to achieve the research goal of generalization. Cross-National Variation The four national samples were each dichotomized on both scales using the means derived from the European sample. The national samples no longer required weighting since they were being analyzed separately. Support and opposition for the two dimensions of Atlantic cooperation are presented in Table 3-4 by nation. West Germans display the highest support for both types of cooperation. This is significant because "much of the current concern about a 'crisis* in the Atlantic Alliance can be traced to worries about developments in the Federal Republic of Germany" (Capitanchik and Eighenberg, 1983:57). Given the large peace demonstrations, the growth of the unilateralist Green party, the defense program of the SPD, serious questions have been raised about the future role of West Germany within the Alliance. Policy makers in other Western nations are not accustomed to being concerned with pacifism in West Germany. In the past, the fear of German militarism guided much of European diplomacy; thus, "as Willy Brandt and others have observed, it is novel indeed to

PAGE 84

TABLE 3-4 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ALONG TWO DIMENSIONS BY NATION (Percentages) 68 France W. Ger. Italy Britain Military Cooperation Support 19% 79% 41% 72% Oppose 81 21 59 28 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% N = 983 995 1108 1131 Nonmilitary Cooperation Support 47 71 70 34 Oppose 53 30 29 67 Total 100% 101% 99% 101% N = 986 1008 1108 1132 Source: Eurobarometer 14 (Octob er 1980) Note: Percentages represent sam pie distribution above and below the mean for each dimension.

PAGE 85

69 hear complaints about Germans marching for peace" (Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983:57). Although the concerns about West German sentiment might continue, Table 3-4 is clear in showing a substantial reservoir of support for Atlantic cooperation among the West German public. The bifurcated national samples were also crosstabulated as in the previous section to create the four attitudinal classifications. These sample distributions by type for each nation are displayed in Table 3-5. The largest single group among the four countries is West Germany's Atlanticists who comprise 58% of the German sample. The French have the smallest percentage of Atlanticists and the largest percentage of Isolationists The British are largely Military Allies and the Italians Dovish Partners The Atlanticist outlook of the West German respondents may have resulted from the unique circumstances in which the Federal Republic evolved and from the diplomatic strategy it has undertaken. Upon its establishment in 1949, the Federal Republic enjoyed little international legitimacy and possessed no military power or diplomatic influence. With an absolute security deficit initially, West Germany had to be dependent on the United States to balance the power of the Soviet Union. In pursuit of respectability and national sovereignty, Chancellor Adenauer became a "compulsive joiner," believing that membership in international organizations would create the appearance of equality and

PAGE 86

TABLE 3-5 DISTRIBUTION OF EUROPEAN ATTITUDES BY TYPE OF NATION (Percentages) 70 Atlanticists Military Allies Dovish Partners Isolationists Total N = France W. Ger. Italy Britain 12% 58% 33% 29% 7 21 8 43 35 12 37 5 46 9 22 23 100% 100% 100% 100% 983 995 1108 1131 Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) Note : Categories derived from the joint distribution of the sample along the two orthogonal attitudinal dimensions: military and nonmilitary cooperation.

PAGE 87

71 provide opportunities to influence events (Joffe, 1985:79). West Germany became the most integrationist of the European nations. While pursuing the policies of integration abroad, Adenauer also cultivated the legitimizing ideologies of Europeanism and anti-Communism at home. Following the catastrophic results of the Third Reich's ultranationalism, the notion of a "European fatherland" provided a necessary and legitimate outlet for the demoralized population (Joffe, 1985:88). It is within this framework of dependence and transnationalism that the high level of Atlanticist sentiment in West Germany has been fostered. The Isolationists must be interpreted carefully. This group is not to be viewed as being necessarily pacifist or neutralist. Although respondents holding those views would be in this category, the survey items do not specifically measure those positions. The Isolationists are probably a rather heterogeneous grouping of Gaullists, neutralists, independents, and pacifists who share only the attitudinal trait of opposing Atlantic cooperation for one reason or another. For example, in a 1982 poll in France, only 16% held the view that France should abandon all armaments and adopt an absolutely neutral position in world affairs (Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983:56). This is much smaller than the 46% of the French sample seen in Table 3-5 to be the Isolationist category; these respondents are apparently not all neutralists.

PAGE 88

72 The foreign policy orientations of the French depicted in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 reflect the goals and interests of postwar France. If Adenauer was a "compulsive joiner," General de Gaulle and his predecessors in the Fourth Republic clearly were not. France initially proposed the European Defense Community but then ended it by refusing to join in 1954; de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application to the EEC in 1963 on the grounds that Britain was too closely aligned with the United States; and in 19 66 he withdrew French forces from the integrated military command of NATO. The General aspired to revive France's former rank and status as a great power. To do this he demanded for France the ability to decide its own fate in international relations, independent of any limiting arrangements. He also pursued for France the role of maintaining a balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union by not being singularly aligned to either. Long after de Gaulle's departure, his views in large measure continue to underlie French attitudes. The British appear in Table 3-5 to be predominantly Military Allies supporters of NATO and coordinated defense planning but opposed to other forms of cooperation. Geography and history have created within the British a traditionally weak "European" identity. This, together with the recent memory of being denied membership into the EEC by France until 1973 and the continuing quarrel between Britain and all the other Common Market countries about EEC budgets

PAGE 89

73 and disbursements, may explain the British distaste for nonmilitary cooperation. On the other hand, the high support (72%) for military cooperation among the British respondents seen in Table 3-4 may be a result of the generally favorable experiences of Anglo-American cooperation during World War II and the postwar circumstance in which Britain was the only major European nation which was neither defeated nor occupied. This condition enabled Britain to retain for some time its great power status and explains the absence of any deep-seated need for national reassertiveness of the kind felt by the French. Italy's categorization as Dovish Partners (37% in Table 3-5) seems to fit its distinctive relationship with the Alliance. Originally a reluctant participant, it was Allied diplomatic pressure and Italy's dependence on the Marshall Plan that compelled Italy to become a member. This lack of support for military cooperation is reflected in Italy's remarkably low material contribution to NATO: defense spending that is well below the NATO average and one of the lowest levels of military manpower as a percentage of males aged 18 to 45 (Putnam, 1977:296). At the same time, Italy enthusiastically supports the Common Market, shows no signs of desiring a Gaullist type of foreign policy, and seems content to remain dependent on the American presence as its security guarantee at very little cost to Italians. Pierre Hassner's description of Italian attitudes as

PAGE 90

74 "pacifist Atlanticism" appropriately fits the data from Italy in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 (cited in Putnam, 1977:296). The model presented here offers empirical support at the mass level for distinctive national characteristics. The typology of attitudinal categories describes four alternative views of Western cooperation, each of which seems to correspond to one of the four nations selected for this study. These representations are validated to some extent by national traditions, interests, and options. Linkages between this attitudinal model and political behavior, along with the implications raised by this research for the Alliance's cohesion, represent a substantial agenda for future research. Conclusion The primary finding of this chapter is that the European public is capable of structuring its foreign policy attitudes in a relatively parsimonious manner. The European belief system is not overly complex and as such allows for 1 8 ease of interpretation and measurement. A bidimensional attitudinal structure appears to exist along the lines of Atlantic military and nonmilitary cooperation. This structure avoids the potential dangers of political polarization inherent in a unidimensional belief system. Presently, it appears that Europeans consider military matters to be qualitatively different from other types of Atlantic

PAGE 91

75 cooperation. Additionally, beliefs on one dimension do not automatically affect those on the other. The analytical approach used demonstrates that it is possible to generalize about the dimensions of European public attitudes underlying various issues and policy 19 disputes. The method of probing the data with factor analysis and using Likert techniques to measure support for attitudinal dimensions offers distinct advantages over the single-indicator approach with its inherent instability as a measure of underlying constructs. A maximum amount of information is preserved and combined to create measures of a higher order than individual survey items. The descriptive purpose of this research — examining the conceptual structure of European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation — has been accomplished. What remains is to link the data and the model to some general notions about what has been happening to public attitudes and European politics over the past few years. Support for the general concept of Atlantic cooperation does not translate into support for specific policies. The data in Figure 3-1 depict the Isolationists as comprising only 25% of the population. This would seem to indicate a large majority favoring some form of cooperation, yet there is considerable opposition to spending more on defense, despite the fact that there has been a specific Alliance policy calling for an annual 3% increase. There continues to be distaste for the deployment of the new intermediate

PAGE 92

76 range nuclear weapons as part of the December 1979 dualtrack decision. Disputes also exist over the Common Agricultural Policy and the admittance of new members into the EEC, and there appears to be little European support for United States policies in Central America and elsewhere. These divergent tendencies appear to be between general goals and specific policies; a "goals versus instruments" dilemma (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985:382,383). Political goals comprising positive affective evaluations are endorsed, such as Atlantic cooperation, deterrence, European unity, and economic growth. However, the specific means required to promote these goals, such as military spending, particular weapons systems, and economic austerity programs, are normally unpopular with the general public and are therefore opposed. The analytical problem thus becomes determining whether goals or instruments are the correct operational measure; the focus in this chapter has been on the general goal of Atlantic cooperation. The political problem lies in trying to convert the broad support for goals, which this project seems to have uncovered in part, into support for specific policies. Just as broad affective support for goals does not lead to policy consensus, policy disputes do not portend the imminent peril of the Alliance. The past 40 years are evidence of this reality. However, one can only speculate at what point continued intra-Alliance conflicts, combined

PAGE 93

77 with uncertain international pressures, begin to erode the underlying support for general goals. The peace movements in Europe reflect in part the political tensions that challenge Western unity. Generally, these movements seem strongest in West Germany and Britain. France and Italy have experienced nothing resembling the level of protest and political activism over security issues 20 that exists in Britain and Germany. Additionally, the British Labour party and the SPD in Germany have developed positions which strongly challenge NATO policies. The parties of the Left in France and Italy, however, have not taken up these issues. And of course there is no protest party as successful as the German Greens in either France or Italy, although there is an Ecology party in France and the Italian Radicals are very similar to the Greens in social base and program. This research reveals that these different levels of protest are highest in those countries with the most support for military cooperation (as shown in Table 3-4) Large majorities in both Britain and West Germany score high on the military cooperation scale, while in Italy and France military cooperation tends to be opposed. The finding appears to be anomalous. One would intuitively expect the peace movements to be greatest in those countries with the lowest levels of underlying support for Atlantic military affairs, but that is not the case. The Socialists tenure of power from 1981 to 1986 may explain the

PAGE 94

78 French case. The leaders of the bourgeois opposition parties in France were not likely to promote anti-Western proposals and Mitterand's government supported Alliance policies. Additionally, within France the force de frappe has become an object of national pride not criticism, thus deflecting anti-nuclear sentiment (Dumont, 1985) In Italy, the close association of the Communist party with the peace movement as well as the perceived absence of genuine Italian roots in the movement may have contributed to its small following (Rossi and Ilari, 1985) The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been firmly established for many years in Britain and has become a big organization with large resources (Boyd, 1985) It remains capable of generating considerable political activity among its many supporters. Traditional German angst a contentious younger generation, and the unique geographic situation of the Federal Republic seem likely explanations for the strength of the peace movement there, despite the large amount of Atlanticist sentiment evident in Table 3-5. There are several possible scenarios which may develop out of this anomalous condition. The one most favorable to the Western Alliance would be a decline in the levels of public protest in Britain and West Germany combined with an increase in the affective support for Atlantic cooperation in France and Italy. The outcome most unfavorable would be an erosion of the high levels of underlying support that exists in Britain and West Germany as a result of continuous

PAGE 95

79 political pressure by the mobilized activists who oppose military cooperation, along with the politicization of these issues among those in France and Italy who currently harbor latent opposition to military cooperation. These alternative possibilities underscore the substantial effects that European mass attitudes can have on the future cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance. Notes "Af fectivity" is used in the psychological sense to refer to subjective emotions and feelings. The other psychological components of attitudes are the "cognitive" (objective evaluations) and the "behavioral"; see Carl I. Hovland and Milton J. Rosenberg, Attitude Organization and Change (1960:1-14) 2 The list of "crises" within the Alliance is long. For an early assessment of some of the disputes, see Henry A. Kissinger, The Troubled Partnership: A Re-appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance (1966) ; a more recent analysis is Alfred Grosser, The Atlantic Alliance (1982) 3 There are several contending descriptions for this new American multidimensional belief system. A relatively complex multidimensional structure with five interpretable dimensions is presented in Barbara Bardes and Robert Oldendick, "Beyond Internationalism: A Case for Multiple Dimensions in the Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes" (1978) American respondents are categorized as conservative internationalists, liberal internationalists, and noninternationalists in Michael Mandelbaum and William Schneider, "The New Internationalism" (1979) American attitudes are described with a four-cell typology with the categories of internationalists, accommodationists, hardliners, and isolationists in Eugene R. Wittkopf, "The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes: An Alternative View" (1981). 4 For a discussion of the advantages and techniques of various scaling methods, see John P. Mclver and Edward G. Carmines, Unidimensional Scaling (1981) The number of response categories varied between items. A range of 1 to 7 was used to recode the numerical values of the responses so that the range of values would be

PAGE 96

80 equivalent for all items. For example, items with three responses — (1) (2), and (3) — were recoded (1), (4), and (7); and items with four responses — (1) (2), (3), and (4) — were recoded (1), (3), (5), and (7). In each case the higher numbers reflect greater support for Atlantic cooperation. For the factor analysis this recoding is not necessary; however, for the summative scales discussed in the next section it is essential. Missing data on any questions were automatically recoded to the mean for that item. In this way no respondents were deleted from the analysis. Additional analyses using pairwise and listwise deletion of missing data yielded essentially identical factor solutions. 7 Eigenvalues are produced by the principal components method and are useful in determining the number of relevant dimensions. This statistic is computed for each of the factors generated by the analysis up to the number of variables entered, and it can be interpreted as the total variance explained by each factor. In a principal components analysis, factors are standardized such that total variance equals the number of variables, and each variable has a variance of 1. For this reason, factors with eigenvalues less than 1 are no better than a single variable, and the normal criterion is to accept as valid conceptual dimensions only those factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. See Marija I. Norusis, SPSSx Advanced Statistics Guide (1985). Communalities can be interpreted as the proportion of a variable's total variance that is accounted for by all of the factors, and it is derived from the sum of the squared loadings for a variable. These values do not change with rotation. The percent of variance in a variable accounted for by all of the factors is h2 x 100. Variables with extremely low communalities would be deleted because of their limited contribution to the model. The sum of h2 values x 100 equals the percent of total variance in all of the variables accounted for by the factors. See R. J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis (1970) 9 The correlations between the rotated factors in the oblique solution are listed below. These low coefficients support the conclusion for orthogonality. Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor I 1.00 Factor II .20 1.00 Factor III -.01 -.09 1.00 The figures entered in the factor columns are the "loadings." These measure the degree to which variables are related to the factors. Specifically, they are correlation

PAGE 97

81 coefficients between variables and factors. The square of the loading times 100 equals the percent of a variable's variance accounted for by the factor. Normally, according to Rummel (1970:139), factors are interpreted as consisting only of those variables with loadings equal to or greater than an absolute value of .40; that is, those variables with 16% or more of their variation explained by the factor. Factor loadings meeting the criterion have been underscored, and they can be used to identify which variables belong to which factors. The communalities and loadings together show at a glance how the data are ordered and explained by the factors. In separate analyses for each national sample, a two-factor solution produced the loadings listed below. The international expectations item was not included because of its independent effects indicated in Table 3-2. France W. Ger. Italy Britain I II I II I II I II NATOSPT .72 .07 .66 .09 .70 -.05 .79 .12 NATOESS .72 .08 .55 .41 .76 .12 .72 .23 SCTYPOL .53 .29 .54 .23 .67 .18 .61 .24 DEFPRI TRUSTUS .43 .33 .26 .33 .54 .54 -.48 .15 .44 .65 -.48 .09 .59 -.08 .11 .30 EECMEM .10 .70 .09 .71 .21 .79 -.02 .74 UNIEUR .10 .68 .18 .72 .27 .70 .07 .67 ECPOL .02 .66 .09 .33 .40 .21 .05 .67 FORPOL .39 .31 .49 .02 .56 .27 .26 .54 The interpretation from the aggregate sample is generally supported. The items tend to load on the same factors representing military and nonmilitary cooperation (I and II respectively); however, there are some exceptions. The item measuring trust for the United States (TRUSTUS) is associated strongly with neither factor for the French and the British. Also, the question on foreign policy orientation (FORPOL) for the West Germans and the Italians loads on Factor I, military cooperation, rather than on the nonmilitary dimension as with the European sample. 12 Another method would be to use factor scores to construct "factor scales." Factor scores are estimates for respondents on a factor computed by various types of differential weighing of variables based on the factor loadings. However, if the factor analysis is used primarily as a heuristic device for sorting out major clusters of variables, the simpler method of summative scales is preferred. For a comparison of "factor scales" with "factor-based scales," see Jao-On Kim and Charles W. Mueller, Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues (1985:60-73)

PAGE 98

82 13 No effort was made to vary the weight assigned to the items because it has been found that little is to be gained; unweighted and weighted summative scores regularly correlate quite highly according to Mclver and Carmines (1981:27). 14 Cronbach's alpha coefficient is the preferred estimate of scale reliability according to Mclver and Carmines (1981:29). This statistic provides an estimate of reliability based upon the inter-item correlation matrix. Computer routines that test for reliability with alpha also indicate the effects upon the value of alpha if individual items are deleted from the scale. This item analysis provides another source for checking reliability. 15 For similar decision rules, see Eugene R. Wittkopf and Michael A. Maggiotto, "American Public Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy" (1981); and Eugene R. Wittkopf and Michael A. Maggiotto, "Elites and Masses: A Comparative Analysis Toward America's World Role" (1983a). I c This is the technique used by Wittkopf (1981) and Wittkopf and Maggiotto (1981). 17 This again borrows from the techniques used by Wittkopf (1981) and Wittkopf and Maggiotto (1981). 1 8 A note of caution should be raised here. The structure derived from exploratory factor analysis is obviously a function of the items entered. There are many other foreign policy issues related to Atlantic cooperation not available in the data set analyzed. As such, the conclusion in regard to the apparent simplicity of the structure of European foreign policy attitudes at the mass level could be exaggerated. Additionally, there is some uncertainty as to the precise interpretation of the second factor. The nature of the items included may indicate support for European or regional cooperation rather than Atlantic cooperation. 19 Another note of caution is necessary here and it concerns the issue of equivalence in cross-cultural survey research. It is possible that survey items may not be perfectly translatable from one language to another. While there is not much that can be done about this when using existing data sets, cognizance of this possibility is necessary. 20 For a brief comparison of the origins, activities, and achievements of the peace movements in several countries, see Werner Kaltefleiter and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, eds., The Peace Movements in Eu rope and the United States (198 5)": ~~

PAGE 99

CHAPTER IV SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES Fundamental social and political changes are occurring in Western Europe. Traditional power relationships and decision-making patterns are being altered by the spread of mass education, increased social mobility, generational conflict, new forms of interest intermediation, a new agenda of political issues, new forms of political participation, and the realignment of electoral coalitions (Barnes and Kaase, 1979; Dalton et al. 1984; Inglehart, 1977; Schmitter and Lehmbruch, 1979; Szabo, 1983b) In the midst of these changes, the specific traditions, interests, and crises of individual nations might undercut any broad social or political generalizations (Verba, 1980:400). This chapter assesses the effects of social attributes, political attributes, and national identity on European mass attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. An essential task in the analysis of political attitudes is to break down the societal aggregate into its more tangible component parts. It is then possible to distinguish the way in which the attitudes of each part vary from the views of the others. As the size and power of 83

PAGE 100

84 these societal segments vary, the relative importance of their respective group attitudes varies also. There is a tendency when observing pluralist societies to err by confusing the views of a segment of society with those of the entire society; in other words, to confuse a part with the whole. The media and policy makers often see the will of the majority in a stormy parliamentary debate or a persistent interest group organization. The concern is that "the articulate and the noisy are liable to monopolize the attention of policy makers, and certainly to claim for themselves wider representative status" (Hill, 1981:57). A related task is to explain the formation of political attitudes. This reflects the ultimate concern for causality which is an underlying or implicit motivation for more sophisticated forms of data analysis in political science. Determining those factors most influential in producing attitudes contributes greatly to the understanding of political behavior and political culture. Caution is necessary when deciding what kinds of group and variable differences merit attention. While there is an intrinsic interest in political science with correlations and causal analysis, some findings of such correlations often fail to serve any serious theoretical or practical purpose and may in fact border on the trivial. Moreover, statistical significance does not mean substantive significance; attitudinal variations of a few percentage points may signify more about the relative uniformity of opinion across

PAGE 101

85 segments of society than about the minor differences between them. To disentangle important from trivial group differences Crewe (1985:47,48) suggests three questions be kept in mind. First, are the groups being compared on the same side or on opposing sides of the issue? It matters whether the majority in each group take divergent or convergent positions. If divisions of opinion cut across rather than run with social cleavages the result may also be trivial. Second, how big and how important (in the sense of being able to influence wider opinion) is the social group in question? It is often possible to identify parts of society whose views are in marked contrast with the large majority of society, but this may be of little political significance. Third, are the distinctive attitudes of a particular group held because of the distinctive attributes of that group? It is tempting, but not necessarily correct, to assume that they are. An example would be differences of opinion between social classes that occur only because of differences in party loyalty between classes; these opinions may have nothing to do with the interests or consciousness of the classes; in other words, the correlation between class and attitudes in this case would be spurious. The preceding chapter presented a typology of four European viewpoints toward Atlantic cooperation. These types are: the Atlanticists who support NATO and the United States as well as cooperation in nonmilitary areas;

PAGE 102

86 the Military Allies who also support NATO and a strong national defense, but who oppose the EEC and other nonmilitary cooperation measures; the Dovish Partners who oppose military cooperation, but who favor nonmilitary cooperation in areas such as economic policy; and the Isolationists who oppose both dimensions of Atlantic cooperation. This chapter builds upon this typology by analyzing the relationship between disaggregated component parts of European society and European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. The military and nonmilitary aspects of Atlantic cooperation will be assessed separately; these are operationalized by the two Likert-type summative scales from Chapter III. The intent is to determine which specific variables are associated with the attitudes and together which variables form the best multivariate causal model. Goals and Expectations Seven individual level attributes will be examined. These can be identified as either social or political variables. The social variables are: generational influences, value orientations, class cleavages, and educational influences. The political variables are: partisanship, ideology, and political participation. Together, these represent three of the theoretical frameworks discussed in Chapter II: the Successor Generation, Postmaterialism, and modernization. Additionally, national cultural influences will be examined by using the national identity of

PAGE 103

87 respondents as a variable. If these variables empirically reflect consistent relationships with given attitudes, and if the relationships are further validated by theories in scholarly literature and expectations on attribute to attitude relationships based on environmental circumstances, the model's independent variables will have been essentially established. Figure 4-1 illustrates this model of causal relationships between determinants and attitudes. Generational Influences The political consequences of intergenerational attitude change are potentially dramatic. A political generation is identified by shared and politically relevant experiences of the same age group. Accordingly, the values and attitudes formed early in life through political socialization remain dominant and determine the attitudes of the age cohort throughout adulthood. According to Karl Mannheim, the first modern scholar to write about political generations, a political generation is a set of persons occupying "a common location in the social and historical process, predisposing them to a certain characteristic type of historically relevant action" (1952:291). As childhood socialization experiences vary, so will the adult political attitudes and behavior. Recently, an intense interest has developed in the attitudes of the West European Successor Generation and the

PAGE 104

88 Determinants Attitudes Social Attributes > Generation > Values > Class > Education \ / r 1 Political Attributes > Partisanship > Ideology > Participation L I -\ -/ I | I Military i Atlanticists Allies i u i I IsolationDovish I ists Partners I i L 1 I 1 National Identities > British > French > German > Italian L. — \ -/ Figure 4-1. A model of attitude formation and structure.

PAGE 105

89 implications of these for the Atlantic Alliance (The Atlantic Council, 1981; Fotheringhara, 1983; Harrison, 1983; Laqueur, 1985; Levi, 1982; Szabo, 1983a, 1983b, 1984; Wertman, 1983) The Successor Generation concept refers to postwar Europeans. The concern is that the younger generation, born since World War II, has internalized a different set of attitudes than those of the older generations. Life experiences of economic prosperity, political stability, and military security have replaced those of depression, instability, and war. Postwar Europeans have matured in a new Europe in which the European Community and NATO, affluence and political stability are givens. America does not connote the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift, or even John Kennedy; rather it means the Vietnam War and Watergate. (Szabo, 1983b: 1) Specifically, younger Europeans are viewed as possessing values that are less Atlantic and more anti-American than those of the older cohorts. The emergence of the European peace movement, a growing distrust of the United States, and the rise of environmental and New Left political parties are contemporary West European political phenomena dominated by younger citizens. Middle aged Europeans, the second generation of analytical interest, have childhood memories distinctly different from the postwar generation. They remember World War II but probably not the Depression. They have acquired responsibility for managing the postwar West European recovery, and their most influential socialization experience is the dramatic economic turn around from devastation to affluence,

PAGE 106

90 known as the Wirtschaftswunder in West Germany. Detente, Ostpolitik, and the arms control process have demonstrated that marginal accommodation with the Soviet Union is possible, although the Berlin airlift, the Cold War, and containment were also salient issues for this cohort. This generation has contributed to engineering peace for four decades, and they probably have greater faith in its continuance than those who experienced the 1930s and 1940s as mature adults (Deutsch, 1967) Together, these experiences may perhaps produce ambivalent attitudes toward the superpowers and Western military cooperation and security. Older Europeans, those who can be labeled the prewar generation, present a marked contrast to the postwar cohort. Having endured the Great Depression, fought and survived World War II, and successfully recovered from the war's catastrophic effects, the prewar generation can be expected to possess a world view considerably less sanguine than the others. In the immediate postwar decade, the period when these Europeans were reestablishing their peacetime lives, Soviet aggression was the principal threat to stability. The United States was the principal guarantor of that peace and stability by such means as the Marshall Plan, the Berlin airlift, and the establishment of NATO. A high perception of threat in the international environment and the felt need for national and Western measures to counteract such threats are probably the result of the acculturation experience of this age cohort.

PAGE 107

91 Expectations of cross-national differences in regard to the attitudes of these three generations are not clear. There is some indication in the literature that the extent or degree of discontinuity in political history will affect generational differences in political attitudes (Inglehart, 1977; Kriegel, 1978). Thus, a society whose intergenerational political experiences have been similar will have similar attitudes across generations, and one with abrupt and dramatic discontinuities will produce sharp generational attitude differences. Accordingly, the British and West Germans would seem to be at opposite ends of the longitudinal stability dimension. The British having the benefit of a relatively stable political order, and the Germans having been wrenched from the Weimer Republic to National Socialism and into the current pluralist democracy. The French and Italians both have traumatized memories of World War II — its antecedents and consequences — that would place them at points somewhere between those of the British and the West Germans in regard to intergenerational differences. Operationalizing the span of birth years for specific generations is somewhat subjective. Disagreement exists concerning the identification of the formative years during which a common experience can have an impact on political views. Traditionally, socialization theory viewed childhood and early adolescence as the times of maximum receptiveness to external political influences. Davies represents this

PAGE 108

92 view: "By twelve a world picture is there and solid. By then the basic items in the political kit are assembled" (1973:105). However, there is evidence that people are just as malleable during the early years of adulthood (Beck, 1984) Analysts of foreign policy attitudes usually take the second position by holding that these views are acquired later in life beyond adolescence, perhaps between the ages of 17 and 25. Because this period encompasses for many the beginning of eligibility for military service, consciousness of and interest in foreign affairs may be enhanced when the prospect of personal involvement hinges upon the outcome of foreign policy undertakings. (Holsti and Rosenau, 1980:8) The critical events which define the parameters for the three generations are World War II and its immediate aftermath. The dramatic events of the 1940s create the single strongest generational cleavage affecting European foreign policy attitudes in the 1980s. "Most of the authors would agree that the postwar generation in Europe begins with those born in 1950 or afterwards. Europeans born in the 1940s are clearly transitional in the sense that they had direct experience of the Cold War" (Szabo, 1983b: 169). Thus, three cohorts will be established for analytical purposes. They can be labeled the postwar generation (born since 1950) the World War II/Cold War generation (birth years 1925-1950) the prewar generation (born prior to 1925)

PAGE 109

93 Attitudinal differences between age cohorts can be the result of either generational change, which has been assumed thus far, or the result of life-cycle effects. This second theory regards the values of young people as transitory, and that with maturation and the assumption of adult roles, values change (Eisenstadt, 1956) Additionally, a third influence on value change is period effects which result from historical events that affect more than one generation. To attempt to sort out these various effects, longitudinal data must be used. This task will be undertaken in later chapters, which examine long-term changes in European Atlantic attitudes. In this chapter, cross-sectional data from one time period will be observed as a first step to see to what extent generational differences exist. Two hypotheses express the expected relationships between generational cohorts and attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation: H.l Among generations: the postwar generation will have the lowest level of support for Atlantic cooperation; the prewar generation will have the highest; and the WWII/Cold War cohort will have some level of support between the others. H.2 West Germany will have the largest range of intergenerational attitudinal differences; Britain will have the lowest; and France and Italy will have intergenerational differences at ranges between those of Germany and Britain.

PAGE 110

94 Value Orientations There is considerable agreement among analysts on one type of postwar value change; specifically, the increase in Postmaterial or New Politics values (Baker et al. 1981; Dalton, 1980; Inglehart, 1977). Two propositions underlie this shift from Materialist to Postmaterialist values. The first is that people value most highly those things that are relatively scarce (Maslow, 1954) This scarcity hypothesis implies short-term changes, or period effects. An individual's priorities reflect one's socioeconomic environment; if conditions improve, values shift toward "higher level" or Postmaterial concerns. The second proposition is that to a large extent one's basic values reflect the conditions that prevailed during one's formative, preadult years (Dawson and Prewitt, 1969) This socialization hypothesis implies that long-term cohort effects also exist, and that the values of a given generation tend to reflect the conditions experienced during the formative, preadult years. Inglehart (1977) reasons that Materialists are those who belong to the older age cohorts who experienced the wars and scarcities of the era preceding the West European postwar economic miracle. As a result, Materialists accord a relatively high priority to economic matters or to what Maslow terms the security needs. For the younger cohorts, on the other hand, a set of "postbourgeois" or Postmaterial values, relating to the need for belonging and to asthetic,

PAGE 111

95 cultural, and intellectual needs, are more likely to take top priority. Postmaterialism, therefore, is a generational phenomenon, and as such, it is linked to the Successor Generation effects discussed above. There is disagreement on some of the underlying aspects of the Postmaterial value orientation. Inglehart believes that a rise in affluence is a direct cause of Postmaterial values. He regards the change as being a single dimensional shift from Material to Postmaterial. Flanagan (1982) contends that functional constraints or social norms account for the shift, and that Ingelhart's single dimension mistakenly fuses two dimensions. There may be a marked shift from authoritarian to libertarian preferences; but a shift away from Material priorities is more in doubt. Obviously, Flanagan's materialistic libertarian is more likely to support the need for Atlantic military and economic cooperation than is Inglehart 's unidimensional New Politics individual. The analytical question here concerns the extent to which Postmaterialism is related to Atlantic cooperation. Inglehart believes there are indications that antiAmericanism may be linked with the long-term shift toward Postmaterialism in Western Europe. "The linkage between Postmaterialism and anti-Americanism suggests that the two variables may be following a common trajectory" (1984b: 535). Anti-Americanism is clearly a functional equivalent for nonsupport of Atlantic cooperation.

PAGE 112

96 Theoretically, the same propositions used to explain the development of the Postmaterial set of values, which are primarily economic and military security, may be applied as attitudes toward international cooperation as well. In the late 1940s, Western cooperation was necessary both to rebuild West European economies and to reflect united resolve against Soviet military encroachment (Grosser, 1980) For the prewar Europeans, predominantly Materialists, Western cooperation means the Marshall Plan, the Berlin airlift, and NATO. Yet for the postwar, Postmaterialists, international cooperation means the European Economic Community, the new European Parliament, the United Nations, Ostpolitik, and Detente. Thus, to the Materialist the focus is on the Western community of nations, but to the Postmaterialist it is on the world community of nations. Similarly, views of what is threatening vary. To the prewar Materialist, traditional power relationships within the state system identify the Soviet Union as the principal threat. To the Postmaterialist, however, with a global agenda of reforms, it is the system itself, the weapons, and the leaders of both East and West, that constitute the threat. These contrasting views obviously will produce varying attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. It would seem plausible, therefore, that theoretically and practically the shift in value orientations toward Postmaterialism includes an aspect of declining support for

PAGE 113

97 Atlantic military cooperation. In regard to Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation, the effects of Postmaterialism may not be as strong, yet the expectation is that here also Postmaterialists would support cooperation less than Materialists because of the global perspective of Postmaterialists. The hypothesis relating Postmaterialism to Atlantic attitudes is as follows: H.3 Postmaterialists will have lower support for Atlantic cooperation than will Materialists. Class Cleavages There has been strong support in the findings of empirical political research that politics in industrial societies is influenced considerably by social class. Seymour Martin Lipset (1960) in his classic and influential work, Political Man asserted that social class is the most important single political fact. Alford (1963) calculated a "class voting index" (obtained by subtracting the percentage of nonmanual respondents voting for the Left from the percentage of manual respondents voting for the Left) from data on four English-speaking democracies and found that in virtually every available survey, manual workers were more likely to vote for parties of the Left than nonmanual workers. Other empirical analyses have confirmed that social class is one of the most powerful bases of political cleavage in Western Europe, towering above other variables,

PAGE 114

98 when it is not dominated by ethnic cleavages such as religion, language, or race (Lijphart, 1979; Rose, 1974) More recently, there is a new view that the influence of social class on political attitudes and behavior is declining. As industrializing society gives way to advanced industrial society, there seems to be a growing tendency for politics to polarize along a new dimension that cuts across conventional class cleavages as well as across the traditional Left-Right axis. Increasingly, the most controversial political issues and important political debates reflect what is known as the New Politics dimension. The environmentalist movement, the peace movement, the women's movement, opposition to nuclear power, and the limits to growth movement are not class based but instead reflect the New Politics or Postmaterialist agenda (Baker et al., 1981; Dalton, 1980, 1984; Inglehart, 1984a). The analytical question of interest here is to what extent class cleavages influence political attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. The studies cited above use primarily voting behavior and partisanship as dependent variables in assessing the political impact of social class. There are no existing studies attempting to link class with foreign policy attitudes, and there is little a priori basis for forming hypotheses regarding the nature of any relationship. Collective military security and international economic security are obviously not class issues in the sense that the tax structure or welfare policies are. Nuclear bombs

PAGE 115

99 and invading armies do not discriminate among the classes. Particular class interests are only indirectly materially affected by defense policies, for example, by the potential trade-off between spending on defense as against social services. To the extent that class consciousness exists, and it clearly varies among West European nations, the working class would be aware of its relative economic and social disadvantage. This awareness may translate into a sense of little control over events. A high level of xenophobia would be expected along with a lack of comprehension about or interest in international affairs except that foreigners and neighboring nations are not to be trusted. This image may be somewhat anachronistic but it presents the case for an hypothesis that the working classes may shun the prospect of Atlantic cooperation. In his study of the New Politics agenda, Dalton (1984) found the phenomenon to be present largely in certain occupational groups, specifically in the service sector and white collar jobs of what has been termed the new middle class. To the extent that this agenda includes the peace movement, anti-nuclear groups, and so on, then it may have a class component that supports the hypothesis that the new middle class opposes Atlantic cooperation. The traditional, bourgeois middle class (business, executives, and professionals) presents a different image. Having friends and contacts across the nation and even

PAGE 116

100 Europe, being exposed to major urban publications and other elite media, and possessing a sense of civic responsibility to the community and nation, may combine to create a high level of awareness of, involvement in, and concern for international affairs. Perspectives on East-West relations, collective military security, and the international economy would probably be the result of informed opinion and firsthand experiences rather than of simplistic working class or idealistic new middle class attitudinal stereotypes. Such attitudes it can be hypothesized should result in support for Atlantic military and nonmilitary cooperation. Thus, the hypothesis for the effects of class cleavage on Atlantic attitudes is as follows: H.4 Among classes: the new middle class will have the lowest level of support for Atlantic cooperation; the bourgeois middle class will have the highest; and the working class will have some level of support midway between the other two. Educational Influences The importance of various educational levels to political attitudes is well known. In his pioneering study of belief systems, Converse (1964) found "ideologues," those with highly constrained political beliefs, only among the highly educated segment of society. However, the concern here is not with how mass publics organize their beliefs but rather with what they believe and how education affects it.

PAGE 117

101 There is some evidence from published studies that Europeans with the most education tend to oppose policies aimed at strengthening defense and military security, especially with regard to nuclear weapons. In Britain, "the limited data available confirm the visible impression that it is the intelligentsia who are the most apprehensive and informed about nuclear defense issues and the most likely to take an antinuclear position" (Crewe, 1985:53). In Germany, "respondents with low formal education attributed much more importance to military protection and were far less convinced of the necessity of the peace movement" (Rattinger, 1985:160). These preliminary findings would support the hypothesis that increasing education should decrease support for Atlantic military cooperation, but it does not relate directly to nonmilitary cooperation. There is an educational element to the New Politics agenda. "Interest in New Politics issues is related to educational level. Respondents with a Gymnasium or university education (Abitur or more) place considerably more emphasis on New Politics goals by a wide margin" (Dalton, 1984:112). Again, these goals generally focus on qualitative, reformist, and life-style issues along with concern for the complexities of a technological society and increased international interdependence. Increased education may therefore lead to support for nonmilitary Atlantic cooperation in which nations are perceived as having to combine resources to address international problems.

PAGE 118

102 There is support for this proposition in the literature on regional integration and supranationalism in which education was considered to be a direct contributor to increasing support for supranational political activity (Haas, 1790: Puchala, 1973). Undoubtedly, increasing education both clarifies the transnational nature of solutions to problems which trouble postwar Western Europe, and it opens access to vocations which require travel among neighboring Europeans and dealing with international issues. The more educated have both a greater opportunity to know neighboring nationals first-hand and a greater need to be aware of region-wide commonalities and problems. Thus, increasing education should lead to greater support for Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation. These two hypotheses divide Atlantic cooperation into its two conceptual dimensions with education appearing to have an opposite effect on each. These hypotheses can be stated as follows: H.5 Increased education will result in lower support for Atlantic military cooperation. H.6. Increased education will result in greater support for Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation. Partisanship and Ideology Partisan politics in Western Europe over the past two decades have shed all pretenses that the future holds an end to ideological conflict. These years have been a period

PAGE 119

103 of dramatic political change and struggle. While theorists at one point predicted an era of consensual politics and an end to ideology (Bell, 1960), concerns are now with partisan realignment and dealignment and a crisis of liberal democracy (Beer, 1982; Dalton et al., 1984; Habermas, 1973). Parties and programmatic differences remain at the center of politics in Western Europe. As the focus shifts from social variables to political influences in this section, the first two political attributes will be considered together. The concepts of partisanship (political party identification) and ideology (placement on the left-right spectrum) are closely linked in West European politics where, unlike the United States, parties occupy clear idological positions. The Social Democrats (SPD) of West Germany, the Socialist parties of France (PSF) and Italy (PSI) and the Labour Party in Britain are obviously parties of the Left as are the Communist parties of France (PCF) and Italy (PCI) also. On the Right are the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CDU) of West Germany (habitual coalition partners) the Christian Democrats of Italy (CDI) the Conservative Party in Britain, and the Union for French Democracy (UDF) and the Rally for the Republic (RPR) in France. There are also centrist parties: in Britain the Liberals and the new Social Democrats (SDP) in West Germany the Free Democrats (FDP) and in France and Italy several

PAGE 120

104 smaller parties attempting to occupy the political center, but given the polarized ideological political culture of these two nations, the center holds little attraction for the French and Italian electorates. All of this is in sharp contrast to parties in the United States. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats routinely blur any ideological meaning to American party labels, and the nominating systems are such that candidates and office holders need not ever answer to the party organization at all (Ladd, 1978; Eldersveld, 1982). Although it is common to say that the United States has two centrist parties, in reality it has two parties both to the right of center. There has never been any Socialist tradition (much less Communist) in American political culture. There is mounting evidence that stable party loyalties in West European nations are declining. The Greens in West Germany threaten to split the Left at the same time that the conservative parties are losing popularity. It is not clear whether the Alliance Party in Britain, a loose joining of the Liberals and Social Democrats that received 26% of the vote in 1983, will become a major political party or will fade away. Despite its 19 86 electoral victory, the coalition on the Right in France remains split and holds power by only a slim margin, and the Christian Democrats in Italy together with the Socialists continue to govern in what is the most fragile of coalitions. Analysts write specifically

PAGE 121

105 of party realignment in West Germany (Dalton, 1984) and Italy (Barnes, 1984) along with party dealignment in Britain (Alt, 1984) and a stalled electorate in France (Lewis-Beck, 1984) There are also indications that the traditional sociophychological bonds between voters and parties are weakening. The May Revolts in France, the antiwar marches in Germany, the CND in Britain, and the continued strength of the Italian Communists reflect a new political agenda, an agenda of the New Politics that has stimulated new political conflict over the past two decades. In addition, the 1970s and early 1980s increasingly have witnessed the emergence of a conservative counterattack around the issues raised by the New Left during the 1960s. A New Right has surfaced in many countries to reassert traditional values as reflected in movements against abortion, women's rights, gay rights, and life-style issues. Many nations have experienced the growth of private church schools and mass political assaults on the welfare state, usually through efforts to reduce spending and taxation. "The New Left has drawn disproportionate support from the new middle class, while the New Right has attracted various blue-color and previously apolitical Fundamentalists" (Dalton et al., 1984:4). These shifting issues and alignments serve to confuse traditional partisan and ideological formulas complicating the research task at hand, which is to identify relationships between partisan identities and views toward Atlantic

PAGE 122

106 cooperation. Historically, pro-Atlanticist sympathies were to be found in greatest abundance among social democratic politicians and parties. The Left, unlike its conservative opponents, possessed no lingering imperial ambitions following World War II. In Britain, it was the Labour administration of Prime Minister Clement Atlee and his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin that took the lead in opening the way for American reentry into Western Europe and in supporting the American-led action in Korea. Also, "the left of center politicians of the French Fourth Republic were veritable Americanophiles compared to the right of center de Gaulle who followed them" (Haseler, 1983:3). This historical insight provides a sharp backdrop for what appears to be the complete rejection of Atlanticism by the modern European Left. Concerned observers in the United States question the commitment to NATO and Atlantic cooperation of leaders such as Britain's Michael Foot and Neal Kinnock of the Labour Party, and Germany's Hans-Jochen Vogel and Johannes Rau of the SPD. That these quite valid questions can be put is, in itself, an interesting revelation. Imagine a serious observer asking the same question some time ago about Britain's Bevin and Gaitskell, or Germany's Schmidt and Ollenhaur, or France's Defferre and Mollet. (Haseler, 1983:3) The reasons for this shift are many and varied and beyond the scope of this section. For now the intent is to form hypotheses for the correlational analyses of this chapter. In regard to Britain, the Conservatives take a

PAGE 123

107 pro-NATO position on almost all aspects of the Atlantic Alliance and nuclear defense while a clear majority of Labour supporters take an anti-NATO line on many defense issues. Supporters of the Liberal/SDP Alliance usually position themselves between those of the two established parties (Crewe, 1985) French opinion is not as defined as British, there being a large percentage of "don't know" type of responses, but the data from Fritsch-Bournazel (1985) indicate that the parties of the Right, the UDF and the RPR, tend to be more supportive of NATO and pro-American than their opponents on the Left. The pattern is the same for West Germany (Rattinger, 1985) and Italy (Rossi, 1985). The focus of this study, however, is broader. The conclusions just cited were derived from analyses of individual survey items of very specific policy questions. The attitudes represented by the concept used here of Atlantic cooperation are more fundamental and include components on collective security policy, collective economic policy, collective foreign policy, the EEC, trust for the United States, support for a politically unified Western Europe, NATO, and national defense. This complex attitudinal construct should avoid being affected by opinions on hot and timely policy debates and tap into the underlying beliefs instead. Nonetheless, as indicated by the studies cited above, it can be expected that European attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation will follow party lines in the same manner.

PAGE 124

108 Issues of anti-Americanism and NATO were a matter of party conflict in the 1983 British and West German elections; and in Britain, they were second only to unemployment in importance to voters, and they were the most prominent of all issues in the media coverage of the campaigns (Crewe, 1985:58). Interesting, however, is the fact that these issues received no attention in the 1986 French election. Additionally, the effects of these political variables should exceed those of the social variables discussed previously. Parties are mobilizing institutions, equipped and intended to educate and recruit supporters to a particular ideological or programmatic line. Also, people cannot change their age, rarely change their educational level, and only very slowly change their social class if at all. For these reasons, it is expected that these political influences of party and ideology will reflect stronger relationships with Atlantic attitudes than the social variables of generation, education, and class. This may not be the case for Postmaterialists values which should be as pliable as these political influences. The hypothesis regarding these two political variables is as follows: H.7 Among partisan and ideological identities: those on the Left will have the lowest level of support for Atlantic cooperation; those associated with the Right will have the highest; and those in the Center will

PAGE 125

109 have some level of support midway between the Left and the Right. Political Participation Political participation refers to citizen involvement in political activity. It would be expected that such participation would be relatively high in Western Europe with its systems of mass education, virtual 100% literacy, and active media, and the proliferation of adult participant groups in addition to established political parties. Examples of these alternative political groups are labor unions in Britain and France, citizen initiative groups in West Germany, and groups affiliated with the Catholic Church in Italy. On a broader basis, the urban setting of Western Europe constitutes an environment for development of a high level of participation. These multiple avenues of mass interaction and compact settlement patterns work against the isolation of any sizeable societal segment and promote political action. Yet not all Europeans participate equally. Education levels vary considerably, and the level at which the public is encouraged to participate in political governance varies from nation to nation. Expectations of system responsiveness, individual perceptions of efficacy, personal wealth, along with the level of education have all been shown to affect the likelihood and amount of political participation (Verba, Nie and Kim, 1978).

PAGE 126

110 In addition to the changes in the political agenda and partisan alignments discussed previously, another broad area of change involves the style of political participation. There is an increased desire for participation that extends into new avenues that include a greater acceptance for unconventional participation (Barnes and Kaase, 1979). Greater public participation in political decision-making has become an important social goal and political reality. This development is closely tied to the spread of protest movements, citizen action groups, and unconventional participation in the 1960s and 1970s, but it involves more. In general, "citizens are less likely to be passive subjects and more likely to insist on being participants in the decisions that effect their lives" (Dalton et al., 1984:4). This increased political participation has affected security and foreign policy decision-making. Public reaction to official policy is no longer acquiescent, but rather is questioning and challenging of the doctrines and the elites who make them. Antiwar protest movements have existed now for a quarter of a century, changing their focus from Vietnam, to nuclear weapons, to nuclear energy, and finally to the fundamentals of NATO and Western collective security (Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 1983) Who participates? What is the connection between political activism and attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation? These are the questions being asked here.

PAGE 127

Ill Observers of American politics have noted that levels of participation are related to extreme ideological positions (Ladd, 1978) Those citizens most likely to vote, assist with campaigns, and become involved with political movements tend to be considered ideologues rather than pragmatists. The results have been substantial in that with low voter turnouts for primary elections and little interest in local party politics, the ideologues have a disproportionate amount of political influence. This phenomenon has been credited with the nomination of ideological candidates such as McGovern and Goldwater. It has also enabled campaign organizations to be "captured" by ideological activists whose views are not representative of the public at large. Similar trends can be expected for Western Europe with one distinction. The participation of interest here is that of protest movements and other unconventional types of participation; these appear to be one-sided in Europe. Naturally, there are no demonstrations in favor of war or nuclear weapons or even in support of nuclear deterrence or NATO. The activists appear to be largely all on the antiAmerican side leading to the hypothesis that political activism is associated with opposition to Atlantic cooperation. If, as in the case of the United States, political activists have opportunities and capabilities to have a disproportionate effect on politics and policy, then this

PAGE 128

112 relationship is potentially significant. This hypothesis can be stated as follows: H.8 Increased political participation is associated with lower support for Atlantic cooperation. National Identity Western Europe does not possess a common will, does not speak with one voice, does not have a clear idea of its identity and goals, and does not pursue a single foreign policy in its own collective interest (Barzini, 1983:23). The histories and characters of the separate nations persist and in large measure have arrested further steps toward the political unification of Western Europe into a solid whole. The analytical task here is to determine the extent to which national identity is an independent influence on European attitudes. Do the British view foreign policy matters fundamentally differently than the French, and so on? The hypotheses about social and political variables discussed above are made as universal statements, applying across nations. The expectation is that similar patterns of relationships will be found in all or most of the countries observed. These individual attributes, as with those in the Barnes and Kaase study, "can be expected to be relatively invariate across political systems" (1979:20). According to Przeworski and Teune: "Most recent comparative studies of political behavior seem to discover that relationships among

PAGE 129

113 individual attitudes are the same regardless of political system" (1970:43) The existence of universal relationships between variables does not mean that the frequencies of variable characteristics are the same for different political systems. For example, if Postmaterialist values are found to contribute to attitudes that oppose Atlantic cooperation in all four of the countries in this study, substantially different levels of both Postmaterialism and anti-Atlantic sentiment might be found in these nations as well. The question is whether the different levels of support for Atlantic cooperation are best explained by the different levels of Postmaterialism (along with the other individual attributes) or by the different national identities. The extent to which it is the latter represents the systemic differences that are attributable to national cultural influences. Chapter III provides some indication of how the separate national populations view Atlantic cooperation. Table 3-4 shows that the West Germans have the highest support for both military and nonmilitary cooperation, and the French have the lowest for both. Italians support nonmilitary and oppose military cooperation, while the British support military and oppose nonmilitary cooperation. Whether these national differences are independent effects or the result of varying levels of the individual attributes

PAGE 130

114 will be determined by multivariate techniques using national identity as an analytic variable. Any hypothesis of the effects of national identity relative to the individual attributes must be speculative. There are no previous studies of this nature to serve as guides. The differences between the nations observed in Table 3-4 appear too large to be accounted for by variations in social and political attributes, which leads to the following hypothesis: H.9 National identity is a stronger influence on European attributes than are the social and political attributes. Summary This section has uncovered some of the major political trends in Western Europe, and it has tried to relate these trends to the foreign policy issues of Atlantic cooperation. In some cases there is a clear theoretical connection and hypotheses can be made with confidence. In other areas there are no signals, the hypotheses are tentative, and perhaps no relationships will be found. The linkages between generational influences, Postmaterialism, and the new middle class were discussed above, and care must be taken to avoid making spurious conclusions. Education may be linked to these as well. As hypothesized, the young, better educated members of the new middle class, along with those identifying with the left of the political spectrum,

PAGE 131

115 constitute the constituency most likely to oppose Atlantic cooperation. This is the same segment of society according to Inglehart (1977) and Dalton (1984) most likely to hold Postmaterial and New Politics values. If the relationships between these attributes and Atlantic Cooperation are supported empirically as hypothesized, then anti-Atlantic attitudes can be included in the broader phenomenon of Postmaterialism and New Politics attitudes. This would be a substantial connection with many implications. Each of the hypothesized relationships portend difficulties for trans-Atlantic relations. Intergenerational population replacement contributes to eventual societal level value change as the process continues and to the extent that younger cohorts develop new anti-Atlantic values. The extent to which Postmaterialism is linked to anti-Atlanticism magnifies this generational effect. Some segments of society may be better placed within the polity to influence foreign policy decision-making; specifically, the better educated and the politically active, which are hypothesized to have low levels of Atlantic cooperation. Additionally, certain parts of society may provide strong mobilizing identities that can be translated into considerable political influence through voting and other means of participation. For example, political parties and social classes may act as these mobilizing agents, and to the extent that established parties or distinct classes take up an anti-Atlantic agenda, the implications for the Alliance

PAGE 132

116 would be substantial. Table 4-1 lists each of the hypotheses discussed above. Methods of Analysis The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the effects of social, political, and national influences on the attitudes of mass publics in Western Europe toward Atlanticism. This will be approached by first considering the various attributes discussed above separately, for the European sample as a whole as well as for individual national samples; and second, by examining the attributes simultaneously, adjusting for their effect on each other, and attempting to develop a multivariate causal model. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques are appropriate for these purposes. It is a method for comparing the means of several groups within a categorical variable. ANOVA is designed to test the statistical significance of the differences among a set of group means on an interval scale. If there is sufficient evidence, then the sizes of the differences between the means can be estimated (Agresti and Agresti, 1979) The analysis is similar in logic to making inferences in multiple regression except that the residuals in regression analysis are measured as deviations from the regression line, whereas the residuals in analysis of variance are measured as deviations from the group means (Iversen and Norpoth, 1976)

PAGE 133

117 TABLE 4-1 HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DETERMINANTS AND ATTITUDES H.l Among generations: the postwar generation will have the lowest level of support for Atlantic cooperation; the prewar generation will have the highest; and the WW II/Cold War generation will have some level of support between the other two. H.2 West Germany will have the largest range of intergenerational attitudinal differences; Britain will have the lowest; and France and Italy will have intergenerational differences at ranges between those of West Germany and Britain. H.3 Postmaterialists will have lower support for Atlantic cooperation than will Materialists. H.4 Among classes: the new middle class will have the lowest level of support for Atlantic cooperation; the bourgeois middle class will have the highest; and the working class will have some level of support between the other two. H.5 Increased education will result in lower support for Atlantic military cooperation. H.6 Increased education will result in greater support for Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation. H.7 Among partisan and ideological identities: those associated with the Left will have the lowest level of support for Atlantic cooperation; those associated with the Right will have the highest; and those in the center will have some level of support between the Left and the Right. H.8 Increased political participation is associated with lower support for Atlantic cooperation. H.9 National identity is a stronger influence on European attitudes than are the social and political attributes.

PAGE 134

118 The interval dependent variables in this analysis will be the two scales developed in Chapter III: the Atlantic military cooperation scale and the Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation scale; the categorical independent variables will be each of the eight discussed in the previous section. The null hypothesis (H.O) in ANOVA is that the group means of the categorical variable are equal. For example, to determine if the effects of social class influence attitudes toward Atlantic military cooperation, the mean scale scores for each of the three classes (the categorical groups) would be tested against the null hypothesis that they are equal. The F statistic is used to test the statistical significance of the differences in means. The F statistic generates the attained significance level. For example, if a large F value produced an attained significance level of .032, it would be reported as p=.032. (Or it could be reported as p<.05, if .05 is the criterion.) A significance level is interpreted as the probability that a difference between the sample means at least as large as the observed difference would have occurred if the population means were really equal. Selecting the significance level to be used as the criterion for evaluating empirical research is based on the type of study being conducted. Most researchers select the .05, .01, or .001 levels of significance in assessing their research results (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1981) The level of significance can be interpreted as the probability of

PAGE 135

119 rejecting a null hypothesis that is true (Type I error) In cases where such an error would have severe practical consequences, the significance level should be minimized, to perhaps the .001 level. However, the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis (Type II error) would then be proportionately increased (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1981) For the purposes of this study, proper balance between these types of errors is best provided by the .05 significance level which will be the criterion used. Statistical significance, however, does not always equate to substantive importance. The two must be considered separately. The SPSSx routine that performs analysis of variance, in addition to providing F statistics and the corresponding significance levels, also generates a multiple classification analysis (MCA) table. This table prints the deviations from the mean for each category of the variables entered into the analysis. These deviations are sometimes termed "treatment effects." However, when comparing the effects of an independent variable on two or more scales with different ranges, unstandardized deviations have no frame of reference with which to assess the separate effects. For this reason, individual scale scores will be converted to z-scores by subtracting the grand mean from the individual score and dividing by the standard deviation of the scale. As a result, the entries in the MCA tables will be standard deviations. Thus, the category means expressed

PAGE 136

120 as standard deviations will convey the magnitude of the effect of each category within an independent variable (Andrews et al., 1973). This should be particularly useful for separating statistical significance from substantive importance. This procedure will be necessary for the European sample as well as for each of the national samples 3 for cross-national comparisons. The eta statistic can also assist with determining substantive as opposed to statistical significance. Eta is a bivariate measure of association produced by the SPSSx ANOVA routine for each of the independent variables. It is a correlation coefficient interpreted the same as Pearson's r, and the square of eta indicates the proportion of variance explained by a given categorical variable apart from the effects of the other variables ( SPSSx User's Guide 1983) In this way, the square of eta is identical to the square of Multiple R. The discussion up to this point has been of the one-way ANOVA procedure which is used to analyze the relationships between the mean of an interval dependent variable and the levels of a single categorical variable. It is also intended in this chapter to perform this type of analysis while simultaneously controlling for the effects of one or more of the independent variables and in this way develop a multivariate causal model. There are inherent difficulties in establishing causation among variables. Asher (1983) specifies

PAGE 137

121 three conditions that must be met in order to infer the existence of a causal relationship between two variables X and Y. The first is that there must be covariation between X and Y, and the second condition is that there must be a time ordering between the two. According to Asher: These two conditions are not very troublesome for we can often measure covariation and observe or impose a temporal sequence between two variables. The third condition is more problematic, requiring the elimination of other possible causal factors that may be producing the observed relationship between X and Y. (1983:12) In other words, this third condition requires that we rule out all other possible causal factors. There being a potentially infinite universe of other possible causal variables, this condition would seem to be a paralyzing obstacle; however, Blalock argues: "No matter how elaborate the design, certain simplifying assumptions must always be made. In particular, we must at some point assume that the effects of confounding factors are negligible" (1964:26). Asher (1983) calls this proceeding on an "as if" basis — "as if" confounding variables presented no problems. The ANOVA method also enables the effects of two or more independent categorical variables to be taken into account simultaneously, while adjusting for each other. The MCA table of standard deviations is produced for the groups within the independent variables, and the values displayed are adjusted (controlled) for the effects of all of the other variables. The adjusted values show the effect of a certain category within a given variable after the variation

PAGE 138

122 due to all of the other variables has been taken into account. In this way, the third condition of causation, that of considering all of the other causes of variation, can be addressed. Obviously, this still falls short of considering all possible causes, but the utility of a multivariate mode in sorting out relative effects should surpass that of a series of bivariate relationships, as in previous studies. Other statistics are provided by the SPSSx ANOVA routine that assist with this multivariate analysis. Rather than the eta statistic, beta coefficients are produced for each of the independent variables entered in the model. As used here, beta is a statistic associated with the adjusted category effects for each independent variable. It is a standardized coefficient that is interpreted in the same sense as when used in multiple regression ( SPSSx User's 4 Guide 1983) Additionally, the multiple R is provided. Just as in multiple regression, this R can be squared to indicate the variance in the dependent variable accounted for by all of the variables entered in the model. Missing data will be handled in different ways. In most cases the mean for a variable can be substituted. However, for variables such as party and class, cases with missing values will be lost because of the nominal nature of the data. When running analyses for separate nations, the mean values of variables must be recomputed for each national sample and the data recoded as necessary.

PAGE 139

123 It will also be necessary to test for interaction. This exists when the strength of association between two variables varies according to the levels of a third variable. This would create spurious relationships if it exists. The SPSSx routine provides for this by creating interaction terms as the products of the independent variables, and producing F statistics and probability levels to test the null hypothesis that interaction does not exist. This section has discussed the two methods and the various statistics and tests to be used in the analysis of the effects of various influences on attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. The one-way and two-way analysis of variance are the technical procedures to be used. The F statistic will provide for tests of statistical significance, and the eta statistic will indicate the strengths of the bivariate associations. For multivariate analysis, beta coefficients and multiple R squared will be used to assess the explanatory power of the causal models. Findings and Analyses Data To examine the effects of the social, political, and national influences on European attitudes toward Atlanticism the survey Eurobarometer 14 (October, 1980) was used once again. It was chosen as before because among the Eurobarometers it contains the largest selection of foreign

PAGE 140

124 policy items, and because it was used in Chapter III to construct the two scales, Atlantic military cooperation and Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation, which will be the dependent variables for this analysis. Again, the four European nations of interest are: Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy. To briefly review the scales, Atlantic military cooperation is a Likert summative scale created from five variables: NATOESS, NATOSPT, SCTYPOL, DEFPRI and TRUSTUS The range of responses is from 1 to 7 for each item and from 5 to 35 for the scale with the higher scores indicating higher support for military cooperation. The nonmilitary cooperation scale is constructed from four items: EECMEM, UNIEUR, ECPOL, and FORPOL. The range of responses on these items is also 1 to 7, and for the scale it is from 4 to 28 with the higher scores indicating higher support for nonmilitary cooperation. Each of these variables are summarized in Table 3-1, and more specific comments on the actual scale construction and statistical tests for reliability are also contained in Chapter III. The independent variables are the social and political attributes and national identity, which were discussed in the previous section. The specific empirical operationalization of each will now be examined. To create the generational categories, respondents were grouped according to their age in the following manner: Postwar generation age below 30 (birth year after 1950)

PAGE 141

125 WW II/Cold War gen ages 30-55 (birth years 1925 to 1950) Prewar generation age above 55 (birth year before 1925) The value orientation variable for measuring Postmaterialism was constructed from responses to two questions. The first is: "There is a lot of talk these days about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which of these you, yourself, would consider the most important in the long run?" (1) maintaining order in the nation (2) giving people more say in important government decisions (3) fighting rising prices (4) protecting freedom of speech. The second question listed the same responses as above but asked respondents to choose which would be the second most important goal. Those respondents selecting responses 1 or 3 on the first question and again 1 or 3 on the second questions were coded Materialists. Respondents selecting 2 or 4 on the first question, and again 2 or 4 on the second were coded Postmaterialists. Any other combination was coded mixed or neither. In this way the New Politics or Postmaterialist agenda of higher level new issues is contrasted with that of the Old Politics of economics and order. For a detailed discussion of this variable see

PAGE 142

126 Inglehart (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics Class cleavages were operationalized using occupation of the head of the family. The category labeled working class includes the respondents who classified themselves as manual workers. The new middle class consists of those who identified themselves as white collar. And the bourgeois middle class included the occupations of: professionals, business-owners, and top management, executives. Some categories were not included in the analysis, such as, farmers, retired, housewives, students, soldiers, and the unemployed. An alternative measure would have been to use the occupation of the respondents themselves, but this produced almost 50% missing data because housewives and students were not included. Additionally, it probably does not give as clear a picture of class status for many respondents as does the item asking for occupation of the head of the household. The survey item used for education in the Eurobarometers asks respondents their age upon completing full-time education. This makes it difficult to construct precise categories based upon the completion of specific types of schools because of cross-national and individual variations in the age of entry into the school system. Nonetheless, categories were imposed based upon the traditional European educational system and labels attached to represent different schools as follows:

PAGE 143

127 Primary — up to 14 years old Middle — 15 to 16 years old High School — 17 to 19 years old College — 20 years and above. The category "still studying" was not included in the analysis because there was no way to predict when the respondent would finish. The levels listed above coincide with natural breaking points in the frequency distributions across the years for the four nations. Partisanship was determined by responses to the following question: "If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you support?" Small, fringe parties were not included in the analysis because of their small sample size and their uncertain ideological alignments. Also, responses of "other party" and "don't know" were not included. Respondents were categorized in regard to political ideology based on their answer to the question which asks them to place themselves on the political spectrum. They were presented with a 10-point scale with 1 being far left and 10 being far right. The responses were collapsed to form three discrete categories: Left — responses 1 to 4 Center — responses 5 and 6 Right — responses 7 to 10. The political participation variable was formed by combining two survey items. The first was "When you,

PAGE 144

128 yourself, hold a strong opinion, do you ever find yourself persuading your friends, relatives, or follow workers to share your views? If so, does this happen often, from time to time, or rarely?" (1) often (2) from time to time (3) rarely (4) never. The second question was "When you get together with your friends, would you say you discuss political matters frequently, occasionally, or never?" (1) frequently (2) occasionally (3) never. Respondents who selected responses 1 or 2 on the first question and 1 on the second were coded "activists." All others were coded "nonactivists. This variable is derived from a constructed index within the ICPSR data labeled "cognitive mobilization." While it does not tap into specific behaviors, such as, protests, campaigns, or demonstrations, it does provide a reasonable functional equivalent to identify those respondents most likely to participate actively in politics, both by conventional and unconventional means.

PAGE 145

129 Effects of Social and Political Attributes Among the four social variables, the value orientations of Materialism and Postmaterialism have the greatest effect on Atlantic attitudes. As Table 4-2 shows, close to one standard deviation separates the group means for Postmaterialists and Materialists on military cooperation. In regard to nonmilitary cooperation the relationship is not as strong but it is still evident. Postmaterialists clearly oppose Atlantic cooperation in any form as was hypothesized earlier (H. 3) The substantive importance of the relationship between Postmaterialism and Atlantic attitudes requires careful interpretation. While the statistical indicators show it to be significant and relatively large (eta = .21 for military cooperation) the percentage of the sample identified with the Postmaterialist group is less than 10% of the whole. This small percentage is unable to directly effect the outcomes of elections and policies by itself. However, to the extent that Postmaterialists are the political activists and demonstrators, those who capture the media's attention and the headlines, then perhaps this small group possesses political importance disproportionate to its size. Additionally, Postmaterialist theory attributes generational change as one of the main sources of value change. To the extent that this process takes place and continues, the overall percentage of Postmaterialists and their political strength should increase (Inglehart, 1977)

PAGE 146

130 TABLE 4-2 EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES (Generation, Values, Class, and Education) Military Nonmilitary N Cooperation Cooperation GENERATION Postwar 1159 -.16 -.02 WW II/Cold War 1936 .01 .01 Prewar 1121 .14 .00 eta .12 .02 P < (.01) (.01) VALUES Postmateria] List 365 -.56 -.09 Neither /mixed 2105 .05 -.04 Materialist 1764 .18 .07 eta .21 .06 P < (.01) (.01) CLASS Working 1258 -.00 -.18 New Middle 985 -.00 .11 Bourgeois 789 .01 .17 eta .00 .16 P < (.27) (.01) EDUCATION Primary 1507 -.02 -.07 Middle 1151 .20 -.15 High School 809 -.10 .15 College 520 -.22 .28 eta .14 .16 P < (.01) (.01) Source: Eurobarometer 14 October 1980. Note: Cell entries are s tandard deviations from the mean for each attitudinal scale. Positive scores indicate support for a scale. Results were produced by One-Way ANOVA procedure, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. The eta statistic is a correlation coefficient. Results are from four nations: Britain, West Germany, France, and Italy. Samples weighted to reflect national populations

PAGE 147

131 The generational effects are not as strong, yet the relationship is as hypothesized for military cooperation with the younger cohorts having less support than the older ones (Table 4-2) For nonmilitary cooperation there are no substantial differences between the generational categories (eta = .02), so age is not a factor in forming attitudes toward the EEC, an Atlantic economic policy, and foreign policy. The findings on military cooperation support the Successor Generation literature and the hypothesis discussed previously (H.l). The extent to which the intergenerational differences are in fact generational changes and not life-cycle effects will indicate future difficulties for Alliance cohesion. As intergenerational population replacement occurs, the level of support for Atlantic cooperation can be expected to decrease. The various effects of generation, life-cycle, and period effects will be examined separately in a later chapter to determine which, if any, predominates. The effects of class are more prominent for nonmilitary cooperation than military (Table 4-2) The differences between classes are not even statistically significant on the military cooperation scale (p < .27). The working class displays the lowest support for nonmilitary Atlantic cooperation. This does not support the hypothesis (H.4) discussed earlier in which it was proposed that the new middle class would have the lowest level of support for Atlanticism. The hypothesis was based on Dalton's (1984) assertion

PAGE 148

132 that the New Politics and Postmaterialist values are associated mostly with the new middle class. While that may be true, Postmaterialists account for less than 10% of the sample, while the new middle class represents about a third of the population (32%) This leaves sufficient room within the new middle class for other views to predominate. This class is not opposed to Atlantic cooperation. The working class opposition may be a reflection of the ethnocentrism and distrust for other nationalities stemming from little contact or knowledge of others. The bourgeois middle class, as hypothesized, has the most support for Atlantic cooperation. Educational levels have opposite effects on the two scales (Table 4-2) Higher education produces less support for military cooperation and more support for nonmilitary cooperation. These findings verify H.5 and H.6. The strength of the effects of education on the two scales is about equal (eta = .14 and .16, respectively) which contrasts with the other three variables in which effects are usually higher on one scale or the other. In regard to the attitude typology, based on the signs of the deviations, respondents with higher education would be classified as Dovish Partners those of the middle school level would be Military Allies and those with the least education would be Isolationists In overall terms of sample distribution, statistical significance, combined effects on both scales,

PAGE 149

133 and the strength of eta, education may have the most substantial effects on attitudes. Thus, the effects of social attributes vary for the two dimensions. In regard to military cooperation, the postwar generation, Postmaterialists and the better educated have the lower levels of support (with class not being a discriminator) For nonmilitary cooperation, it is the working class and the less educated who are the opponents (age and values not discriminating; eta = .02 and .06, respectively) These two images seem to fit together well in that higher education, Postmaterialism, and the postwar generation, tend to be treated as overlapping influences in the literature on New Politics and value change. Similarly, the working class would be expected to have less education, so those effects overlap as well. Table 4-3 displays the effects of political attributes on Atlantic attitudes. Political ideology is related to military cooperation even more strongly than Postmaterialism. The relationship between political ideology and military cooperation is the strongest of all the social and political bivariate relationships (eta = .34). Unlike the Postmaterialist group, those on the Left and the Right each account for about 25% of the sample, so these group differences are substantively more meaningful as well. One cannot conclude, however, that polarization has occurred, because about 50% of the sample places itself in the political Center, between the Left and the Right. The political Left

PAGE 150

134 TABLE 4-3 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES (Ideology and Participation) IDEOLOGY Left Center Right eta P < PARTICIPATION Activist Nonactivist eta P < MilitaryNonmilitary N Cooperation Cooperation 1186 -.54 -.15 2026 .15 .01 1022 .30 .14 .34 .11 (.01) (.01) 528 -.12 .07 3706 .02 -.01 .05 .03 (.01) (.01) Source: Eurobarometer 14 October 1980. Note : Cell entries are standard deviations from the mean for each attitudinal scale. Positive scores indicate support for a scale. Results are produce by the One-Way ANOVA procedure, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. The eta statistic is a correlation coefficient. Results are from four nations: Britain, West Germany, France, and Italy. Samples weighted to reflect national populations.

PAGE 151

135 strongly opposes military cooperation and also opposes nonmilitary cooperation, though not as strongly. These effects support the hypothesis H.7. The effects of political activism are similar to those of higher education. The political activist tends to oppose military cooperation and support nonmilitary cooperation (Table 4-3) However, the statistical strength of these relationships is weak (eta = .05 and .03, respectively). Additionally, the group categorized as activist represents only about 12% of the sample. While this size is similar to that of the Postmaterialists the activists are not as extreme in their views. Hypothesis H.8 is partially accepted. However, the importance of participation as an influence on Atlantic attitudes must be questioned; this particular measure of participation should be questioned also (see Appendix B for a discussion of the participation variable). As operationalized here, whether one is politically active in Europe is not as useful a predictor of attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation as any of the other variables. Political party identification will be examined later in the discussion of cross-national comparisons. It was not feasible to include it in this section on the European sample, because of the varieties of party systems in these countries. The social and political characteristics just discussed are illustrated within the attitude typology in Figure 4-2.

PAGE 152

136 Generation Values Class Education Participa Ideology Generation Values Class Education Participa Ideology Support Military Coop Oppose Nonmil Coop Support Military Coop Support Nonmil Coop MILITARY ALLIES Neither /mixed Middle School Nonactivists IISOLATIONISTS Postwar Generation Postmaterialists Working Class Primary School Left ATLANTICISTS Older Generations Materialist Bourgeois Middle Class Center, Right L. — i DOVISH PARTNERS New Middle Class High School, College Activists .]_. Oppose Military Coop Oppose Nonmil Coop Oppose Military Coop Support Nonmil Coop Note ; Categories placed in cells based upon the signs of their scores in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. For example, negative signs on both the Military Cooperation and the Nonmilitary Cooperation scales place a category in the Isolationists cell. Figure 4-2. Social and political correlates of attitude types

PAGE 153

137 Attributes were placed into one of the four cells based upon the signs of their scores on the two scales in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Because the characteristics as illustrated are neither mutually exclusive nor statistically independent, it cannot be determined which are most intimately associated with the four attitudinal classifications. These conclusions are meant to be suggestive only. However, when viewed as "ideal types," general images can be formed for the respondents in each of the cells. As Figure 4-2 indicates, it is possible to discriminate between the attitude types of the model on the basis of their respective social and political attributes. Atlanti cists tend to be older, more conservative politically, materialist, and from the bourgeois middle class. The well educated respondents make up the Dovish Partners These respondents also tend to be more politically active. They have an internationalist perspective but oppose efforts to coordinate defenses or build up militarily. The Isolation ists appear to be young, Postmaterialist and associated with the political Left. But, the Isolationists also draw from the working class and the least educated, illustrating the heterogeneous nature of the category. Those with a middle school education and who are neither Materialists or Postmaterialists comprise the Military Allies distrustful of international cooperation in most areas except security.

PAGE 154

138 Cross-National Comparisons The general trends for the social and political effects in the four nations tend to mirror those for the European sample. However, there are some notable exceptions. Table 4-4 displays the effects of the social attributes by nation. Generational groups have no statistically significant differences in West Germany. Additionally, the generational effects in Britain are about the same as those in France and Italy. These results clearly refute H.2 which hypothesized that the greater the degree of discontinuity in political experiences, the greater the attitudinal differences between generations. That is not the case. A theoretical explanation may be that with the most extreme case of political discontinuity resulting in complete resocialization (as occurred in West Germany) the period effects are felt across all generations for an extended time producing very similar intergenerational attitudinal patterns. The conclusion, nonetheless, is that generational differences are not a factor in West Germany. This presents a bit of a puzzle. The Successor Generation argument is made most persuasively in regard to the Federal Republic (see especially Szabo, 1983b) Yet, the results here provide no evidence for the importance of generation on West German attitudes toward Atlanticism. For Britain, France, and Italy, the generational effects are roughly equivalent. There are no significant

PAGE 155

139 TABLE 4-4 EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION (Generation, Values, Class, and Education) FRANCE WEST GERMANY Mil Nonmil Mil Nonmil N Coop Coop N Coop Coop GENERATION Postwar 300 -.12 .06 253 .03 .01 WWII 421 -.09 -.05 471 .02 .01 Prewar 260 .28 .01 284 -.05 -.03 eta .17 .05 .03 .02 P < (.01) (.32) (.57) (.84) VALUES Postmat 112 -.62 .01 82 -.79 -.05 Neither/mixed 454 -.10 .04 497 -.03 .06 Materialists 420 .27 -.05 429 .19 -.08 eta .28 .04 .26 .06 P < (.01) (.43) (.01) (.22) CLASS Working 276 -.02 -.16 263 .03 .02 New Middle 268 .01 .09 278 -.02 -.07 Bourgeois 155 .01 .13 172 -.02 .10 eta .01 .13 .02 .07 P < (.93) (.01) (.83) (.21) EDUCATION Primary 334 .07 -.14 234 .18 -.02 Middle 165 .13 -.13 373 .07 -.12 High School 268 -.03 .07 223 -.19 .08 College 152 -.26 .33 102 -.25 .28 eta .13 .18 .16 .13 P < (.01) (.01) (.01) (.01) Continued

PAGE 156

TABLE 4-4 CONTINUED 140 ITALY BRITAIN N Mil Coop Nonmil Coop N Mil Nonmil Coop Coop GENERATION Postwar 302 WWII 540 Prewar 266 eta P < VALUES Postmat 60 Neither/mixed 480 Materialists 568 eta P < CLASS Working 2 66 New Middle 245 Bourgeois 262 eta P < EDUCATION Primary 622 Middle 103 High School 133 College 175 eta P < 23 06 14 .15 (.01) 81 19 25 .04 .03 .02 .03 (.57) .26 .07 .09 ( 29 01) 07 02 09 ( 06 20) .01 .02 .01 .03 .01 (.98) ( 10 01) 18 07 12 .13 (.01) 10 13 21 13 .13 (.01) 304 504 311 111 674 347 453 194 200 317 510 185 91 18 01 19 ( 13 01) 29 03 15 ( 12 01) .03 .01 .05 ( 03 66) 07 01 01 19 ( 07 11) 05 02 02 .03 (.54) 01 05 09 ( 06 14) 19 24 19 ( 20 01) 18 08 33 41 ( 21 01) Source: Eurobarometer 14, October 1980 Note : Cell entries are standard deviations from the mean for each attitude scale. Positive scores indicate support for a scale. Results are produced by the One-Way ANOVA procedure, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. The eta statistic is a correlation coefficient.

PAGE 157

141 differences between generations on the nonmilitary cooperation scale, while in regard to military cooperation, the younger cohorts express the greatest opposition, as was expected (H. 1) The effects of Postmaterialism vary across nations. They appear strongest in Italy and West Germany, the two countries with the smallest percentages of Postmaterialists in the sample. In only Italy are these values statistically significant on the nonmilitary cooperation scale. On military cooperation, Postmaterialism has the least effect in Britain (eta = .12). The effects of social class are strongest in Britain, where on the nonmilitary cooperation scale eta = .20. Class is not statistically significant in any of the four countries on military cooperation. In West Germany it is not significant for either scale reflecting the extent to which class has declined as a factor in West German society. The strength of the relationship in Britain (at least on nonmilitary cooperation) fits well with traditional generalizations about the class-based nature of British society (Beer, 1982) The effects of different educational levels produce consistent relationships for all four nations. Higher education results in less support for military cooperation and greater support for nonmilitary cooperation. To summarize the major findings of this cross-national comparison of social attributes: generational differences

PAGE 158

142 are not statistically significant in West Germany. Among these four variables, the value orientation of Postmaterialism produces the largest deviations in the group means (only on the military cooperation scale) with these being the largest in Italy. Social class is not a discriminator for West German attitudes, but it is a major one for British attitudes on the nonmilitary scale. Because of the more equal distribution of the sample across the educational groups (as compared with Postmaterialism) the effects of education appear to be the most substantively meaningful social variable. The strongest relationship with education is seen in Britain on the nonmilitary cooperation scale (eta = .21), which also surpasses the effects of social class on the nonmilitary scale in Britain. A final comment on Tables 4-2 and 4-4 is to point out how the data illustrate the varying effects of the social variables on the two scales. The effects of generation and values are primarily directed toward military cooperation while those of class and education are strongest on nonmilitary cooperation. Each pair of variables is reinforcing: the younger cohorts and Postmaterialists oppose military cooperation, while the less educated and working class oppose nonmilitary cooperation. Those are socially distinct groupings. These combinations of effects would be expected from social science theory, and at the same time they indicate a cross-cutting nature to these social attributes. The varying effects of these influences may tend to diffuse

PAGE 159

143 conflict and inhibit polarization. This cross-cutting aspect was discussed in Chapter III as an expected result from a bidimensional structure, and that seems to be confirmed by these data. Table 4-5 displays the effects of the two political variables for each nation. Ideology is consistently significantly and substantively related to Atlantic attitudes on both scales in all four countries. This relationship is strongest in Italy (eta = .42 on military cooperation). Interestingly, the nation with the smallest range of ideological differences between Left and Right is France. This may not have been expected given the noted ideological nature of the French political culture (Safran, 1977) The explanation may be in a distinction between foreign policy and domestic issues among the French public. Old politics, those traditional economic issues, may be the source of ideological confrontation in France, but in regard to French policy toward other nations, perhaps these data point to a closing of the ranks and a less ideological content to debate. Additionally, France is not part of the military structure of NATO (although still a member of the Alliance) ; this may have mitigated any ideological debate over military cooperation, since the issue was largely settled by de Gaulle. This finding helps explain the absence of any peace movement in France. In West Germany, Britain, and Italy, attitudes toward foreign policy and Atlanticism appear to be very ideologically oriented.

PAGE 160

144 TABLE 4-5 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ATTRIBUTES ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION (Ideology and Participation) FRANCE WEST GERMANY Mil Nonmil Mil Nonmil N Coop Coop N Coop Coop IDEOLOGY Left 317 -.40 -.22 211 -.52 -.12 Center 361 .20 .13 488 .06 -.01 Right 308 .18 .08 309 .26 .10 eta .28 .16 .28 .08 P < (.01) (.01) (.01) (.05) PARTICIPATION Activist 102 -.23 -.10 135 .01 .17 Nonactivist 884 .03 .01 873 -.00 -.03 eta .08 .04 .00 .07 P < (.02) ITALY (.27) (.91) (.04) BRITAIN Mil Nonmil Mil Nonmil N Coop Coop N Coop Coop IDEOLOGY Left Center Right eta P < 479 518 111 47 32 55 ( 42 01) .25 .14 .43 ( 24 oi: 179 659 294 46 01 31 ( 24 01) 29 04 27 ( 18 01) PARTICIPATION Activist Nonactivist eta P < 157 -.15 .01 951 .03 -.00 .06 .00 (.04) (.95] 134 998 24 03 ( 09 01) 14 02 ( 05 09) Source: Eurobarometer 14 October 1980, Note : Cell entries are standard deviations from the mean for each attitudinal scale. Positive scores indicate support for a scale. Results are produced by the One-Way ANOVA procedure, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. The eta statistic is a correlation coefficient.

PAGE 161

145 The participation variable is the weakest of the six (largest eta is only .09). Activists tend to oppose military cooperation, and on nonmilitary matters, only in Germany is there a statistically significant result where activists tend to support cooperation. Combining the effects of ideology from Table 4-5 with the partisan comparisons displayed in Table 4-6 allows for several conclusions to be made. Obviously, the political Left opposes Atlantic cooperation and the Right supports it. This evidence allows for H.8 to be accepted. Additionally, the strength of the political effects is considerably greater than the social variables. In regard to partisanship, except for West Germany on the nonmilitary cooperation scale, all correlations are greater than eta = .30, and for Italy, eta = .57 on military cooperation. The Greens in Germany (a very small group) are almost one and a half standard deviations from the mean on military cooperation. This is the largest deviation for any variable in any country. Thus, political variables are a stronger influence on the formation of Atlantic attitudes than are the social variables The political parties of the Left offer some provocative comparisons. The British Labour Party, with no alternative on its left, has firmly staked out the anticooperation position on both scales. The West German Social Democrats with the Greens being somewhat of an

PAGE 162

146 TABLE 4-6 EFFECTS OF PARTISANSHIP ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES FRANCE WEST GERMANS r Mil Nonmil Mil Nonmil N Coop Coop N Coop Coop PCF 78 -.69 -.68 Greens 38 -1.40 -.40 PSF 256 -.09 .00 SPD 417 -.10 -.06 UDF 116 .40 .35 FDP 109 -.06 .02 RPR 68 .45 .19 CDU/CSU 318 .32 .12 ei ta .35 .31 eta .36 .11 P < (.01) (.01) P < (.01) (.01) N PCI 178 PSI 143 DCI 313 eta P < ITALY Mil Coop -.79 -.23 .55 ( Nonmil Coop -.61 .08 .31 57 01) ( 40 01) Labour Liberal Tory eta P < N 398 130 379 BRITAIN Mil Coop 30 19 38 .33 (.01) Nonmil Coop -.35 -.00 .37 ( 33 01) Source: Eurobarometer 14 October 1980. Note : Entries are standard deviations from the mean of zero for each attitude scale for each nation; this precludes precise cross-national comparisons of the cell entries of specific parties. Positive scores indicate support for a scale. Results are produced by the One-Way ANOVA procedure, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. The eta statistic is a correlation coefficient. Party abbreviations derived as follows: for France: PCF is the French Communist Party, PSF is the French Socialist Party, UDF is the French Union for Democracy, and RPR is the Rally for the Republic (Gaullist) For West Germany: SPD is the Social Democrat Party, FDP is the Free Democrat Party, CDU/CSU is the coalition of the Christian Democrats and the Christian Social Union. For Italy: PCI is the Italian Communist Party, PSI is the Italian Socialist Party, and DCI is the Italian Christian Democrat Party. For Britain: Tory refers to the Conservative Party.

PAGE 163

147 alternative on their left, appear to oppose Atlantic cooperation less stridently, especially in regard to nonmilitary matters. These observations are supported by the campaign rhetoric of 1983 for these two parties. In the French and Italian cases as well, the Socialist parties with legitimate Communist parties to their left seem positioned close to the center of the political spectrum on these attitudinal dimensions within their respective countries. The Italian Socialist Party and perhaps also the French Socialists would be classified Dovish Partners on the typology rather than Isolationist The foreign policy record of these two parties in government reinforces this finding. Thus, concerning Atlantic cooperation, there are considerable differences between the British Labour Party and the other major parties on the Left in Germany, France, and Italy. A comment on the French "Gaullists" is necessary. The popular image of the Gaullist Frenchman is that of a nationalist, an independent, a believer in the realist school of power politics of Hans Morgenthau (1978) According to this image, the Gaullist would consider trust and cooperation to be signs of weakness and national naivete. Reviewing Table 3-5 from the previous chapter, the large percentage of Isolationists in France could be interpreted as being part of this Gaullist tradition; however, the data from Table 4-6 show otherwise. The Gaullist party (the RPR) is firmly Atlanticist in outlook, as is the other party on the Right, the UDF. The large percentage of Isolationists in France

PAGE 164

148 comes from the Socialist and Communist parties as Table 4-6 indicates. Isolationism in this case should perhaps not be regarded only as Gaullism but in addition as some form of withdrawal or neutralism, as well. One observation in Table 4-5 illustrates some remnants of the Gaullist image. In contrast to the other three countries, in France, the respondents in the Center of the political spectrum are more supportive of Atlantic cooperation than those on the Right. This supports the notion of the traditional Gaullist conservative: nationalistic and independent on the Right. However, this association appears to be only an artifact, or a matter of degree, because Table 4-6 is clear in showing the Gaullists and the UDF to be Atlanticist in orientation. Multivariate Analysis of Effects The considerable variation across the four nations in regard to the effects of social and political attributes indicates that cross-national differences in general may exist. Different political histories, political cultures, and circumstances may have produced distinctive attitudinal patterns for each of the four countries as hypothesized (H.9). In Table 3-5 of the previous chapter, the percentage distributions among the four attitude types for each nation enabled generalizations to be made about the relative strength of each attitude type within each country.

PAGE 165

149 Table 4-7 contains data that support the earlier conclusions reached in Table 3-5. Again, scale scores for individuals were converted to Z-scores, and the results in the table were produced by the ANOVA technique. The standard deviations from the mean on each scale for each country allow the national samples to be categorized based on the signs of the deviations. In this way the French again appear to be Isolationists opposing both types of cooperation. The West Germans are Atlanticists favoring both military and nonmilitary cooperation. The Italians can be labeled Dovish Partners and the British Military Allies Compared to the differences between the categories of the social and political variables, national identity is a stronger influence (eta = .39 for military cooperation and .35 for nonmilitary) The results of a multivariate analysis for the European sample are displayed in Table 4-8. The variable NATION (national identity) has also been included, and it appears to have the greatest effect on attitudes toward Atlantic cooperation. Since the beta coefficients entered in the table are standardized values, they represent the relative weights attached to the various independent variables in contributing to the mean of the dependent variable after controlling for all of the other variables. Ideology is the second strongest influence. Partisanship is not included; however, ideology is a reasonable equivalent in that the previous findings showed ideology and

PAGE 166

150 TABLE 4-7 EFFECTS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES N France 986 W. Germany 1008 Italy 1108 Britain 1132 eta P < Military Nonmilitary Cooperation Cooperation -.49 -.13 .43 .33 -.32 .28 .30 -.54 .39 .35 (.01) (.01) Source: Eurobarometer 14 October 1980. Note ; Cell entries are standard deviations from the mean for each attitude scale. Positive scores indicate support for a scale. Results are produced by the One-Way ANOVA procedure, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. The eta statistic is a correlation coefficient.

PAGE 167

151 TABLE 4-8 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL EFFECTS ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES Military Nonmilitary Cooperation Cooperation Generation .04* .03* Values .16* .02* Class .03* .06* Education .05* .14* Ideology .26* .16* Participation .00 .02* Nation .35* .35* Multiple R .52 .41 Multiple R Squared .27 .17 Source : Eurobaromete ir 14, October 1980. Significant at .01. Note ; Cell entries are beta coefficients. Results were produced by ANOVA, and the significance levels are based on the F statistic. Interaction was determined to be significant for participation (see Appendix B) Results are from four nations: Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy (N=4234) Samples weighted to reflect national populations.

PAGE 168

152 partisanship to have almost identical effects. Variables that have little or no impact on either scale after adjusting for the other effects are generation, class, and participation. Postmaterialism is strongest on the military cooperation scale and education on the nonmilitary scale. The effects of nationality are particularly suggestive. Given that these findings were from a weighted European sample with the effects controlled for all variables, national identity far surpasses all other attributes (Table 4-8) This means that there is something about being a Frenchman, or a German, and so on, that produced an independent causal influence on Atlantic attitudes. Italians think differently about foreign policy than do the British, even after controlling for all of these other effects. This supports the notion of distinctive national characters or political cultures. Through socialization, these attitudes are transmitted and reinforced. Overall, the model has moderate predictive capability. Twenty-seven percent of the variance on the military cooperation scale and 17% on the nonmilitary cooperation scale can be explained by the variables entered into the analysis. Additionally, as discussed above, the relative contribution of the different independent variables varies substantially in accounting for the variance explained. Nationality, political party, ideology, education, and value orientations account for most of the explained variance.

PAGE 169

153 Separate multivariate analyses for each nation are displayed in Table 4-9. Party and ideology are the most consistent and substantial variables in the model. This supports the conclusion that political attributes are more influential in forming Atlantic attitudes than are social attributes. Postmaterialist values tend to be significant in regard to military cooperation and education to nonmilitary cooperation. The beta values for party in the French sample point again to the relatively low partisan nature to these attitudes in France. Generation, class, and participation prove to be uniformly unimportant to forming atti5 tudes on Atlanticism. Conclusion The most suggestive finding in this chapter is the weight attributed to nationality in the multivariate analysis of Table 4-8. Perhaps in retrospect this should not be so enlightening given the distinctive histories and cultures represented within these separate nations; however, its magnitude was just not anticipated. Surely, it was hypothesized, explanations for anti-Atlantic sentiment can be found in social and political theories, such as, Postmaterialism, the Successor Generation, class conflict, ideological cleavage, the New Politics agenda, and modernization. While each of these has its independent effect, they are over shadowed by that of nationality.

PAGE 170

154 TABLE 4-9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EFFECTS ON ATLANTIC ATTITUDES, BY NATION FRANCE WEST GERMANY (N=986) (N=1008) Mil Nonmil Mil Nonmil Coop Coop Coop Coop Generation .07 .04 .05 .02 Values .20* .05 .16* .06 Class .06 .03 .05 .06 Education .07 .21* .13* .12* Ideology .17* .11* .16* .05 Participat ion .03 .02 .02 .06 Party .16* .19* .24* .09 Mult R .41 .33 .43 .20 Mult R Sqr .17 .11 .19 .04 ITALY BRITAIN (N=1132) (N=1108) Mil Nonmil Mil Nonmil Coop Coop Coop Coop Generation .06 .02 .09* .09* Values .19* .07 .04 .02 Class .05 .07 .04 .06 Education .03 .11* .04 .22* Ideology .20* .12* .12* .08* Participation .01 .02 .07* .04 Party .30* .24* .24* .24* Mult R .53 .35 .35 .38 Mult R Sqr .28 .13 .12 .15 Source: Eurobarometer 14, October 1980. Significant to .05 Note Cell entries are beta coefficients. Results were produced by ANOVA, and significance levels are based on the F statistic. Interaction was determined to be significant for participation (see Appendix B)

PAGE 171

155 This empirical evidence supports the notion that "Western Europe" as an entity does not exist. In this context Europe means the separate governments and societies of Europe, with their unique attitudes, interests, and priorities in regard to the Atlantic Alliance. "A united Europe does not, of course, exist — only a loose functional confederation, meaning an imperfect common market complemented by certain other activities such as communal listening to the traditional Johann Strauss concerts each New Year's day" (Laqueur, 1979:v). For the nationality variable to be weaker, national interests would have to converge more. Clearly, respondents view the issues of Atlantic cooperation through the eyes of "Frenchmen," "Italians," and so on, instead of through the eyes of "Europeans." As such, the varying goals, priorities, and interests of these nations are reflected in the attitudes of their populations. For example, given the geographical proximity of the Federal Republic to the Soviet Union and its existence being the result of postwar Allied decisions, it is in the interests of West Germany to be Atlantic in outlook. At the same time, the experiences of Britain with other European countries and the EEC have colored British perceptions negatively in regard to nonmilitary cooperation. Apart from the effects of nationality, however, other influences are also meaningful. The strength of the partisanship and ideology variables (indicators of modernization)

PAGE 172

156 suggests the extent to which these attitudes are politicized in Europe. The choice of dependent variables in this study was an attempt to avoid "hot" current topics that may be expected to be politicized; however, the broad fundamental constructs used here appear to be ideologically ordered as well. This Left-Right cleavage is notable for its intensity and continuity in all four nations. Two cross-national observations are that the British Labour Party appears to be the most extremely anti-Atlantic party, and the French respondents appear less ideologically inclined toward these issues as might be expected. The primacy of politics over social processes is evident. Age, class, and education are not the keys to understanding European politics on these foreign policy issues. If the political attributes were surrogates for the social variables, the beta coefficients in Tables 4-8 and 4-9 would have been stronger for the social variables instead of for the political. Political party loyalties and ideological inclinations surpass in importance the social variables. Unlike the United States, party government in Western Europe provides the electorate with the opportunity to make dramatic shifts in policy. The mechanism by which mass attitudes in Western societies are linked to public policy is the party system (Eldersveld, 1982; Sartori, 1976). Political parties remain the central intermediary structures between society and government. Some of the Old Politics

PAGE 173

157 issues of wages, incomes, and prices have been assumed by corporatist institutions and bargaining (Lehmbruch, 1979) ; however, the New Politics agenda is controlled by mass movements and political parties. The British Labour Party in 1983 practically pledged itself to unilateral nuclear disarmament, and the SPD in Germany advocated removal of the new missiles. Both parties have moderated these positions somewhat, yet their programmatic orientation is clear as is that of their rank and file as the findings in this chapter indicated. One must conclude that the future election of either of these two parties would place new strains on Alliance cohesion and harmony. The constituencies evident from the social variables appear to have a cross-cutting effect on these attitudes. The Isolationist category, not large to begin with, contains disparate elements of European society. On the one hand it attracts the postwar generation and the Postmaterialists, a grouping normally associated with the effects of relative affluence, political awareness, and the New Politics agenda. However, the Isolationists also include those with the least amount of education and those in the working class. This would seem to be an unusual combination, but it illustrates the difficulty in generalizing about this category, unlike the others. Additionally, higher education and political activism (indicators of modernization) have the effect of promoting less support for military cooperation but higher support for other types of Atlantic cooperation.

PAGE 174

158 The impact of these attitudes and attributes on national and Alliance policies will be explored in Chapter VII. Next, however, evidence of continuity or change in European Atlantic attitudes will be examined in Chapter V. Notes The most comprehensive development of the Postmaterialist concept and the value changes associated with it is found the the research of Ronald Inglehart (1972, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1984a, 1984b, and 1985). 2 The F statistic is based on the ratio of the variability of the group means about the overall mean and the variability of the sample observations about their particular group mean. The greater the variability between the group means relative to the variability within each set of group observations, the greater confidence there is that the null hypothesis (that the group means are equal) is false. These two estimates are called the between (groups) estimate and the within (groups) estimate. If H.O is false, the between estimate tends to be larger than the within estimate and the ratio of the two tends to be considerably larger than one. Hence, large F values lead to small attained significance (or probability) levels (Agresti and Agresti, 1979:419) For example, the following table illustrates hypothetical data on two variables. Both are statistically significant at the .05 level; however, the differences between the means of the groups in Variable 1 are substantially greater than those of Variable 2. For this reason one must conclude that the effects of Variable 1 on the dependent variable are considerably greater than those of Variable 2. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF ANOVA Std. Deviations of Group Means on the Dependent variable Variable 1 Group A -.75 Group B .50 Group C .25 Group D -.25 P < (.05)

PAGE 175

159 Variable 2 Group X -.05 Group Y -.02 Group Z .06 P < (.05) 4 The beta coefficients must be interpreted with caution and are useful only for indicating the relative importance of the various predictors (Andrews et al. 1973:47). Beta provides a measure of the ability of the independent variable to explain variation in the dependent variable after adjusting for the effects of all other predictors. This is not, however, in terms of percent of variance explained as with a standard regression coefficient. The beta statistic as produced here by the MCA analysis of ANOVA is useful only as an approximate measure of the relationship between an independent variable and the dependent variable while controlling for all other independent variables. A comment on the effects of interaction is necessary. Interaction is said to exist when the strength of association between two variables varies according to the levels of a third variable (Agresti and Agresti, 1979) It is not meaningful to consider the differences in means between the levels of a categorical variable, if the levels vary according to the levels of another categorical variable. If interaction exists, apparent effects may be spurious. Several tests were applied to the multivariate model in Tables 4-8 and 4-9, leading to the conclusion that for all variables except participation, interaction was not important. The weak effects attributable to participation can be explained by interaction. The details of these tests are the subject of Appendix B.

PAGE 176

CHAPTER V WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE: CHANGE OR CONTINUITY? The erosion of popular support for the Atlantic Alliance in Western Europe would profoundly affect international politics. America might retreat into global isolationism or seek to develop stronger ties with the Pacific Basin countries. Soviet influence over Western Europe would certainly increase, especially in the absence of a politically united Europe with its own centralized military command. The result could be a Europe neutralized, Finlandized, or even engulfed at some point within the Soviet sphere of influence. Such extreme developments seem unlikely. NATO has produced a cluster of permanent institutions and large bureaucracies that have existed and expanded for more than 35 years, acquiring a momentum of their own. It is the first peacetime integrated military structure in history. There are over 300,000 American troops in Europe along with their families and supporting personnel. The British Army of the Rhine is positioned in West Germany. There are NATO publications, NATO conferences, and even NATO colleges and 160

PAGE 177

161 scholarships. Thus, "the Atlantic Alliance as a set of institutions, budgets, personnel, multilateral political and military councils, and periodic joint maneuvers, is here to stay at least in the near future" (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:2) Moreover, the Alliance is more than a set of unsentimental calculations of national self-interest. A recurrent theme in the negotiations that preceded the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty was the hope that the Alliance would evolve into something more than a "mere military alliance" (Thies, 1986:26). It is "The Alliance" which joins together most of the world's major democracies. It "depends on some amorphous but vital shared ideas about man, government, and society with roots in the hearts as well as in the minds of the partners" (Sloan, 1985:3). This chapter examines current European public support for the Alliance in light of previous levels. The analytical focus continues to be on broad themes instead of narrow issues. Changes in European support, a decline of Atlanticism, may portend future developments which could threaten Alliance cohesion. NATO is, afterall, a voluntary pact that can be maintained, renegotiated, or terminated. IntraAlliance political conditions can change dramatically as when de Gaulle withdrew France from the integrated military command structure in 1966 (although not out of the Alliance itself) European attitudes will play a key role in

PAGE 178

162 sustaining or altering NATO in the midst of future difficulties or crises. Assumptions Intrinsic to the Alliance A framework is necessary to organize this investigation into the change or continuity of European security attitudes. This chapter relies on previously published opinion data, and there have been countless survey questions administered over the years by various polling agencies. The guideposts for this study will be three assumptions fundamental to the establishment of the Alliance. Each will be introduced briefly in the sections that follow. The Threat From the Soviet Union The principal assumption upon which NATO was founded was that the Soviet Union posed a military threat to the security of Western Europe. The end of World War II saw a shift in the balance of world power away from Western Europe. After 1945, the dominant continental power was the Soviet Union. Domestic political and economic weakness, primarily in Britain and France, following the war threatened to create a power vacuum in Western Europe into which it was feared Soviet influence would expand and "endanger broader international instability" (Smith, 1984:10) Soviet policies and perceived intentions provided the political momentum required to bring about the Alliance.

PAGE 179

163 The initial concern of the French following the war was to prevent the military resurgence of Germany; however, the fears aroused by Soviet actions convinced the French government to give up its reservations about Germany (Sloan, 1985) The Soviet installed and dominated regimes in Poland and Romania prompted Churchill's "iron curtain" speech in 1946; and events in Turkey and Greece in 1947 expanded United States involvement in Europe and resulted in the Truman Doctrine. The Soviet backed coup d'etat in Prague in February 1948 and the Berlin blockade and airlift in the summer of 1948 created a sense of "immediate military threat" in Western Europe (Grosser, 1983:85). The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 4 April 1949. There were two other aspects to this view of the Soviet threat. One was that the threat was global in nature. The Korean War and later events in Indochina prompted this view (Sloan, 1985) The other aspect involved the politicalpsychological nature of the contest in which it was feared the Soviet Union would attempt to use the fear of war and its consequences to intimidate the countries of Western Europe into positions of accommodation and acceptance of Soviet influence: in other words, political blackmail (Thies, 1986) This initial assumption of NATO viewed the Soviet Union as a pressing threat to the security of Western Europe because of its preponderance of military power, its global

PAGE 180

164 expansionist designs, and its campaign of domestic political-psychological intimidation. Collective Security The view that Soviet power could be balanced only through collective security was another assumption. "The official aim of NATO was a more rational organization of the joint defense efforts" (Grosser, 1982:87). It was to be a multilateral security arrangement with the members pledged to a process of continual self-help and mutual assistance in which the costs and benefits were to be shared equitably (Smith, 1984) United States ground forces were initially intended to provide additional protection to Europe during the difficult years of reconstruction until Europe would be able to protect itself (Stoppa-Liebl and Laqueur, 1985) This was reflected in the ambitious goals that were set for raising European force levels, known as "the Lisbon Goals." These proposals, adopted by NATO ministers at a meeting of the NATO Council in Lisbon, Portugal in 1952, set force goals of 50 allied divisions, 4000 aircraft, and substantial additional targets for future years (Sloan, 1984:16). Implicit within this notion of multilateralism is that West Europeans have a willingness to defend themselves or at least a willingness to contribute equitably to their security. This includes the acceptance of certain costs and preparations as well as the willingness to use military forces. Theorists recognize the crucial aspect of national

PAGE 181

165 will as a necessary component, along with capability, for successful deterrence (George and Smoke, 1974: Kissinger, 1966) The opposite of such a willingness is illustrated by what has become known as Finlandization, a concept describing postwar conditions in Finland. It is "a process of a state of affairs in which under the cloak of friendly and good neighborly relations the sovereignty of a nation is reduced" (Laqueur, 1979:233-234). This includes accommodating a nation's foreign policy either to the dictates of the Soviet Union or to what it feels Russia really wants. This accommodation gradually saps the energy of the nation making it no longer able or willing to resist further pressures (Laqueur, 1979). Thus, the creation of NATO assumed the necessity of a collective security effort and that its members valued national sovereignty sufficiently to resist the Soviet Union militarily and politically. The Role of the United States An essential part of the collective security policy was the participation and leadership of the United States. Perceiving the need for an American commitment to the defense of Western Europe was the third assumption. Europe's military weakness and inability to defend itself without foreign assistance shaped the character of NATO; it was an Atlantic, not a European alliance. American economic and diplomatic assistance, however, would not be sufficient;

PAGE 182

166 the United States would not only have to join the European defense organization, it would have to take "the leading part in it" (Laqueur, 1982:131). The decision in Washington to take a leading role in the politics and defense of Western Europe was not made at once, and it was reached with reluctance. The general feeling after the war was to withdraw and cut commitments in Europe as soon and as much as possible (Spanier, 1983) The power vacuum that existed in Western Europe and the precariousness of the situation became evident when British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin informed Washington in February 1947 that Britain could no longer assist Greece and Turkey economically or militarily. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan followed, and eventually America was the leading partner in NATO. Soviet power could be matched only by that of the United States. "The old European equilibrium was replaced by the global balance of power between America and Russia" (Laqueur, 1982:32). American involvement was very much desired by West European governments. "For the Europeans — primarily the French and the English — NATO was an indirect means of securing a total commitment by the Americans" (Grosser, 1982:87). Initially, this commitment was envisioned to consist of rapid reinforcement and strategic bombing. With the Korean War and the perception of an increased threat, this commitment was expanded to include substantial American ground forces. Finally, Eisenhower's "New Look" policy that

PAGE 183

167 relied on "massive retaliation" by nuclear weapons was incorporated into NATO policy in 1954 (Sloan, 1985; Smith, 1984) Each of these were calculated efforts to make the American commitment appear more credible. Other assumptions could also be mentioned. For instance, the Alliance was intended to be defensive in outlook, democratic in nature, and regional in scope. However, for the purpose of this chapter, which is to assess changes in public attitudes in regard to some fundamental concepts, the three discussed above are appropriate. These can be summarized as follows: A.l The Soviet Union poses a military and political threat to the security of Western Europe, and to other regions as well. A. 2 A collective security policy is the only way to deter and defend against the Soviet threat. A. 3 The United States must be a leading member of the joint defense effort to balance Soviet power. These assumptions will provide the focus for examining the change or continuity of Western European attitudes. Goals and Methods Analyses in the previous two chapters were crosssectional. The focus was on one time period, 1980, because of the large number of defense and foreign policy questionnaire items contained in the Eurobarometer 14 survey. Cross-sectional techniques were necessary to observe the

PAGE 184

168 dimensional structure and the various correlates of these attitudes. The methods for this chapter will be different since the goal is to observe attitudes over time. The available data, however, contain limitations. A comprehensive longitudinal analysis would require comparably stated questions on a wide range of foreign policy and security matters put to the European people of all nations at periodic intervals since the Second World War. Ideally, the data would be available in machine-readable form enabling repeated applications of the statistical techniques of Chapters III and IV. Data meeting these conditions do not exist, as evidenced by the nature of current published empirical research on European attitudes. Most published analyses contain two or three public opinion items obtained from journalistic sources. The method used here, therefore, is to draw from all available sources of survey data in an effort to reach some conclusions on the change or continuity of West European defense beliefs. These sources will include scholarly studies, popular publications, and some machine-readable data sets. One goal is to avoid jumping to far-reaching conclusions on the basis of a few isolated survey results; to this end, multiple supportive or contradictory sources will be sought. This approach runs the risk of including an indiscriminant number of tables and measures of opinion, especially those dealing with specific, current

PAGE 185

169 policies. By concentrating on the assumptions discussed above, any aimless meandering through opinion data should be avoided. Even within this alternative approach, there are severe limits to the extent to which this chapter can produce a coherent and comparative longitudinal analysis. A sufficient inventory of survey questions from the 1950s and 1960s, and even the 1970s, does not exist. This is in stark contrast to the relative abundance of current data that have become available in the 1980s. In the sixties and seventies national security was largely uncontroversial; there was little public interest or involvement; therefore, there was little incentive to include foreign policy questions in opinion surveys (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985) Additionally, there has been little systematic empirical research on foreign policy related mass attitudes, since the accepted theoretical notion has long been that foreign affairs and international relations are issue areas that are very remote for the average citizen (Rosenau, 1961) Several technical difficulties must be confronted when using multiple sources of opinion data. Most sources for the earlier polls, such as Gallup and Harris, include no breakdown for the analysis of subgroups by age, education, and so on. Often the sample size is not given, decreasing the confidence with which inferences can be made about the population from the sample. The "don't know" responses are treated differently in different sources: sometimes they

PAGE 186

170 are displayed, often they are not, and at other times the substantive responses are repercentaged after subtracting the "don't knows" from the N. There is little use of filter questions to determine the familiarity of respondents with the issues. For instance, respondents may have never heard of the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) ERW (Enhanced Radiation Weapon) or the "dual-track" decision. Finally, authors vary in their presentations of data; for example, some display partial results, such as indexes of percentage differences rather than the actual cell percentages and counts. Plotting trends in these attitudes over time presents the analyst with an additional set of problems. The same questions are not asked repeatedly, or else there are large gaps between the time periods when they are asked. Different wordings or responses often render questions uncomparable. Questions asked in one country are not asked in another. (West Germany is by far the most surveyed country in Europe, and France appears to be the least.) As a result, one is forced to jump from one question or source to another, constantly confronting interruptions of promising time series and modifications in item construction. Differences in national contexts affect comparison as well. Each nation possesses a unique set of cultural and political circumstances that alter the interpretation of items. The translation of the identical question into different languages may influence the results. The

PAGE 187

171 significance of national identity was discussed in Chapter IV. The West German border with Eastern bloc nations, the unique French relationship with NATO, the Italian Communist Party, and the geographical separation of Britain, all affect the stimuli with which respondents are presented. They are hearing the same words, but they may be answering different questions. The upshot of these difficulties is that in many cases it cannot be determined whether the mass attitudes observed now are any different from those of earlier years. It is possible that some of the attitudes causing political concern today might actually not be new at all, but that previously we were not aware of these attitudes, because there were no systematic efforts being made to measure them. A final issue is the question of the salience of foreign policy matters. Sizeable segments of populations might have little interest in and information about foreign policy and might rate it rather low in personal importance. This has been the traditional view articulated by Rosenau (1961) Table 5-1 displays some possible indicators of low salience for West Germany and Italy. Majorities in both countries recently expressed no interest in foreign policy or international relations. The French, according to Fritsch-Bournazel "still remain indifferent or skeptical about certain aspects that concern the activities and

PAGE 188

172 TABLE 5-1 INDICATIONS OF THE SALIENCE OF FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES IN WEST GERMANY AND ITALY (percentages) 1. "Most important problem" (percent selecting either foreign policy, national security, or peace as most important) 11/1976 11/1980 2/1982 West Germany 2 9 15 2. "Interested in foreign policy and international politics" Yes No West Germany (19 80) 47 53 = 100% Italy (1983) 35 63 = 98% Source: For West German Question 1: Rattinger (1985:108); Question 2: Noelle-Neumann (1981:410). For Italy: Rossi (1985:176).

PAGE 189

173 capacity of the military or the understanding of deterrence strategy" (1985:97). It is conceivable that large numbers of survey respondents are asked to indicate perceptions or evaluations of matters on which they have almost no knowledge and about which they have never before been required to form an opinion. Applying forced response measures in a situation of little knowledge and low salience invariably provokes a certain number of "non-attitudes" (Converse, 1970) Respondents may choose randomly from the alternatives they are offered, or they may reply on the basis of what they think is socially desirable. Of course, they could refuse to reply by saying they "don't know," but perhaps they choose not to, in order, for example, not to appear ignorant or to please the interviewer. Responses to single-item measures are not the same as genuine attitudes, that is, stable convictions, based on knowledge and experience, that can be maintained against contradictory opinions and counterevidence (Crewe, 1985:13). This illustrates the different methodological approach in this chapter as compared to Chapters III and IV. There, attitudes were measured by multi-item scales that provide more precise and valid indicators of deeply held values and beliefs. Responses to public opinion questions, which will be observed here, are much more subject to nuances of transient events and ephemeral factors. They are more

PAGE 190

174 changeable over time and less consistent than a series of logically linked questions as used previously. In Britain, interest in foreign and defense matters is increasing (Table 5-2) This is also occurring in West Germany as Table 5-1 indicated. Previously, from the mid sixties when the deep-seated nature of Britain's economic problems became generally apparent, security and international affairs "barely loomed in the public consciousness at all" (Crewe, 1985:12). The current increased interest in security affairs can be attributed to the mass movement of protest against NATO's 1979 decision to deploy new intermediate-ranged nuclear missiles in Western Europe. By the 1983 general election, following a campaign in which the major parties were polarized over these issues, defense ranked as the second most urgent problem in Britain, surpassed only by the economy. Several analysts and policy makers believe that across Western Europe public awareness of and political involvement with security questions have increased dramatically (Capitanchik and Eichenberg, 19 83; Flynn and Rattinger, 1985; Laqueur, 1981; Russett and Deluca, 1983). This was a major theme of Chapter I. Table 5-3 displays how Europeans evaluate the relative importance of several issues. The combined importance of inflation and unemployment lead the list; however, the threat of war along with the concern about nuclear weapons account for about a quarter of the

PAGE 191

175 TABLE 5-2 SALIENCE OF DEFENSE IN GREAT BRITAIN Question: "What would you say is the most urgent problem facing the country at the present time? And what would you say is the next most urgent problem?" Percent mentioning defense as one of Rank of defense the two most urgent among other problems problems 1979 General Election 2 14 3rd quarter a b a b a b 3 12 3 10 4 6 1981 1st 1 8 6 4 6 6 8 4 6 4 5 5 5 6 10 3 1983 1st 15 3 38 2 Source: Crewe (1985:25); original cited: Gallup. [a] Less than 2% [b] Data not available Note : The question was asked every month. The figures given for each quarter are the means across each of the three months. 4 th M 1st ii 2nd ii 3rd ii 4th ii 1st ii 2nd H 3rd ii 4 th ii 1st ii 2nd I 3rd ii 4 th ii 1st n General Election

PAGE 192

176 TABLE 5-3 ISSUE SALIENCE IN WESTERN EUROPE, 19 84 (Percentages) Question: "What is the most important issue for you and your country at the present time?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain Threat of War 47 (15) 14 (10) 56 (16) 40 (14) Energy Crisis 15 ( 5) 4 ( 3) 19 ( 5) 15 ( 5) Inflation 39 (12) 9 (7) 38 (11) 18 ( 6) Insufficient Defense 7(2) 2(1) 7 ( 2) 11 ( 4) Capability High Unemployment 78 (25) 52 (39) 69 (19) 60 (22) Social Inequality 27 (9) 12 ( 9) 28 (8) 23 ( 8) Crime 30 (9) 10 ( 7) 58 (16) 36 (13) Nuclear Weapons 26 ( 8) 15 (11) 39 (11) 43 (15) Government Deficit 21 ( 7) 5 ( 4) 19 ( 5) 12 ( 4) Poor Political 24 ( 8) 7 ( 5) 25 ( 7) 19 ( 7) Leadership Other /Don't Know 2 (1) 5 (4) 3 (1) 1 (1) TOTAL 316% 101% 135% 100% 361% 101% 278% 99% Source: Hastings and Hastings (1985:689); original cited: Harris. Note : Multiple responses were possible. Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total responses. N=1000 (approximately) for each national sample.

PAGE 193

177 responses. Security issues, therefore, are the second most urgent problem for European publics, ahead of crime, energy, government, deficits, political leadership, and social inequality. This contrasts sharply with the conventional view that the public is generally disinterested in foreign policy. Although interest in foreign and security matters is increasing now, a condition of low salience and the presence of non-attitudes during the previous three decades must temper interpretations of the data gathered during those years. Several of the circumstances discussed in this section as impediments exist in all survey research. Concern with national contexts, equivalent items, non-attitudes, and salience are not unique to this study but pervade empirical social research. The point is that in relying on multiple previously published sources, one is not able to control for these and the other technical matters mentioned. One is, so to speak, at the mercy of someone else's methods, techniques, and data. These methodological issues do not preclude conclusions from being reached on the patterns and trends of European attitudes over time, but these technical concerns should point out the complexity of the task. It is doubtful that these analyses will provide perfect consistency or allow for the construction of elaborate explanations of continuity or change. Nonetheless, the goal is to present some indication

PAGE 194

178 of how West European mass attitudes on national security matters have evolved over time. Findings and Analyses This section is organized into three discrete parts. Attitudes toward the three assumptions discussed previously will be examined under the following headings: the threat to Western Europe, attitudes toward European security, and images of the United States. The Threat to Western Europe The Alliance was a response to a Soviet threat that was perceived by the governments and publics of Western Europe. Events in Eastern Europe, ideological rhetoric, Soviet power, and West European weakness combined to bring Western Europe and the United States into a common defense arrangement. Since then, West European attitudes toward the Soviet Threat have eased considerably. According to Donald Puchala: "Perceptions of great danger from the East that stimulated European defensive instincts in the past are no longer prevalent, and American attempts to arouse these instincts are somewhat resented" (1984:22). Table 5-4 displays the changes in German perceptions of the Soviet Union. The data presented represent responses favorable to Russia. For each of the questions the trend is a consistently improving view. According to Questions 2 and 3, majorities in West Germany no longer view the Soviet

PAGE 195

.79 IT) w m < En •rH M O a c •rH Xi u 4J 0) M 3 o rd >1 CT> 4-> ; c C-. H C 4-> ^ CO (1) T3 CD CD S CO M O aj 45 4-1 tfl =1 4J T3 X! CD 4J 4-> 4-> •H +J S >H 4-1 g rd CO £ 0) £j H J-H U X! CD 4-> t 4-> >1 oH s td # rH C^. 4-> (0 D] • U to •H CD •H • e to AS — rd C 4-) CO £) -H 03 •H x; tO CD +) w 4-> 4-> rH rd (0 3 CD CD rH Xi U rH 10 >i -p Xi •H c w 4J s (0 H-> T3 •H ft +J W C CO CO to CO •H &< 3 ts D d ft ^ CD u CD £ Xi CD Xi g M J3 4-> -P u CD -P 4-> > 4-> C as CD rd (0 CD X J3 X xi to 4-> 4J 4-> CD tf u M M CO H a C a CO (1) •H •H p CD 4-> X jC 4-i rd 4-1 4-> CD X 3 4-) ^ 3 4-1 to >i CU >1 >, CO g CD o Q CD Q p p = Xi r E s 4-> •• Xi • • .. • t .H 4J CM m ^r •H C S c C C •H C H -rH H 4J O 4J 4-1 4-> CO -H CO = (0 to CD 4J CD C*CD CD 3 (0 3 3 •H O to o a ^ 4-1 a C = o CD CO H U CD 4-1 U >t W CD = CD ft 3 a o •H +J CO CD o 4-1 rd CD S4 s cn to 3 CM M +) a -p m C CD -H Q) U 4J U X! to ^ 4-1 CD CD fl ft O C S rH 4-> CJ 5 •rH CD w 4J CJ CD CO H >i CD CD = 3 ft a c\>^ voooaicNj'3 tnv£>rco c u cr (0 fd ld rr) ftj cri r-l CO ** rd rd rd r^ n rd (fl rd rd rd t* rd (d ro to n) CN CN rd rd ro ro rsj'3'tooocricN^rtnvDr~oocTic ininininincovotovDtotDto>

PAGE 196

180 ^r a 1 w if) D z W H PI Eh a s 3 o H u 1* +J c c = cu in H U CD -P P >i to CD = QJ CM d O -p 0) p o •H P n CD O (N g 4-> c P <0 C (1) •H 0) P +J U 43 tn P -P 0) CD 3 Cm o C = 4J C s H 0) CO 4-1 i 0) QJ = d Cm o HCMM^invDi^oocriOH(Nn t^r^r-r^t^r^t~-r^r-oocx>oooo ororomrarOrHroraororora ^r n ro i-i -^ in in in • P. 0) H Cn •H 0) u CO c rd o CO CM o •H 4-1 (0 0) oo ;3 in Ooo en P H O — Cu P 0) •• t7* cu d P 4- d -p o rd CO CD ja H •H (0 > <0 +) o a nj 4-> CO Q c0 CO CO D 0) 4J T3 P r0 B + CO (1) 5 •H 4-> -P CO CD H x> P o > ro IH CD P O P o CD m CD p to CD Cn ro 4-> c CD U P CD Cm P CD Cr> •H CD 4-) o

PAGE 197

181 Union or "communism" as threatening. On another question asked in 1983, 52% of the West Germans did not view the Soviet Union as a military threat (Rattinger, 1985:57). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Italian perceptions of the Soviet Union gradually became more favorable, with this trend peaking in 1978 (Table 5-5) In the 1980s, however, there has been a return of the negative feelings about the Soviet Union, caused perhaps by events in Afghanistan and Poland. This adjustment was not as pronounced among Germans (Table 5-4). The shift in Italian opinion in 1983, 12 percentage points more favorable, may indicate a return to the historical trend of a more favorable view of the Soviet Union. More favorable views of the Soviet Union are held at the same time that Europeans are perceiving a marked shift in the balance of military power away from the United States 2 (Table 5-6) With Britain there is little shift, since the British have viewed Soviet power as superior to that of the United States for some time. However, for Italy, France, and West Germany, the United States was believed to be strong until the 1970s, but these views have changed. Additionally, European attitudes toward the possibility of war appear antithetic. Although perceptions are that the military balance has shifted in favor of the Soviet Union, Tables 5-7 and 5-8 indicate that concerns over the possibility of war have eased a bit. Europeans clearly viewed a Soviet attack upon Western Europe as very unlikely

PAGE 198

182 TABLE 5-5 ITALIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION (percent favorable minus unfavorable responses) 10/54 -30 12/55 -29 11/56 -60 11/57 -34 10/58 -14 12/59 + 2 7/60 -19 7/61 7 6/62 -20 2/63 -15 3/64 -15 7/65 -19 11/69 9 4/72 8 4/73 1 10/78 + 5 10/81 -52 2/82 -55 4/83 -43 Source: Rossi (1985:185); original cited: Doxa Institute.

PAGE 199

183 TABLE 5-6 EUROPEAN PERCEPTION OF THE MILITARY BALANCE (percentages) Question: Who is ahead in total military strength, the United States (NATO or the West) or the Soviet Union (Warsaw Pact or the East) ? Fr ance W. Ger. Italy Bri tain US USSR US USSR US USSR US USSR 1957 17 25 38 23 34 22 19 50 1958 19 29 24 23 38 23 26 41 1960 25 40 26 23 30 22 12 55 1961 12 43 26 38 22 29 15 56 1963 24 28 50 16 39 19 26 41 1969 40 26 41 26 44 13 33 34 1973 a a 17 27 a a a a 1977 16 34 13 34 22 17 10 50 1979 a a 11 42 a a 12 64 1980 a a 10 39 a a 13 59 1981 15 34 10 51 22 28 10 52 1982 a a 9 54 a a a a 1983 a a 11 47 a a 17 55 Source: Merritt and Puchala (1968:210,211); Rattinger (1985:114); Rossi (1985:180); Crewe (1985:17); Shaffer (1982:36); Russett and Deiuca (1983:190); Eichenberg (1983: Table 2) [a] Data not available. Note : Wording varied from year to year in regard to "United States," "NATO," or the "West" and the "Soviet Union," "USSR," "the East," or the "Warsaw Pact." Responses of "neither" and "don't know" are not displayed.

PAGE 200

184 TABLE 5-7 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POSSIBILITY OF WAR (percentages) Question: "Here is a sort of scale. [Respondents are shown a 10 point scale.] Would you tell me how you would assess the chances of a world war breaking out in the next 3 or 4 years?" [For 1971-84 it was "in the next 10 years?"] (percent responding that there is a 50% chance or better) 1955 1956 1957 1958 1960 1961 1971 1977 1980 1984 France 27 43 44 28 31 31 27 30 38 33 W. Germany 31 40 32 33 29 41 23 23 40 25 Italy 19 36 32 39 19 28 21 23 46 23 Britain 26 44 31 34 31 31 a 24 55 26 Source: For 1955-61, Merritt and Puchala (1968:190-191); original cited: USICA. For 1971-84, Hastings and Hastings (1985:452; 1986:683). [a] Data not available. Note : On years question was asked twice the responses were averaged. N = 1000 (approximately) for each national sample for each time period.

PAGE 201

185 TABLE 5-8 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT (percentages) Question 1: (1952) "Are you personally worried much about the possibility of a war breaking out or not?" Question 2: (1982) "How likely do you think it is that the Soviet Union will attack West Europe within the next five years?" France Worry a lot 2 9 Somewhat 31 A Little 19 Don't Worry 18 Don't Know 3 TOTAL 100% (Row 1+2 3+4) +23 N = (1345) W. Ger, 29 24 14 32 1 100% + 7 (1591) Question 1 (1952) 38 25 15 22 100% + 26 (1505) Britain 15 17 20 48 100% -36 (1503) Very/Fairly Likely Unlikely Don't Know TOTAL (Row 1 Row 2) France 29 61 19 99% -32 Question 2 (1982) W. Ger, 14 70 17 101% -56 Italy 23 69 9 101% -46 Britain 22 68 10 100% -46 Source: For Question 1, original cited: USICA. original cited: USICA. Merritt and Puchala (1968:189); For Question 2, Shaffer (1982:44)

PAGE 202

186 in 19 82, despite the invasion of Afghanistan (Question 2, Table 5-8) However, the invasion of Afghanistan probably triggered the surge of concern in 1980 for a possible world war (Table 5-7) Large increases in concern for the likelihood of war were seen in all four countries in 1980, with the British respondents more than doubling their aggregate view. Also, the threat of war was one of the most mentioned important issues in 1984; Italy 56%, France 47%, and Britain 40% (Table 5-3) The fear of war, therefore, is linked more to superpower confrontation over a dispute such as Afghanistan than to Soviet aggression directed specifically against Western Europe. Table 5-9 shows that increased Soviet military capability is the most stated cause for international tension in three of the countries; however, this was not an overwhelmingly decisive factor as only among the Germans did up to 50% select this response, and multiple responses were possible. Only 31% of the French and 37% of the Italians viewed increased Soviet military capability as a major problem. Most notable is that the increased military capability of the United States was also considered a major cause of international tension (by 41% of the West Germans and 37% of the British) United States economic policy was considered the most important factor by the French, ahead of all military and other items. In another survey, 43% of French respondents viewed United States monetary policies as

PAGE 203

187 TABLE 5-9 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CAUSES OF INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS, 19 84 (percentages) Question: "What do you think is the major cause for the present tension in international relations?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain Increased USSR 31 (14) 50 (19) 37 (18) 47 (20) Military Capability Increased U.S. 20 ( 9) 41 (16) 26 (13) 37 (16) Military Capability U.S. Interest Rates 38 (17) 26 (10) 22 (11) 10 ( 4) and Exchange Rates Increased USSR 24 (11) 19 (7) 14 ( 7) 20 ( 9) Influence Superpower Activi29 (13) 32 (12) 20 (10) 32 (14) ties in the 3d World Insufficient Unity 25 (11) 32 (12) 26 (13) 19 ( 8) Among W. European Nations Excessive Yielding 12 ( 5) 12 ( 5) 7 ( 3) 10 ( 4) to the USSR by W. Europe U.S. Aggressive 12 ( 5) 26 (10) 25 (12) 36 (16) Policy Toward the USSR Increased Neutralism 10 ( 5) 6(2) 4(2) 10 ( 4) and Pacifism in W. Europe Other/Don't Know 19 (9) 14 ( 5) 25 (12) 11 •( 5) TOTAL 220% 99% 258% 98% 206% 101% 232% 101% Source: Hastings and Hastings (1985:691; 1986:720-721); original: Harris. Note : Multiple responses were possible. Figures in parenthesis are percentages based on the total responses. N = 1000 (approximately) for each nation.

PAGE 204

188 the principal threat to France as compared to 24% who felt the USSR and its military policies were the greater threat (Fritsch-Bournazel, 1985:92) Additionally, significantly large minorities blamed aggressive United States policies toward Russia as the principal cause of international tension (36% in Britain, 26% in West Germany, and 25% in Italy; from Table 5-9) In this view, it is the United States, not the Soviet Union, that is threatening the security of Western Europe. Fear of nuclear war, apart from a fear of either superpower, explains the simultaneous attitudes of being threatened by war but not by a Soviet attack upon Western Europe. West German opinion illustrates this. Substantial majorities are willing to defend the Federal Republic even if the war is to be fought in Germany (Questions 1 and 2, Table 5-10) ; however, only 15% are willing to defend their country if nuclear weapons are to be used (Question 3) Similar views are held by the British. According to Table 5-11, the fear that a nuclear war will occur is growing in Britain, almost 50% responded in 1983 that a nuclear war is likely. In 1963. following the Cuban missile crisis, only 16% believed this. Additionally, in 1981, only 14 percentage points separated those who felt Soviet missiles were a greater threat than American missiles, and in 1982, more of the British public thought American missiles increase the chances of attack (42%) rather than provide for greater protection (29%)

PAGE 205

189 TABLE 5-10 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS (percentages) Question 1 : "Do you think that the Federal Republic should defend itself against a military attack on its territory by using military force?" Question 2: "Are you in every case for the defense of the FRG against a military attack, even if the war occurs primarily on the territory of the FRG?" Question 3: "In case of war, NATO also has nuclear weapons at its disposal. Are you for the defense of the FRG, even if nuclear weapons have to be used on the territory of the FRG?" Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 (percent "yes") (percent "yes ) (percent "yes" 1977 58 57 19 1979 57 50 14 1980 64 53 15 Question 4: "What is more important, defending democracy — even if this involves a nuclear war — or avoiding war — even if this means living under a communist government?" 5/55 5/56 3/59 7/60 12/75 3/76 2/79 5/81 7/81 Defend Democracy 48 51 49 44 34 35 31 36 40 Avoid War 52 49 51 56 66 65 69 64 60 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) -4 +2 -2 -12 -32 -30 -38 -28 -20 Source: Schweigler (1984:115,116); Rattinger (1985:125).

PAGE 206

190 16 39 42 38 49 59 45 42 44 36 25 16 16 18 16 100% 100% 100% 100% 101% -43 6 6 + 7 TABLE 5-11 BRITISH ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR WAR AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS (percentages) Question 1: "Do you think it is likely or not that there is ever going to be a nuclear war?" 4/63 9/80 11/81 11/82 2/83 Yes/Likely No/Not Likely Don't Know TOTAL (Row 1 Row 2) Question 2: "Which represents the greater threat to the security of Britain?" 11/81 The presence of Soviet missiles in Eastern Europe 43 The proposed installation of American missiles 29 in Western Europe Don't Know 28 TOTAL 100% Question 3: "What is the effect of having American nuclear missiles stationed in Western Europe?" 2/82 Increases the chances of attack 42 Has no effect 24 Provides greater protection 29 Don t Know 5 TOTAL 100% Source: Crewe (1985:20,23,36); original cited: Gallup. Russett and Deluca (1983:192); original cited: Gallup.

PAGE 207

191 The conclusion from these various survey results is that the European perception of what is threatening is changing. The fear of the Soviet Union that prompted the formation of the Atlantic Alliance is being replaced by new fear: a fear of nuclear war. This threat appears to be attributed to the weapons themselves rather than to specific nations. Thus, the Soviet Union itself is no longer so much the threat as compared to the nuclear arsenals in Russia and the United States. The likelihood of war is being based on the existence and presence in Europe of nuclear weapons, especially those of the Americans. Local attitudes toward the British nuclear deterrent and the French force de frappe are generally more favorable (Crewe, 1985; FritschBournazel, 1985) This represents a subtle, implicit shift in assumptions. Weapons rather than politics, missiles rather than men, nukes rather than nations are becoming the threat, and these are possessed by both NATO and the USSR who therefore become equally threatening. These views, complex and usually not coherent, are seldom voiced openly, but instead are manifested in the arguments over particular issues. The Euro-American bickering on the Siberian pipeline is a case in point. Ostensibly the argument was about energy dependence and helping the Russian economy. But the real issue, from the view of the United States administration, was that such a deal would enhance a state of psychological dependence on the Soviet Union. The Europeans would then have an additional reason

PAGE 208

192 for not disagreeing with the Russians on matters other than energy. In this view, the issue was not trade with the Soviet Union, but its political implications. It has been the policy of the United States to encourage concerted actions by the West to avoid strengthening Soviet power through trade. Many of these efforts are dismissed by European governments as not being in their interests economically. However, when the Europeans protest against restrictions on the sale of machinery or technology to the Soviet Union or to other Eastern bloc countries, they are doing more than disputing the relevance of a particular computer or piece of equipment. More importantly, they are implicitly denying "the underlying assumption of U.S. policy: namely, that the Soviet Union is an enemy" (Stoppa-Liebl and Laqueur, 1985:74). Another example is the European anti-missile campaign in the early 1980s. The NATO decision to deploy new missiles was debated and opposed by a cluster of multicolored factions who ultimately failed to achieve their political objective of preventing deployment. But the movement managed to modify the political climate and to spread the seeds of an anti-defense and anti-American viewpoint based on fundamentally different assumptions of the international state system. Specifically, it is a Utopian view in which weapons are bad and people are good. Thus, it appears that the traditional conceptual boundaries around the notion of threat are eroding in

PAGE 209

193 Europe. What is threatening now is perceived to be as much internal to the Alliance as external; as much economic as military; and as much technical as political. The implications for NATO are obvious; for example, during periods of economic difficulty, defense policies may become relegated to the more immediate threats as perceived by Western publics: namely, inflation and unemployment. Attitudes Toward Security A prominent feature of European postwar security attitudes is the consistently high level of public support for the Atlantic Alliance. Tables 5-12 and 5-13 present data from 1955 to 1982, and in 1982 healthy majorities continued to favor NATO in each country. Even in France 62% favored NATO in 1982, the highest level ever for that country. The trend in West Germany has been for support for the Western Alliance to increase (Tables 5-14 and 5-15) There has been a steady increase in favorable responses to questions dealing with being allied with the United States, NATO, and the presence of American troops. Responses are more positive to the question wording in Table 5-15 which presents the alternative of "NATO," than in Table 5-14 which asks respondents to choose between an alliance with the

PAGE 210

194 TABLE 5-12 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO (percentages) Question: (In 1955) "Do you think (country) should continue its membership or withdraw from NATO?" Question: (in 1980) "Some people say that NATO is still essential to our country's security. Others say it is no longer essential. Which of these views is closer to your own?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain 1955 1967 1980 1955 1980 1955 1980 1955 1980 NATO Essential 60 49 43 80 87 70 59 94 78 (Remain in NATO) Not Essential 17 13 34 13 8 20 24 4 13 (Withdraw) Don't Know 23 38 23 7 5 10 15 2 9 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) +43 +36 + 9 +67 +79 +50 +35 +90 +65 Source: For 1955 data, Merritt and Puchala (1968:345); original cited: USICA. For French 1967 data, Gallup, France (1976:623). For 1980 data, Eurobarometer 14 Note : N=1000 (approximately) for each national sample for each year. Percentages based on respondents who had "heard of NATO" as determined by a filter question (except for France in 1967)

PAGE 211

195 TABLE 5-13 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND NEUTRALISM (percentages) Question: "All things considered, do you think it is better for (survey country) to belong to NATO, or would it be better for us to get out of NATO and become a neutral country?" France West Germany 3/81 7/81 2/82 4/82 3/81 7/81 1/82 2/82 Better to belong 45 33 46 62 67 64 65 70 Better to get out 40 51 20 29 14 18 17 13 Don't Know 15 16 34 10 19 19 17 17 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 101% 100% 101% 99% 100% (Row 1-2) +5 -18 +26 +33 +53 +46 +48 +57 Italy Britain 3/81 7/81 4/82 3/81 7/81 2/82 4/82 Better to belong 60 49 59 67 59 63 73 Better to get out 30 42 34 20 29 25 21 Don't Know 9 8 7 12 12 12 6 TOTAL 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% (Row 1-2) + 30 + 7 + 25 + 47 +30 + 38 + 52 Source: Shaffer (1982:51); original cited: USICA.

PAGE 212

196 TABLE 5-14 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ALLIANCE AND NEUTRALISM (percentages) Question: "Which do you think would be the better foreign policy, should we remain militarily allied with the United States or should we attempt to be neutral?" 1961 1965 1969 1973 1975 1978 1980 Militarily Allied w/ US 40 46 44 41 49 57 54 Neutral 42 37 38 42 36 27 27 Undecided 18 17 18 17 15 16 19 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) 2 + 9 + 6 1 + 13 + 30 + 27 Source: Noelle-Neumann (1982:418). Original cited: Allensbach. N = approximately 2000 for each time period.

PAGE 213

197 TABLE 5-15 WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND U.S. TROOPS (percentages) Question 1: "Should we remain in NATO essentially unchanged, should we aim to belong to a NATO either more loosely or more firmly structured, or do you think it is better to leave NATO?" Question 2: "Does the presence of U.S. troops in the Federal Republic tend to increase the maintenance of peace, or does the presence of American soldiers tend to endanger peace ? Question 1 Question 2 (percent "increase) (percent "NATO") peace") 1968 63 a 1969 63 a 1970 63 48 1971 75 79 1972 68 57 1973 70 59 1974 65 61 1975 64 64 1976 61 61 1977 71 68 1978 80 87 1979 81 84 1980 81 84 1981 78 82 1982 76 81 1983 79 78 Source: Schweigler (1984:110,111,118); original cited: EMNID. [a] Data not available. Note : For Question 1, responses to "a more firm NATO," "a looser NATO," "quit NATO," "other," and "don't know" are not displayed. For Question 2, responses to "endanger peace" and "don't know" are not displayed.

PAGE 214

198 "United States" and neutrality. For instance, in 1980, 81% of the German respondents favored NATO but only 54% favored an alliance with the United States. This may be an artifact of item construction, or else it illustrates the extent to which the notion of "NATO" has become ingrained into the German vocabulary eliciting favorable images that are almost automatic. Views of the United States, however, are not as favorable. The evidence presented above on support for NATO has been based upon essentially dichotomous responses. When presented with several specific alternative security arrangements, however, Europeans appear to be a bit less favorably disposed toward NATO, at least in its current form. There are sizeable minorities interested in some form of separate European military command either within or outside of NATO (Table 5-16) In 1979 and 1980 in France, pluralities favored no alliance at all, but preferred to rely on their own defense. These French views clearly fit the image from Chapter III of the French as Isolationists The "no alliance" response receives no support in the other countries. Also in line with the images from Chapter III, the West Germans, as Atlanticists have little interest in a separate European military structure, and they have the highest level of support for NATO in its present form. The relative importance attached to national defense in general is another issue on which Europeans differ. The DEFPRI variable, used in Chapter III, categorizes

PAGE 215

199 TABLE 5-16 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD SECURITY POLICY (percentages) Question: "Which of these statements on this card comes closest to your own view of how (country) should provide for its security?" France Ger. Italy Britain 1967 1968 1979 1980 1980 1980 1983 1980 1983 NATO unchanged 34 42 19 21 57 27 31 43 37 Separate Eur a a a a 18 29 17 24 20 Cmd w/i NATO W/d from NATO Form 25 17 28 28 10 16 15 8 15 Separate Eur Command No Alliance Rely on Own 18 22 30 36 3 6 7 9 11 Defense Reduce Military Def and Rely onaa21 2 54 55 Accommodation w/USSR Don't Know 23 19 21 14 11 18 26 11 12 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 101% 101% 100% 100% 100% Sources: For France: Gallup, France (1976:627,692) and Fritsch-Bournazel (1985:94). For Italy: Eurobarometer 14 and Rossi (1985:213). For Germany: Eurobarometer 14 For Britain: Eurobarometer 14 and Crewe (1985 : 45) [a] Alternative was not available as a response.

PAGE 216

200 respondents into those who place a high priority on national defense and those who do not. Table 5-17 displays responses to this measure from four time periods. The British and the Germans place considerably greater emphasis on the importance of national defense than do the French or the Italians. Additionally, this perception of the importance of defense is increasing more in Britain and West Germany than in France and Italy. The increase in the priority given to national defense is not reproduced in the more specific question of whether Western Europe should make a stronger effort to provide adequate military defense. Table 5-18 shows decreases in the support for a stronger military defense by the British and the Germans, although the British support remains the highest of the four countries (60% in 1983) Among the French and the Italians, on the other hand, support is increasing a bit. The question in Table 5-18 is still somewhat broad and externally oriented. When asked, in 1982, if they favored increasing expenditures for defense in their country, only in Britain was a plurality supportive (44%) ; this policy alternative received minimal support in France, West Germany and Italy: 16%, 15%, and 16%, respectively (Shaffer, 1982:53). Thus, apart from the general acceptance of NATO as the preferred defense arrangement, there is wide disagreement among Europeans over more specific questions dealing with

PAGE 217

201 TABLE 5-17 PERCENT CATEGORIZED AS PLACING A HIGH PRIORITY ON NATIONAL DEFENSE (DEFPRI) 1973 1978 1979 1980 Change 17 12 12 24 + 7 21 36 36 52 + 31 13 13 12 19 + 4 23 41 34 50 +27 France W. Germany Italy Britain Source: 19 73 European Community Study and Eurobarometers 10, 11, and 14. Note : Percentages are those who chose "strong defense forces" as either the first or second most important goal for their country. N=1000 (approximately) for each national sample each year.

PAGE 218

202 TABLE 5-18 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE EFFORTS (percentages) Question: "Western Europe should make a stronger effort to provide adequate military defense." France W. Ger. Italy Britain 1979 1983 1979 1983 1979 1983 1979 1983 Strongly Agree 9 16 17 8 9 13 23 15 Agree 24 27 37 36 21 24 42 45 Disagree 21 17 22 30 22 21 14 20 Str Disagree 17 15 8 13 30 26 4 5 No Reply 29 25 16 13 18 16 17 15 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Row 1+2 3+4) -5 +11 +24 + 1 -32 -10 +47 +35 Source: Hastings and Hastings (1985:563). Original cited: EEC. N= 1000 (approximately) for each nation for each time period.

PAGE 219

203 national priorities, increasing defense efforts, and military spending. This reflects a discontinuity between general security principals and specific defense measures. Concern for the unwillingness of Europe to contribute equitably to its own defense is a familiar topic (Bull, 1983; Joffe, 1982). The Lisbon goals were established in 1952 to systematically raise European force levels to a point believed to be adequate. But "such objectives were never even remotely approached" (Stoppa-Liebl and Laqueur, 1984:10). The United States, apparently reluctant to precipitate a political crisis, made up the difference. American troops became largely a substitute for rather than an integration of European defense. Since conventional forces appeared to be too expensive, NATO's defense was entrusted primarily to the nuclear weapons of the United States. The data on attitudes toward nuclear deterrence reflect a pattern of support for the general concept but ambivalence when it is applied to specifics. Large pluralities and in some cases majorities support the notion that nuclear weapons help to prevent a Soviet attack (Table 5-19) The brief period for which the trend data are available show some ups and downs that reveal little about a long-term trend. These adjustments may indicate some uncertainty and confusion on the part of the public, or they may reflect the nature of the domestic debate occurring at the time. There

PAGE 220

204 TABLE 5-19 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR DETERRENCE (percentages) Question: "Do you think that having nuclear weapons in Western Europe helps to prevent a Soviet attack on Western Europe or makes a Soviet attack on Western Europe more likely?" Helps prevent attack Makes attack more likely Don t know TOTAL France 7/81 10/81 4/82 49 44 55 17 20 27 34 37 18 100% 101% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) +32 +24 +28 West Germany 7/81 10/81 12/81 1/82 4/82 46 23 31 100% + 23 39 31 36 47 24 32 30 21 36 37 33 32 99% 100% 99% 100% +15 1 +6 +26 Helps prevent attack Makes attack more likely Don't know TOTAL Italy 7/81 10/81 4/82 52 47 48 29 37 33 19 16 19 100% 100% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) +23 +10 +15 Britain 3/81 7/81 12/81 4/82 61 52 48 56 20 28 28 22 18 20 23 22 99% 100% 99% 100% +41 +24 +20 +34 Source: Shaffer (1982:76); original cited: USICA.

PAGE 221

205 is no enthusiasm or consensus evident in these data, and the large percentage of "don't knows" also point to some difficulty with the concept. The logic of deterrence requires that military forces be usable to deter. Accordingly, "deterrence is as much a psychological as a military problem" (Kissinger, 1966:19). Within the European public, however, there is a widespread rejection of the NATO policy on nuclear weapons (Question 2, Table 5-20) These weapons are perceived as being not usable. Additionally, Question 1 in Table 5-20 shows a rejection of one of the fundamental tenets of collective security, that of mutual support and assistance if one alliance member is attacked. This is an integral part of any joint defense relationship. A plurality in France and large minorities in West Germany and Italy disclaim the use of military force under any circumstances. These concepts are becoming inextricably linked. The percentages advocating that nuclear weapons should never be used under any circumstances are very close to those responding that military force in general should never be used, and in France they are identical. This may indicate that distinctions about types of warfare are becoming blurred and that the notion of a nuclear threshold is losing meaning as well. People seem to believe that the existence of nuclear weapons has made war impossible.

PAGE 222

206 TABLE 5-20 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AND THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, July 1981 (percentages) Question 1: "Under which of the circumstances on this card, if any, would you favor (country) using military force, or should military force never be used?" Question 2: "There are different opinions about the use of nuclear weapons in Europe by NATO. Which one of the following opinions is closest to your own?" Question 1 [a] France W. Ger. Italy Britain (1) Military force 44 (42) 26 (24) 33 (31) 20 (18) should never be used (2) If (survey 35 (33) 48 (44) 41 (39) 54 (48) country) is attacked by USSR (3) If another NATO 13 (12) 18 (17) 25 (24) 30 (27) country is attacked by USSR (4) Don't know 14 (13) 16 (15) 7(7) 9(8) TOTAL 106% 100% 108% 100% 106% 101% 106% 101% Question 2 France W.Ger Italy Britain (1) NATO should not use 44 29 42 24 nuclear weapons of any kind under any circumstances (2) NATO should use nuclear 32 37 38 47 weapons only if the USSR uses them first in attacking West Europe (3) NATO should use nuclear 17 17 12 19 weapons to defend itself if a Soviet attack by conventional forces threatens to overwhelm NATO forces Continued

PAGE 223

207 TABLE 5-20 CONTINUED Question 2 (4) Don't know TOTAL France W.Ger Italy Britain 7 17 7 10 100% 100% 99% 100% Source: Shaffer (1982:56,57); original cited: USICA. [a] Multiple responses were possible for question 1. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total responses.

PAGE 224

208 Longitudinal data are not available for the questions in Table 5-20. The extent to which fundamental changes in attitudes about nuclear weapons have occurred cannot be directly assessed. It is doubtful that many people ever liked these weapons. But what may be new is a more generalized fear and confusion about Western defenses and strategy resulting from an increased awareness of as well as the growth of nuclear stockpiles and capabilities. This greater fear and awareness, coupled with the increased tendency for political activism, pose real dilemmas for European governments in their efforts to structure security policies that both deter the Soviet Union and reassure the public. Indications of these general predispositions about war and peace are contained in Table 5-21. A dramatic reversal of opinion over the almost 30-year period is reflected in the data. Except in Britain, where the successful Falklands War was probably very much in mind, overwhelming majorities in 19 83 responded that peace is more important than anything. This reversal may be attributable to concern with nuclear weapons. In summary, there is widespread support for the generic notion of NATO, but disarray in regard to what the specific components of collective security should be. Affirmations of the Atlantic Alliance have become "knee jerk" responses, in which Western policy makers should take little comfort. These periodic superficial endorsements disguise conflicting

PAGE 225

209 TABLE 5-21 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD WAR (percentages) Question: (In 1955) "Of course, almost everyone wants peace. But there are some things that people say are worth fighting for. What about a threat to the individual liberty of (country's) people? Which would you choose — stay at peace or fight for it?" Question: (In 1983) "Some people think that peace is more important than anything else, such as our standard of living, liberty, or human rights. Others think that some things are sufficiently important to be fought for, even if this risks going to war. What is your opinion of this?" France W. i 2er. Italy Britain 1983 1955 1983 1955 1983 1955 1983 Fight for some things 13 57 12 57 10 82 40 Peace is most important 82 24 78 22 85 10 48 Don t know 5 19 10 21 5 8 12 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) -69 + 33 -66 +35 -75 + 22 8 N = (1011) (857) (1049) (826) (1031) (800) (1350) Source: For 1955, Merritt and Puchala (1968:199); original cited: USICA. For 1983, Eurobarometer 19 (April 1983).

PAGE 226

210 sentiments that point to attitudinal changes away from some of the fundamentals upon which the collective security of NATO is based. Just as the concept of threat has changed, the concept of security has also changed. Initially, security meant a joint, coordinated Western effort to balance Soviet power. Currently, the specific requirements of this initial assumption are frequently being perceived as threatening peace, "a concept that has reached the pinnacle in the hierarchy of values" (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985:372). "Security" now refers to the political measures necessary to maintain peace rather than to the military requirements necessary to balance Soviet power. Peace has become the ultimate goal. These shifting perceptions of security are reflected in other data. The principal requirements for increased security are viewed as being efforts to reduce confrontation, such as, arms control and continued dialogue and contact with the Soviet Union. Arms control is preferred to a strengthening of NATO (Table 5-22) In West Germany, Italy, and Britain, a dialogue with the Russians is perceived as being more important than a balance of military capability (Table 5-23) The concern in 1947 was not with establishing a dialogue with the Soviet Union, it was with raising up credible Western forces and developing an integrated defense structure. The assumptions have changed.

PAGE 227

211 TABLE 5-2 2 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES ON HOW TO BEST IMPROVE SECURITY, 1981 (percentages) Question 1: "How do you think (survey country) can best improve its security: by strengthening its military forces to help NATO maintain a balance of military power with the East, or by pushing harder for arms control negotiations to try to reduce military forces on both sides?" Question 2: "Which of the following possible policies do you think would be best for (survey country's) security?" Question 1 (1) Strengthen NATO (2) Push for arms control (3) Do both (volunteered) (4) Don't know TOTAL France W. Ger. Italy Britain 18 21 22 31 50 35 60 40 13 25 7 5 19 19 11 24 100% 100% 100% 100% Question 2 (1) Seek to strengthen NATO before beginning arms control negotiations with the USSR (2) Begin arms control negotiations with USSR as soon as possible and not try first to strengthen NATO's nuclear forces (3) Seek to strengthen NATO's nuclear forces and begin arms control negotiations (4) Don't know TOTAL Fr Ger It Br 12 14 14 25 35 42 45 29 24 23 26 30 28 21 14 16 99% 100% 99% 100? Source: Shaffer (1982:66,67); original cited: USICA.

PAGE 228

212 TABLE 5-23 EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARD SECURITY IN THE FUTURE, 1984 (percentages) Question: "Which of the following do you think are most important for the future safety with the Western bloc nations?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain Balance of Military 21 (11) 33 (15) 13 ( 7) 32 (16) Capability with USSR Cooperation Between 19 (10) 34 (15) 20 (11) 23 (12) U.S. and W. Europe Improve Relations 28 (14) 14 (6) 11 ( 6) 26 (13) with 3d World Strengthen Economic 33 (17) 32 (14) 35 (20) 14 ( 7) Cooperation Among W. Europe Continue Dialogue 18 ( 9) 43 (19) 18 (10) 36 (18) and Contact with USSR Effective Arms 40 (20) 40 (18) 30 (17) 42 (21) Limitation Talks Strengthening the 19 (10) 18 ( 8) 23 (13) 17 ( 9) Defense Cooperation Among W. Europe Other/Don't Know 18 (9) 11 ( 5) 25 (14) 8 ( 4) TOTAL 196% 100% 225% 100% 175% 98% 198% 100% Source: Hastings and Hastings (1985:691,692; 1986:721); Original cited: Harris. Note : Multiple responses were possible. Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total responses. N = 1000 (approximately) for each national sample.

PAGE 229

213 Images of the United States European perceptions of the United States are complex and inconsistent. In some respects these attitudes are similar to those discussed above in that there are favorable views of the United States on the general level, but as the questions become more specific the responses become less favorable. The United States is viewed as a reliable ally by West Europeans. Table 5-24 indicates that healthy majorities in all four countries in the early 1980s believed the United States would come to their defense in the event of Soviet aggression. Only one comparable question was found for time series analysis; it was asked in 1961, but it allowed only three rather than four responses. The data are suggestive, however, that these attitudes have changed little. In 1961, the proportion responding that if attacked they could rely on the United States a "great deal" were 49% in France, 62% in Germany, 50% in Italy, and 56% in Britain (Merritt and Puchala, 1968:230). These are very similar percentages to those in Table 5-24. Initially, a principal concern of European governments was this question of America's reliability. However, "European fears of being abandoned by the United States in a crisis with the Soviets — in other words, the traditional fear that the Alliance won't work — have been on the wane in recent years" (Flynn and Rattinger, 1985:375).

PAGE 230

214 TABLE 5-24 EUROPEAN VIEW OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES (percentages) Question: (In France, May (1980) "If the USSR attempted to occupy Western Europe, do you believe the U.S. would intervene in Europe's defense?" Question: (In West Germany, February 1980) "To what extend could we rely upon the U.S. in case of conflict?" Question: (In Italy, April 1982) Confidence in U.S. willingness to defend Italy. Question: (In Britain, February 1982) "If Britain's security was threatened by a Russian attack, how much confidence do you have in the U.S. to do whatever is necessary to defend Britain, even if this risked a direct attack against the U.S. itself?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain Great Deal/Fair Amount 6 4 59 56 56 Not Much/None 14 35 39 40 Don't Know 22 7 5 3 TOTAL 100% 101% 100% 99% (Row 1 Row 2) + 50 + 24 + 17 + 16 Source: French data, Fritsch-Bournazel (1985:96); original cited: Institut Francais d' Opinion Publique. German data, Rattinger (1985:145); original cited: Bundeswehr. Italian data, Rossi (1985:200); original cited: Doxa Institute. British data, Crewe (1985:46); original cited: Gallup.

PAGE 231

215 Europeans also tend to like and have positive feelings toward Americans in general. In 1980, when asked whether they trusted Americans, 70% of the British respondents answered yes (Crewe, 1985:41). Table 5-25 shows that consistently high and even increasing percentages of Germans "like the Americans." In the mid 1970s, with Vietnam and Watergate being prominent events, German attitudes declined a bit, but they are increasing in favorable responses in the eighties. The majority of Italians have a favorable opinion of the United States. In 1982, 65% of the Italians polled responded favorably to a question on their opinion of the United States (Rossi, 1985:198). Table 5-26 displays the long term evolution of Italian views. Until 1973 the generally favorable responses oscillated between 57% and 76%. Recently, these favorable percentages have eroded. The influence of political events on this decline is evident. As in Germany, the Vietnam War and Watergate produced by 1976 an all-time postwar low of only 41% having a favorable opinion. However, a modest recovery has taken place, and Italian images of the United States may have stabilized. On another measure which asks respondents how much respect they have for the United States, decreases have been considerable over a 10-year period, except for in Italy (Table 5-27) Majorities still respond that they have "great" or "considerable" respect for the United States, but

PAGE 232

216 TABLE 5-2 5 GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD AMERICANS (percentages) Question: "Generally speaking, do you like the Americans, or don't you like them particularly?" Like Them Don't Like Undecided Col 1 minus Col 2 1957 39 24 37 + 15 1961 51 16 33 + 35 1962 54 18 28 + 36 1965 58 19 23 + 39 1967 47 24 29 + 23 1973 48 24 28 + 24 1975 42 21 37 + 21 1978 50 23 27 + 27 1979 50 23 27 + 27 1980 51 22 27 + 29 1981 56 18 26 + 36 1982 53 22 25 +31 Source: Noelle-Neumann (1981:420). Original cited: Allenbach. Schweigler (1984:97).

PAGE 233

217 TABLE 5-2 6 ITALIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE UNITED STATES (percentages) Question: What is your opinion of the United States? Col 1 minus Very Good/ Bad No Columns Good Neither Very Bad Opinion 2 and 3 1954 59 16 10 15 +33 1955 67 15 6 12 + 46 1956 73 12 6 9 + 55 1957 70 12 9 9 + 49 1958 67 12 14 7 + 41 1959 71 13 5 11 + 53 1960 58 18 6 18 + 34 1961 59 20 6 15 + 33 1962 64 14 3 19 + 47 1963 71 12 3 14 + 56 1964 76 9 2 13 + 65 1965 65 12 3 20 + 50 1969 57 21 5 17 +31 1972 68 21 8 3 +39 1973 66 20 9 5 +37 1976 41 35 16 9 9 1981 52 38 9 1 + 5 Source: Rossi (1985:197). Original cited: Doxa Institute.

PAGE 234

218 TABLE 5-2 7 EUROPEAN RESPECT FOR THE UNITED STATES (percentages) France W. Ger. Italy Britain 1972 1981 1972 1981 1972 1981 1972 1981 Great/ Considerable 81 62 82 56 80 75 70 54 Little/ Very Little 16 23 14 28 17 22 19 42 No Answer 315 416 3 3 11 4 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Row 1 Row 2) +65 +39 +68 +28 +63 +53 +51 +12 Source: Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl (1984:118). Original cited: National Journal Note : Question wording was not provided.

PAGE 235

219 the margins are reduced, especially in West Germany and Britain. The one dimension in which there has been a large decrease in favorable opinion is in European confidence in the ability of the United States to provide leadership for dealing with world problems. There is no comparable data available for France, but Table 5-2 8 displays the trends for West Germany, Italy, and Britain. The effects are not as great in Italy where a majority are still confident in the leadership of the United States, but in West Germany only 35% and in Britain only 20% continue to have confidence in the ability of the United States to deal with world problems. These data indicate that Europeans distinguish between the American people and the United States government, and between the United States and its policies. In other words, they "continue to like the United States they have come to distrust United States leadership and judgment" (Schneider, 1983:6). In 1961 almost 80% of the West Germans and a majority of the British responded that they trusted the leadership of the United States, and in Italy in 1972 over 70% felt the same; these levels of confidence have declined considerably (Table 5-28) This lack of confidence by the public is a reflection of the increasing willingness of European governments to pursue policies different from those espoused by the United States. The justification is that national interests vary.

PAGE 236

220 TABLE 5-2 8 EUROPEAN CONFIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES (percentages) Question: How much confidence do you have in the ability of the United States to provide wise leadership for the West in dealing with present world problems? Column A: Vary Great/Con; sider able Column B: Not Very Much/None Column C: Column A minus Column B West Germany Italy Britain A B C A B C A B C 1960 57 22 + 35 46 29 + 17 35 51 + 16 1961 79 11 + 68 53 18 + 35 53 32 + 21 1962 72 22 + 50 55 22 + 33 43 44 1 1963 75 9 + 66 61 15 + 46 51 33 + 18 1970 a a a a a a 29 55 -26 1972 a a a 71 23 + 48 30 57 -27 1973 a a a 69 23 + 46 29 59 -30 1974 a a a a a a 33 57 -24 1975 a a a a a a 32 56 -24 1976 a a a a a a 33 53 -20 1977 a a a a a a 49 43 + 6 1978 a a a a a a 36 51 -15 1979 35 54 -18 a a a 28 60 -32 1980 34 56 -22 a a a 29 60 -31 1981 42 47 5 61 35 + 26 30 60 -30 1982 57 40 + 17 53 28 + 25 27 67 -40 1983 43 55 -12 55 34 +21 24 70 -46 1984 35 55 -20 a a a 22 73 -51 1985 a a a a a a 20 74 -54 Sources: All: 1960-1963, Merritt and Puchala (1968:259); original cited: USICA. 1979-1981, Noelle-Neumann (1982:419-420); original cited: Allensbach. 1982-1983, Schweigler (1984:99); original cited: EMNID. 1985, Hastings and Hastings (1986:591); original cited: Gallup. Rossi (1985:198); original cited: Doxa Institute. 1970-1984, Crewe (1984:49); original cited: Gallup. 1985, Hastings and Hastings (1986:234); original cited: Gallup. Germany: Italy: Britain Note : "Don't Know" responses not displayed.

PAGE 237

221 The European position is often that they do not share the global interests of the United States. The subjects of disagreement are familiar: the lack of an agreed response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; disappointment over the failure to ratify the SALT II Treaty; the series of arguments surrounding economic relations with the East, most notably the Siberian gas pipeline; uncertainty regarding the Strategic Defense Initiative; and most recently alarm over plans by the United States to exceed the SALT II arms limits. The perception is that the United States, in its dealings with the Soviet Union, is putting European interests and security at risk. Within this context, it is not the reliability of the United States, but instead its political judgment that is being called into question. The United States may be viewed as an ally that is too dependable, and overly aggressive and confrontational. Looking back at Table 5-9, sizeable minorities in West Germany, Italy, and Britain responded that "U.S. aggressive policy toward the USSR" was the major cause of international tension. These attitudes and policies have led to the desire of Europeans to distance themselves somewhat from the United States. Increasingly, Europeans prefer to stay out of any East-West competition (Table 5-29). By 1981, majorities in France, Italy, and Britain preferred to avoid disputes

PAGE 238

222 p CD d Tj •p cW •P •P x! cy cy co rd n CTl 00 CM rH O OS U (0 p d p d P VD ** CO rH O + in >i cy •p • rH rH cy a: x! p p cy P (d X d 4J CO P £ m OP d p •P -H C P (N roo o in o cry •p X! S rrj 3 0) IT in CM rH O CM cn tu d 4- cy o x! rH + •p H o = u P u p r-. >i •H CO co i cy s X) -O r-l D cy p • o •H fd Pi > 3 C*P H T3 CO d CO 0) P a rH cm in (d ro o ro CM Eh H CO X 3 co CO ro u) o ro CM < 3 U co £> p CO -P rH 1 CM tA o cy p — TJ •> • W x x cy a) X >i (X> rH < C< CO P cxx +J Q) W rH m OS 00 CM rH O OS CM CJ •P p •H > rd UD *3< ro HO + CM H Eh -. d) 3 S r-l P rH 'CO CO >i X P H O & W p c >1p 0) > 3 cP CM £ 4-1 •H T3 d rs! o cm ro in o in CM 1 d S p -p LO "* rH O 1 • • •• Eh 3 0) Tj CO >i rH 00 rfj CO — O X >> TO CD cy i cy p OS P OS W 0) — p d cy H X CO rH -H CN tn P r-l P w o 1 w in ffi 4J m p p P >4-l P ^H in rH CO 'tf o <* fd rH En C X! P rd CO 0) -P 00 Tf ^J< rH O + rH (d w (1) P d d cy ^H (d d pi Q O P -3 Cy rH • X -P m Pi P X •h cy cpco xi p OP o tx< < < CU d 4-1 CO P CO -P cy ro r~ <& rH 1^> O O 3 -P eh & O. •H CO •P P & CO O u> r^ ih o vo CM P o — x to Tj C d co rH + Eh P w r-l D cy cy o • T) u £ x! cu EC tfP d •CO >i cy o cy d P CN 00 rH O rH O frd ~ W r-l X! £ x P CP in in ro hon V£> Q H +) p cy t3 d rH + P T 5 cd p > d -p P •• Eh C <44 d X! o rd x •P CM H O cy p 0> 4-> P CO Eh 10 CO -H CO >i P OS Eh P 0) 00 (0 VD O CM s ~ CVP a cy o 00 cm in rH o ro Z CO T3 +> a; rH | p < 3 cy -h T3 CO a) CM flj W O 0) X co rH o OP 4-1 O, >iX +> Sflt) d m r-~ *r in ^< o cm >d 44 ^ o P t) o cy (d V£> cm in rH o ro d rd 0) O C r-l X P P p rH 1 (d X p D Q d H 3 CO -P -P = fe CO cu W = O = s d r-. <*> rH 4-1 X d -a OJ cm ro ""a* rH o in •• 4-1 CO rH CO in ** ** rH O 1 co ro o ^o> „ cy 3 co rH d , oo P X •P Cft P OS P co a) p -p d rH rH P rH d X *- CO P — CO — d — 0) P P ro cy co 0) •H 3 cy o + 3 cy 10 x S ^ ? CM O 3 c .. +j .. u •• P co d O o c d — d cy p p cy 4J co p cu ^X P PJ u <: 04 CO 4-> CO r-l co cy cy P 4J 4J4J< > P u cy co 0) cy p p
PAGE 239

223 instead of support the United States. There is a fear of being tied to the United States too firmly and, as a result, of being drawn into an unwanted confrontation. According to this view, the military relationship with the United States, which ensures its reliability in a crisis, is believed to make a crisis for Europe more likely. These contradictory tendencies portend continued difficulties between the United States and Europe. Four features of European attitudes toward the United States are apparent. First, as a reliable military ally, the United States receives high marks; there is little change in the European belief in the American willingness to defend them. Second, there are generally favorable views of the United States; Europeans continue to like Americans. The third feature, however, is the broad decline in European respect and confidence in the ability of the United States to handle world problems and to provide leadership for the West. The result of this change has brought about the fourth feature: a desire on the part of Europeans to distance themselves from United States policies and any East-West competition. These attitudes toward the United States are related to the changes in the other assumptions discussed previously. As images of the Soviet threat decline, so also must the perceived need for United States leadership and assistance decline proportionately. Additionally, as perceptions of security become increasingly identical with maintaining

PAGE 240

224 peace and an East-West dialogue, efforts by the United States to maintain a European military balance and to contain Soviet influence elsewhere will become increasingly viewed as being provocative and confrontational. The seeds of two opposing world views are evident in West European attitudes. One reflects the original assumptions. The other perceives a less threatening Soviet Union, a more threatening United States, and a security system based on diplomacy. If these discontinuities continue to grow, they will create increasing difficulties within Euro-American relations. Conclusion Three broad generalizations are evident from the mass of opinion data presented above. First, a fear of the Soviet Union is subsiding and is being replaced by an increasing fear of the consequences of war. Second, support for NATO in an abstract, general sense remains high, but there is no consensus on what the components of security should be, especially in regard to nuclear weapons. Third, anti-Americanism is increasing dramatically in regard to the roles of the United States as defender of Europe and as leader of the Alliance. That which was once seen as necessary for European security — the commitment of United States power and leadership to the defense of Europe — is now viewed as that which is threatening the security of Western Europe.

PAGE 241

225 The future implications of the attitudinal trends observed in this chapter depend on whether they represent broad secular changes or temporary fluctuations. The longitudinal data presented indicate fundamental changes in European attitudes. The extent to which these attitudes continue along their current course will influence proportionately intra-Alliance cohesion. Additional diplomatic and domestic political confrontations such as those with the Euro-missile issue cannot be sustained indefinitely. For the near term, a sense of frustration will surround European security attitudes. If the Soviet Union is viewed as threatening, the Europeans have two realistic options: continue to rely on the United States or defend themselves. The first is becoming less attractive as the anti-American sentiment shows, and the second receives very little support at all. In the midst of this dilemma, many Europeans are denying the premise of a Soviet threat altogether, or at least they are perceiving a greatly reduced threat. The promise of arms control and East-West negotiations are also being embraced as a means of providing security. According to the former NATO commander, General Rogers: "The biggest challenge we face in NATO is getting the message across to our people that there is a threat to their freedom down the road" (cited in Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:5-6). The manner in which Western governments attempt to get such a message across to their citizens, however, will greatly affect how the message is received. Renewed efforts

PAGE 242

226 to modernize or increase nuclear forces, intrasigence in the face of Soviet proposals that appear reasonable, and indications of an open-ended arms race may result at some point in a well-spring of anti-American and anti-NATO dissent in Europe. Currently, many of the attitudinal trends observed in this chapter remain minority positions. If future policies of NATO and the United States fail to reassure the public, eventually not only the policies but the Alliance itself may become a source of controversy. Issues may become sufficiently salient to foment increased political activism which might challenge established security policies. Notes Exceptions are Feld and Wildgen (1982), Flynn and Rattinger (1985) Merritt and Puchala (1966) Noelle-Neumann (1981a) and Schweigler (1984) 2 In cases where the exact wording of a question is either not known or it is being paraphrased, the question wording in the tables will not be placed within quotation marks. Question wordings in the tables within quotation marks are exact as reported by the sources. 3 The construction of this variable is explained in Appendix A.

PAGE 243

CHAPTER VI INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND WEST EUROPEAN ATTITUDES It is essential to develop an understanding of why the West European public has altered its perceptions of security affairs. If broad, unidirectional shifts of opinion are occurring, the future cohesion of the Alliance must be questioned. If, on the other hand, the changes represent temporary fluctuations, the prospects for continued or improved Euro-American harmony are better. Decision makers and analysts need to comprehend the nature of these attitudinal changes in order to formulate sound policies. Four theoretical explanations were introduced in Chapter I. Three of these — the Successor Generation, Postmaterialism, and Modernization — were examined with cross-sectional data in Chapter IV and found to have only marginal explanatory values (using high education and the new middle class as indicators of modernization) These sociological influences are not negligible, and they each contribute to an understanding of attitude change, but they are not sufficient. The results in Chapter IV pointed to partisanship, ideology, and national identity as the more important attitudinal determinants. 227

PAGE 244

228 This chapter initially examines the fourth theoretical argument: that events in international politics (period effects) have caused Europeans to alter their security beliefs. (This represents the third level of determinants from the model presented in Figure 2-2.) Patterns of conflict and cooperation within the arenas of East-West relations and Euro-American relations are used to subjectively correlate international events with the trends in European opinion. The chapter also addresses some of the other political and social explanations for attitude change. International Politics Several fundamental changes have occurred within the international system since World War II that, along with some key events, may have had more to do with attitude change than any of the political or social variables discussed previously. A considerable body of research exists linking events with opinion (Dalton and Duval, 1986; Deutsch and Merritt, 19 65; Mueller, 19 65; Rosenau, 1962) These and other studies attempt to establish that foreign policy beliefs reflect the impact of events and the changing international environment. This section makes some impressionistic observations of the effects of international events on European security beliefs. Opinion trends are plotted from which the impact of events are inferred. More rigorous, empirical methods are preferred but are beyond the limitations of this study.

PAGE 245

229 An example of the rigorous techniques is Dalton and Duval (1986) They developed a quantitative model explaining British opinion on EEC membership as a function of media reported events. The model demonstrated that political events systematically altered support for EEC membership in Britain. Such methods enable one to confidently measure the degree of effect and the dynamics of the events-opinion relationship. Again, this is not attempted here. Tables 6-1 and 6-2 depict prominent events of the postwar era. The first contains those relevant to East-West relations and the second to Euro-American relations. Events are categorized as either conflictual or cooperative, realizing that these concepts have different connotations in each environment. For example, East-West conflict usually involves crises and the implicit threat of war, while Euro-American conflict involves policy disputes or disillusionments. Initially, East-West relations were extremely conflictual. Soviet involvement in Greece and Turkey was met with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. The Communist coup in Prague, the Berlin Blockade, and the Korean War were critical events in the Cold War. European and EuroAmerican relations were highly cooperative in the face of the Soviet threat. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed, United States forces were deployed to Europe, West Germany was admitted into NATO, and the EEC was formed.

PAGE 246

230 i W 1-3 ffl EH ft H K W o H EH 5 Eh CO w I CO w w Eh > •H 4J fO M 1 4J 03 0) Eh c m pq > 0) •P X' 10 U Q] co Eh 3 u • • A = cu a 4-1 •H J o r~~1 -P rH H S3 rd = h >1 -p to Q) h c H -P rd M CD 4-1 •H H O M ft I C o SB CD 2 W c •H Di ooo\OHNfO') inko>CDmo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a) c •H -p a o u CO Eh H > W -p a) CO jC c ru O -H 0) M 0) -p (1) +J T3 o a u to n CO O M A a o CO = 5 -H M r-l -H s 04 rd 3 Eh H >i to rH s O U 0> • ^ Q,*W -H CO -p ... a) >1 fX o 10 O u O C >iCQ p o ^ >1 •H A •H O 0) rrj 1-1 +J rt M W >i U o rH h^i •> 0) 3 rH 2 to P rrj rj m N c = 3 3 E> CO c cn a) U Eh tr> o CD c •~rH u to ra o 4-1 H -H B CO H -H s W HJ3 a) > £H o • O CO • • CD a CO 0) 3 H C uou 2 p W IS w D m u > H

PAGE 247

231 1— 1 Q 1 W 10 D £ w H PI Zri pq Z < O Eh u s o M z H H p Eh c J 5j X w •H (fl a) 2 c P H • s. •H CO 0) P >, H P QJ 03 p P CD C e P c (0 13 CD 0) CD 0) H g > ft g p 53 0) 0) $ En O CD fl H P 2 u •P 2 .* tn N -P m n rt CJ CD < A! P M CO p-i •* n3 PQ 1 C h > c P •H •H -H CD H Eh "0 tfl p P PI fa (0 H P a) < m rH CD "3 co s > a U ro P •J H rH '+-1 c o u <7> c •H +) P •H [fl P 0) s P — 1 CO O M rtf fl > c fl H O (fl P -H P P OP H n3 Cr> O E rd P C •H rH (fl n3 fd rH P o fl jQ (fl G cr> (N (fl E CX H 0) G CO P CD • fl 03 H i < CO (0 13 n3 fl *U •H •* C f-i c Eh c c • G = n3 -H OJ Pi OJ -H i n) CH 3 < £ •H XI £ O XI Eh CO >g aj £Xi tr> "3 dt a < e 0i < CO •H •H < T3 C P ir< & J* tji H Q TJ n3 (0 t S JH CO • i s > p (0(0= rH -H rfl CO 1 CQ -0 > g • •* 3 D -P fl -H ri G \-{ r-i fU tn CO O C ifl-HH n3 fl 13 n3 • •>. n3 (0 3 -H aS (0 P ra CJ x | Pi Pi Eh P CT> C m >! C O g CO CO PI P 03 CD CJ X! •H n3 O CO CO < 3 0) >H H •H 2 -D U CD £D CO S U ES PI

PAGE 248

232 CM I US w n < H a w 2 O H En •H 0) -P >1 a (0 -p M fd P 0) 030NOH(NfT] LnvDr^ai010H{NfTJ l/HOMI)(TiO id 4J •H 4H C o u u S3 w w a H 03 -P -p 0* n3 a c -P •H •H ja o CO X 1 En •P 03 D o < c •H Si a 0) 03 U-l K •rH i n g o Mi u >l 53 u n3 P C M-l •rH N P -p "b 03 G 03 03 3 0) H £ fl CO > (0 & 03 u oj (d £! 03 o ^ > u 03 O P jG •rH c Cn P •p 03 03 0) •H m 03 -P c Q3 n ft > 03 > 03 r) fa u UH o U O o (C c rH G fa £ h) -h Cn >i CD (0 •p c 03 P CO P 03 >iC0 < pq fa p fa Eh S D 0) 3 G •H -P c o u

PAGE 249

233 CN Q | W V£> & 2 W H rH EH PQ SB < O &H u > H 4J id M 0) o u u w w (0 c D fa 3 c H H id C -p o c CQ •H TS (0 G •H rd O CD >i o c ft) a s X H U 0) rd rj -P n C Eh i G 1 rd 03 03 3 >0 a h Q c o a z rd •H r-r^r~r-t-r^r-r-r~-oooooocoooooooco rHiHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHiH m a Q, C rd QJ •H £ H CO co w H H CD 4-> rd O rd •H 0) AS CD CD u g H U n g •H •rH O (0 r4 rH 3 x: U CO 0) c CO •H -H g 1 H H rH c rH C O CD rd o •rH O G G rH Eh G O -rH O -rH rd H-P co m CO U rH U < u +j 3 ... CO CD CD 4-> CO rH •rH w c to >i-H a G rd H p-1 0) en w g •-•rl CD W T3 4-1 o S "H en CU Pj u a c c g to ! CO CO +J CO U X) 4-1 •% D g -P rd 4-> c D rd H r4 Cfl Cn T3 ^ CMflH -< rd M •H U .(l) rd O, rd rd Q) IV g +j G rH cn g a, >i G V 4J X! 3 rd -h rd fa a) -Q rd •rH rd U CD S-i rd
PAGE 250

234 This initial pattern of conflictual East-West relations and cooperative Euro-American relations provided an international environment in which European attitudes were highly consensual and supportive of joint Western defense policies as Chapter V indicated. Following the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, East-West relations thawed and the Cold War more or less ended (Table 6-1) Many cooperative events now characterized the East-West relationship: the "hotline" was established between Moscow and Washington, the Test Ban Treaty was signed, West Germany's Ostpolitik began, and the centerpiece of the second period, SALT I, was signed in 1972. During the period after the Cuban missile crisis, however, trans-Atlantic tensions arose as seen in Table 6-2. (The pressure applied by the United States on Britain and France to withdraw from their Suez expedition, in 1956, presaged the conflictual events of the 1960s and 1970s.) France withdrew from the military structure of NATO, America's support of Israel in the 1973 Mideast war was blamed for OPEC's quadrupling the price of oil, and Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany began to publically question the effect of superpower arms control on European security. The principal event in regard to Euro-American relations during this second period was America's involvement in Vietnam. Demonstrations and protests in Europe rivaled those in the United States. "On October 21, 1967, the international Vietnam Day, protest demonstrations streamed

PAGE 251

235 through London, Paris, Berlin, Rome ..." (Grosser, 1982:246). More than just seen as a wrongheaded policy, Vietnam profoundly altered the image of the United States in Europe. In the eyes of many Europeans, the war was "unmasking the true face, the true nature of America" (Grosser, 1982:246) This pattern of cooperative East-West encounters and negative Euro-American relations explains the shift in European attitudes observed in Chapter V. Support for the United States and traditional security measures was eroding during this period. The Soviet Union no longer appeared as threatening, the image of the United States was tarnished, and the prospect of arms control and of negotiations as a means to security was promising. This second period was one of transition; events and attitudes were changing but a new baseline had not been reached. Two events occurred in 1979 which mark it as the turning point for a third pattern, just as the Cuban missile crisis delineates the first two. Of greatest importance was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which jolted European attitudes about the nature of the USSR and created renewed East-West tensions. The other key event was NATO's dualtrack decision regarding INF; this apparently cooperative event proved to be the cause for the extensive protest and anti-American movements that occurred in Britain, Holland, West Germany, and elsewhere in Western Europe.

PAGE 252

236 East-West relations reverted to being conflictual following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Martial law being declared in Poland, the Soviets walking out on the START talks, Reagan's military buildup, Grenada, SDI, the Libyan bombing, and other events created what has been termed "Cold War II" (Spanier, 1983) However, in the midst of this East-West conflict, Euro-American relations did not improve and in some ways appear to have deteriorated further. Mass protests in Europe over INF, the Siberian pipeline issue, SDI, Grenada, Reagan's Central American policies, the Libyan raid, the United States exceeding the limits of SALT II, and the Iranian arms scandal, have all contributed to a worsening of trans-Atlantic relations. This third period, therefore, is characterized by a new pattern of events: conflict in both the East-West and the Euro-American arenas. Europeans are faced with the dilemma of two, in their view, unsavory prospects. The USSR is once again appearing as a threat, but United States policies are not reassuring either. In this post-1979 environment, as seen in Chapter V, European attitudes toward the United States and Atlantic security policy continued to deteriorate rather than recover. The three patterns evident in the discussion above can be labeled as follows: 1946-1962 Cold War Consensus 1963-1978 Vietnam-Detente Interlude 1979-1987 Reagan-Afghanistan Dilemma

PAGE 253

237 In the first, East-West relations were conflictual, EuroAmerican ties were cooperative, and European public support for Atlanticism was high. In the second period, one of transition, East-West interactions were cooperative, but Euro-American relations were deteriorating, thus causing shifts to occur in European public perceptions. The third period is characterized by conflictual relationships in both arenas and a continued decline in European Atlanticist sentiment. Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 depict attitudes toward the United States over time in three European countries. They all illustrate the large decline in favorable views of the United States that occurred during the second period, 1963-1978. The German attitudes reflect the ambivalence of the third period with large swings, but no overall recovery to the level of the first period. Britain illustrates the consistent decline in confidence in the United States during the third period despite increased East-West tensions. The three periods are also evident in the longitudinal data on the fear or war (Figure 6-4) The first period is marked by a high level of fear but this decreases and levels out during the second period. In 1980, in each case, the fear of war increases to extremely high levels in each country as a result of Afghanistan (this rapidly decreases by 1985, however). Comparing Figure 6-4 to the first three figures, the absence in 1980 of a comparable shift in attitudes toward the United States is notable. There was

PAGE 254

238 C 2 o •0 c u D W. Ger Source: Table 5-28. Note ; The Y-axis represents the difference between the percentage of respondents who are "very/ fairly" confident in the United States and those who are "not very/not at all" confident of the United States. Figure 6-1. West German attitudes toward the United States.

PAGE 255

239 53 o u Source: 30 20 10 — O -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 60 64 Britain 68 72 Year 76 80 84 Table 5-26. Note : The Y-axis represents the difference between the percentage of respondents who have a "very good/good" opinion of the United States and those who have a "bad/very bad" opinion. Figure 6-2. Italian attitudes toward the United States.

PAGE 256

240 1 PQ T •a o o o o u Ph o D Italy Source: Table 5-28. Note ; The Y-axis represents the difference between the percentage of respondents who have a "very great/considerable" amount of confidence in the United States and those who have "not very much/very little/none." Figure 6-3. British attitudes toward the United States.

PAGE 257

241 U G Q u o 1/5 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 M 11 55 59 d France x Italy 63 67 Year W. Ger # Britain 11 71 75 79 83 Source: Table 5-7. Note: The Y-axis represents the percentage of respondents responding that there is a 50% chance or better of war. Figure 6-4. European attitudes toward the possibility of war.

PAGE 258

242 no connection. Renewed fears of war in 1980 along with increased conflictual East-West events were not converted into renewed confidence in the United States. This is the distinctive characteristic of the third period: negative events in both spheres of relationships along with negative European Atlantic attitudes. The nature of this third and current period is made more complex because throughout the second period the balance of power in the world shifted gradually to the advantage of the Soviet Union. The SALT I agreement was a sort of official recognition of the existence of nuclear parity between the superpowers. European recognition came a bit later with Schmidt's comments in 1977 that eventually led to the 1979 INF decision. The condition of parity casts doubts on the deterrent effect of United States nuclear weapons and highlights the degree to which European conventional forces may be inadequate. This adds to the European dilemma and fosters attitudes of frustration. Simultaneously, they are unwilling to spend more for larger conventional forces, and they also tend to oppose nuclear modernization The European public is aware of the shifting military balance. In all four countries, the perception is that the military standing of the United States (and NATO) has declined throughout the second and third periods (Figure 6-5)

PAGE 259

243 O Z £ o u u o France x Italy # Britain Source: Table 5-6. Note : The Y-axis represents the difference between the percentage of respondents who feel the United States (NATO or the West) is ahead of the Soviet Union (Warsaw Pact or the East) in military strength from those who feel the Soviet Union (Warsaw Pact or the East) is ahead. Figure 6-5. European perceptions of the military balance.

PAGE 260

244 The chief consequence of this shift in the strategic balance is as much psychological and political as military (Shoemaker and Spanier, 1984:5). The growth of Soviet power increases the risks and costs of responding to Soviet challenges around the world and in Europe. Since a miscalculation during a crisis might result in the nuclear devastation of Europe, the European public is hesitant to encourage the United States to confront the Soviet Union abroad. Therefore, measures the United States views as being responses to the Soviet Union (for example, in Central America) Europeans perceive as being provocative or reckless. Another aspect of this third period is Soviet intrusion into West European domestic politics. Open, advanced industrial societies are known to be susceptible to "penetration" by the political participation of nonmembers (Rosenau, 1966) Russian policies and offers have come to be known as "peace offensives." Some of these include the Soviet unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, their resumption of arms control negotiations, and various proposals regarding strategic arms limitations. Some of these were Soviet efforts to influence the 1983 elections in Britain and West Germany. These cooperative efforts increased in 1985 and 19 86 under the Gorbachev regime as Table 6-1 indicates. Possibly, a fourth phase of East-West relations may have been ushered in with Gorbachev. These Soviet moves, once considered heavy-handed, are becoming

PAGE 261

245 more sophisticated, and in the future they may have increased influence on West European opinion and long-term attitude change. The patterns discerned in the events considered here seem to explain the broad changes in European attitudes observed earlier. Initially, conflictual East-West relations and cooperative Euro-American relations produced the Cold War consensus during which NATO was created and the assumptions of the Atlantic Alliance were formed. Cooperative East-West relations, the recognition of nuclear parity, and disgruntled trans-Atlantic relations during the VietnamDetente interlude challenged the initial assumptions of NATO, and European attitudes gradually changed. Currently, negative events dominate both arenas, and European attitudes continue to shift away from the immediate postwar Atlantic consensus. Thus, trends in international politics (period effects) contribute to an explanation for the shift in European opinion. Alternative Explanations for Attitudinal Change This section examines partisanship, Postmaterialism, and the Successor Generation as alternative explanations for attitudinal change. Longitudinal data are not available for observing the long-term effects of increasing education and changing class structure.

PAGE 262

246 Partisanship The cross-sectional data in Chapter IV provided an initial analysis of some hypothesized causal factors. The findings largely minimized the relative effects of class, education, and political participation. Of the political and social variables observed, ideology and partisanship were associated most strongly with the attitudes being tested. There are no earlier data cross-tabulated by ideology or party available to determine whether this relationship has increased or decreased. Although partisanship and ideology may have substantial discriminating power at a single point in time, their ability to explain broad aggregate attitude change over time must be questioned for two reasons. First, if people feel strongly about an issue, especially if it dominates their political outlook, they will tend to seek out and identify with the party whose position on this issue is closest to their own. The rapid rise of the SDP-Liberal Alliance in Britain in the 1980s can be explained in part by the disenchantment of many voters with the anti-NATO and unilateral proposals of the Labour Party (Lieber, 1985:11). Second, if new issues emerge within public opinion without being led by a major party, one or more parties may alter their platforms and attempt to co-opt the issue to capitalize electorally on popular emotion. This pattern was seen in the anti-missile and anti-American positions of the

PAGE 263

247 SPD in West Germany as it tried to win back votes it felt it would lose to the Greens in 1983 (Conradt, 1983) Both of these types of shifts will tend to increase the association between party preference and issue positions, but they do not explain aggregate attitudinal change over time. To the extent, however, that parties clarify positions and educate their loyalists, they can contribute to shifts in opinion. People who care less intensely about particular issues will thus receive information about how "their" party views a problem, and if they have not held any opinions on the issue before, they may adopt the party's position. This mobilizing function of parties can influence longitudinal trends in aggregate opinion. Although these mobilizing effects cannot be assessed here, this is not to discount the very substantial political implications of the partisan nature of these attitudes. Postmaterialism The hypothesized relationship between Postmaterialism and anti-Atlanticism was tested in Chapter IV, and a substantial association was observed. Inglehart (1984b) has proposed that a linkage between Postmaterialism and antiAmericanism exists. On a specific question relating to anti-Americanism in 1982, there was a large distinction between the responses of Postmaterialists and Materialists (Table 6-3) The question here, however, is to determine to

PAGE 264

248 TABLE 6-3 ANTI-AMERICANISM AND POSTMATERIALISM IN EUROPE, 1982 (percentages) Question: "Recently there have been some expressions of anti-American feelings among West Europeans. How would you describe your own feelings? Strongly anti-American, somewhat anti-American, somewhat pro-American, or strongly pro-American? (percentage "strongly" or "somewhat" anti-American) France W. Ger. Italy Britain Materialist 26 16 13 25 Mixed 29 19 19 37 Postmaterialist 44 41 42 43 Source: Inglehart (1984b:532); original cited: Eurobarometer 17, April 1982.

PAGE 265

249 what extent Postraaterialism can explain the large aggregate change in Atlantic attitudes. There are no data available to observe the long-term relationship between Postmaterialism and defense attitudes. However, trends in the prevalence of Postmaterial values since 1970 are available (Table 6-4) Although the absolute numbers of Postmaterialists have not increased that much (+8% in Britain is the largest overall increase) the percent difference between the Materialists and the Postmaterialists has changed considerably. The largest changes are in West Germany and Britain where there are now almost as many of one type as the other; however, Materialists exceed Postmaterialists by wide margins in France and Italy, illustrating the large cross-national variations. These findings suggest an explanation for one of the more puzzling aspects of West European political behavior. It was noted previously that France and Italy have not experienced the massive anti-missile and anti-American demonstrations that have become familiar in West Germany and Britain. According to Table 6-4, Postmaterial values are substantially more prevalent in those countries where the demonstrations have taken place. Deep-seated value change, in Britain and West Germany, produced by unique national and economic conditions could contribute to an understanding of these cross-national differences.

PAGE 266

250 TABLE 6-4 CHANGES IN PREVALENCE OF MATERIALIST AND POSTMATERIALIST VALUE TYPES, 1970-1984 (percentage falling into the two types) France West Germany Italy Britain Mat P-M PDI[a ] Mat P-M PDI Mat P-M PDI Mat P-M PDI 1970 38% 11% -27 43% 10% -33 35% 13% -22 36% 8% -28 1973 35 12 -23 42 8 -34 40 9 -31 32 8 -24 1976 41 12 -29 41 11 -30 41 11 -30 35 8 -28 1979 36 15 -21 37 11 -26 47 10 -37 27 11 -16 1980 43 10 -33 43 8 -35 51 5 -46 31 10 -21 1981 43 8 -35 36 6 -30 53 5 -48 33 7 -26 1982 33 11 -22 29 12 -17 44 6 -38 25 13 -12 1983 32 12 -20 22 17 -5 47 6 -41 26 11 -15 1984 35 12 -23 19 17 -2 43 9 -34 23 16 -7 Chang e -3 + 1 + 4 -24 + 7 +31 + 8 -4 -12 -13 + 8 +21 Source: Inglehart (1981 :888] Eurobarometers 14, 16, 18, 20, and 21. [a] Percent Difference Index. The percentage Postmaterialist minus the percentage Materialist. Note : The categories "neither" and "don't know" are not displayed. Construction of the variable for measuring Postmaterialism is explained in Chapter IV.

PAGE 267

251 Additionally, West German and British attitudes seem to have become more anti-American than those of the French and Italians (Tables 5-27 and 5-28) Anti-Americanism may be more strongly associated with Postmaterialism than the other attitudes observed earlier. These suggestions of a casual relationship between Postmaterialism and a decline in Atlantic attitudes are based upon indirect inferences. Insufficient data prevent more sophisticated analysis, but the logic and findings are complementary. Postmaterialism may eventually prove to be a substantial explanation for broader changes in European attitudes. The Successor Generation Generational change is a compelling theory for explaining attitudinal change. In this view, the values and attitudes formed early in life remain dominant throughout adulthood. Different circumstances and conditions encountered during early socialization produce distinctive values from one generation to the next. According to those who apply this theory to security attitudes, the post-World War II generation in Europe is substantially more anti-American and anti-NATO than others because it was socialized during the Vietnam War, detente, and the era of mutual assured destruction (Szabo, 1983b) The empirical evidence, however, is mixed. The data in Chapter IV produced relatively weak associations between age

PAGE 268

252 and Atlantic attitudes. Nonetheless, some published findings of cross-sectional data present some persuasive indicators of the presence of a relationship. Table 6-5 displays German responses to four questions by age. These data, especially Questions 1 and 3, reflect significant differences between age groups. The variables of age and education are often combined to demonstrate stronger generational effects (Adler and Wertman, 1981; Russett and DeLuca, 1983; Szabo, 1983b). Table 6-6 displays the responses of university educated Italians to five questions. Again, there are significant differences between age groups. According to Table 6-7, given the choice between NATO and neutralism, younger Europeans with university educations in all four countries favor NATO substantially less than the older age groups. Extended time series data are necessary to perform proper cohort analyses to reach conclusions of any certainty regarding the ability of the Successor Generation argument to explain attitude change. The observed distinctions in Tables 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7 could be the result of life-cycle effects. In commenting on similar data, Flynn and Rattinger note: "This is not at all new or exciting: the younger and better-educated have long been a driving force of protest at least since the student unrest in the sixties" (1985:378). The available machine-readable data from the Eurobarometer series contain only one appropriate question

PAGE 269

253 TABLE 6-5 THE EFFECTS OF AGE ON WEST GERMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO AND THE U.S. (percentages) Age Groups 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60AVG 1. Percent "relations between US and FRG 51 43 40 39 42 38 41 are bad" (August 19 82) 2. Percent "NATO is not necessary" 18 15 10 8 10 7 10 (May 1983) Age Groups 16-29 30-44 45-59 60+ AVG 3. Percent with "little or 51 53 49 33 47 no" confidence in US leadership (May 1981) 4. Percent favoring "neutrality" over NATO 33 25 27 23 27 (July 1980) Source: For Questions 1 and 2, Rattinger (1985:166); original cited: ZDF-Politbarometer For Questions 3 and 4, Noelle-Neumann (1981:418, 420); original cited: Allensbach.

PAGE 270

254 TABLE 6-6 THE EFFECTS OF AGE AND EDUCATION ON ITALIAN ATTITUDES, 19 81 (percentages) Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Attitudes toward defense expenditures. Attitudes toward deployment of intermediate nuclear forces. Attitudes toward the United States. The desirability of U.S. leadership. Support for neutralism. (responses are only from those with a university education) Age Groups -34 35-44 45-54 47 Question 55+ Average 1. Percent "decrease" 47 40 36 27 2. Percent "against" 69 58 48 34 3. Percent "unfavorable" 45 38 29 19 4. Percent "a little/none" 66 60 52 35 5. Percent "favoring" 40 31 24 12 39 55 35 55 29 Source: Rossi (1985:205, 206, 208, 209, 214); original cited: Doxa.

PAGE 271

255 TABLE 6-7 PERCENTAGE OF UNIVERSITY-EDUCATED PEOPLE WHO FAVOR NATO OVER NEUTRALISM, BY AGE, MARCH 1981 Question: "All things considered, do you think it is better for our country to belong to NATO, the Western defense alliance, or would it be better for us to get out of NATO and become a neutral country?" (percentage favoring NATO) 18-34 35-49 50 and older West Germany Britain France Italy Source: Adler and Wertman (1981:10); original cited, USICA. 59 63 95 62 70 86 5 3 61 79 56 82 81

PAGE 272

256 with sufficient elapsed time between the time periods it was asked to allow for a cohort analysis. Table 6-8 displays the data for a cohort analysis of a question concerning "trust for the United States." In each case the aggregate trust for the United States decreased, so the question is to what extent did generational change contribute to this shift. In France, generational influences explain nothing about a decrease in trust because the Tau B statistic indicates the association is negative for the French; the younger cohorts have greater trust for the United States than the older ones. In West Germany and Italy the values for Tau B are slight, indicating that the generational effects (whether cohort or life-cycle) exist, but that they are weak. In a condition in which all of the variation between time periods is due to cohort (generational change) effects, there will be no variation within individual cohorts across time periods; also, the variation from the younger to the older age levels will be in opposite direction from the aggregate variation between time periods (Glenn, 1984) The first condition cannot be met in any of the countries but the second one is evident in West Germany and Italy. A rough estimate of the cohort and period effects can be achieved by comparing the mean intracohort variation with 3 the aggregate change (Glenn, 1984) For Germany, the mean intracohort variation (for the nine cohorts with two time

PAGE 273

257 TABLE 6-8 EUROPEAN TRUST FOR THE UNITED STATES: A COHORT ANALYSIS (percent with very much/ some trust) Cohorts: Ages France W. Ger. 1955-1959 na 23-27 na 60 1950-1954 16-20 28-32 70 61 Cold War Generation 1946-1949 21-24 33-36 69 51 1941-1945 25-29 37-41 70 62 WW II Generation 1936-1940 30-34 42-46 61 52 1931-1935 35-39 47-51 66 45 1926-1930 40-44 52-56 63 55 Depression Generation 1921-1925 45-49 57-61 73 53 1916-1920 50-54 62-66 52 58 WW I Generation 1906-1915 55-64 67+ 59 57 -1905 65+ na 63 na na 63 79 64 79 76 85 77 85 85 83 77 82 75 79 83 87 63 80 71 78 na Italy (birth yrs) 1970 1982 1970 1982 1970 1982 1970-1982 Postwar Generation 1960-1964 na 18-22 na 66 na 64 na 55 na 56 72 61 72 66 72 70 71 64 74 55 74 61 67 60 75 60 75 60 78 na Aggregate Average Aggregate Change N = Tau B P < 65% 58% -7 1849 980 -.04 -.05 (.02) (.02) 82% 70% -12 1896 1207 .01 .10 (.27) (.01) 74% 60% -14 1669 1108 .10 .04 (.01) (.05) Source: European Community Study (1970); Eurobarometer 17 (1982). Note: 1970 data not available for Britain.

PAGE 274

258 periods) is -8. Thus, of the 12 points of aggregate change, 8 (or 66%) can be attributed to period effects, and 4 (33%) to cohort effects. For Italy, the mean intracohort variation is -11. So, of the -14 points of aggregate change in Italy, 11 (79%) are the result of period effects, and 3 (21%) of cohort effects. These computations assume there are no life-cycle effects. To the extent that they are present they would contribute to the intracohort variation. Estimates of the intracohort change to be attributed to life-cycle effects 4 can be computed (Glenn, 1984) For both Germany and Italy, the estimated life-cycle effects are in the opposite direction of the observed mean intracohort variation. This means that the two influences (period effects and life-cycle) are working against each other. For Germany, the estimated life-cycle effect is a +2 mean intracohort change, which means that to achieve a -8 intracohort change, period effects had to be substantially stronger. Similarly in Italy, the estimated life-cycle effect is a +1.5 mean intracohort change, so to achieve a -11 mean intracohort change, period effects would again have to be much stronger. Also, in a pure environment of only life-cycle effects, there would be no aggregate change. Thus, period effects appear to have completely overshadowed life-cycle effects in producing intracohort change. These computations provide only suggestions of the relative effects. They are not precise measurements. The

PAGE 275

259 difficulty is that only two effects can be compared at any one time (Glenn, 1984). Nonetheless, for the data in Table 6-8 the conclusion is that period effects provide the best explanation for the aggregate shift to less trust for the United States. This reinforces the earlier findings in this chapter on the importance of international events. More complete time series data are necessary to reach any definitive answers regarding the applicability of generational theory to account for the changes in Atlantic attitudes. Conclusion Politics more than sociological processes accounts for the decline in Atlanticism among the West European public. The changes in the international system and the patterns of political events outlined in this chapter explain more about the attitudinal trends in Europe than do the variables of age, class, Postmaterialism, and education. The sociological variables are useful for understanding the crosssectional composition of various issue publics, but they do not sufficiently explain the longitudinal changes in European security beliefs. Additionally, the political variables of partisanship and ideology along with the cultural variable of nationality reveal more substantive crosssectional information on these issues than do the sociological factors (from Chapter IV)

PAGE 276

260 Other international political phenomena, for which data were not provided in this chapter, also support the conclusion of the importance of period effects. The world has changed significantly since the early 1960s. The birth of a large number of new non-Western states, the multiplication of regional rivalries, and the rise of national assertiveness are evident in all regions of the Third World, especially the Middle East, Southwest and Southeast Asia. These changes have drastically altered the nature of superpower relations, which following World War II were best characterized as being bipolar but now are better described by the concept bipolycentric (Shoemaker and Spanier, 1984:1-8). These systemic changes have contributed to European concerns with the ability of the United States to prevent crises in other regions from spilling over into and threatening Europe. The fear among Europeans of nuclear war erupting as a result of escalation from a region outside of Europe outweighs any fear of Soviet aggression directed primarily against Western Europe (from Chapter V; and Howard, 1983:120) Additionally, Western Europe, during the 1960s, recovered fully from its economically devasted postwar condition. This economic strength, however, has not been converted into political or military power. While no longer dependent on the United States economically, Western Europe remains a large importer of security. This condition, in which the decision for peace or war (especially nuclear war)

PAGE 277

261 appears to lie with a group of remote and uncontrolled decision makers, has fueled anti-Americanism. It also promotes the notion that the foreigners, the Americans with their bases and nuclear weapons in Europe, are actually provoking rather than deterring war (Howard, 1983:119). Because there are no transcending sociological forces responsible for European security beliefs, the attitudinal changes observed in Chapter V may not be unidirectional or necessarily permanently entrenched. The diminished European confidence in the United States, the magnified fear of nuclear war, and the public doubt about the entire collective security and deterrent apparatus, may reflect an interim period of public anxiety about the future, which is induced by a particular set of political circumstances. Efforts by Western governments to recreate a viable EuroAmerican consensus may, therefore, be possible. Such efforts will not be easy. Government rhetoric and policy that fails to correspond to the altered realities of international politics will continue to increase the fear and alienation of the European public. The current state of European opinion and political activism must be considered as well, because the public has already limited the options available to policy makers. The partisan nature of the security debate in Britain and West Germany will continue to amplify differences rather than promote consensus. Additionally, the recent foreign policy record of the United States in the Middle East and Central America has

PAGE 278

262 contributed little to rebuilding European confidence. Most pressing is the need to direct Euro-American relations toward a pattern of cooperative events rather than conflictual (Table 6-2) Notes A 12-year time span is achieved in Table 6-8, but the 1970 data are coded in fixed age groups preventing the construction of a "standard cohort table," in which the intervals between dates for which there are data are the same as the intervals used to delineate the cohorts (Glenn, 1984:10). The birth years of the 1970 age groups were used to code the 1982 data allowing for identical cohorts to be observed as the table is read horizontally. 2 Pure cohort effects are unlikely in any event, and the analytical task is to disentangle cohort effects from those of period and life-cycle (aging) Available techniques rely generally on "eyeballing" and simple manipulations of cross-tabular data. "Cohort analysis can, at this stage in its development, benefit little from application of the available 'rigorous' techniques" (Glenn, 1984:57). 3 If the mean intracohort variation (the average change between time periods for all age groups) equals the aggregate change, then cohort effects are nil. The degree of difference, however, is a measure of cohort effects (Glenn, 1984). For example, if the aggregate change between the two time periods is -10, and the mean intracohort change is -4, then period effects (the amount of overlap between the intracohort variation and the aggregate variation) account for 40% of the aggregate change, and cohort effects (the difference between intracohort variation and aggregate change) account for 60% of the aggregate change. 4 Life-cycle effects are estimated by computing the expected annual rate of intracohort change needed to account for the variation from the younger age groups to the older. It is necessary "to compute the required annual rate of change from the age level at which the positive association begins" (Glenn, 1984:57). In Table 6-8, for Germany, the between cohort range in 1970 is +8 (79 to 87) and in 1982 it is also +8 (63 to 71), so the mean is +8. Using a 45-year life-cycle (Glenn, 1984), an annual increase of .17 (8/45) is required to account for the +8 points of variation. For the 12-year period covered by the data, an intracohort increase of 2.0 (.17 12) would be estimated to be the result of life-cycle effects. For Italy, the mean

PAGE 279

2 63 variation between youngest and oldest cohorts is +6. Thus, 6/45=. 13 for the annual increase, and .13 12 = 1.5 for the estimated 12-year intracohort change.

PAGE 280

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION: ATTITUDES, POLICIES, AND ALLIANCE COHESION Political cohesion within the Atlantic Alliance is crucial to the Western deterrent. In an international system of superpowers and nuclear weapons, the Clausewitzian definition of war as the continuation of politics by other means is turned on its head. In the nuclear era, politics becomes the conduct of war by other means: "When it is too dangerous to fight, political maneuver becomes the substitute for military battles" (Shoemaker and Spanier, 1984:3). Accordingly, NATO leaders must be sensitive to the dangers of political disarray within the Alliance that could result from public disaffection. An alliance that appears cohesive, capable, and resolved presents an adversary with little temptation to attack or probe politically. If the interests and priorities of alliance members begin to diverge, however, the temptation to exploit the rift arises. Thus, as West Europeans took to the streets to protest INF, the Soviet Union stepped up its political campaign against NATO by threatening extreme retribution against those states that accepted the new missiles and less drastic consequences for 264

PAGE 281

265 nuclear-free states. West Germany received the special attention of heavy (but clumsy and eventually counterproductive) Soviet intervention in the March 19 83 federal elections. Similarly, President Reagan enthusiastically supported strikes by the Polish trade union Solidarity (even as he denounced the air traffic controller strike in the United States) because industrial unrest in Poland could possibly undermine Soviet control throughout Eastern Europe (Sharp, 1985b:40) The West European public, as one of the key "domestic sources of foreign policy," will contribute significantly to the future political cohesion or disunity within NATO. If the Spanish electorate had rejected NATO in their 1986 referendum, if the Dutch citizenry had forced their government to refuse INF deployment, if the British Labour party had won in 1983 and implemented its unilateralist program, or if the SPD had won in West Germany in 1987 and implemented its "second Ostpolitik Alliance unity would have suffered. The public often acts as the legitimizer of government actions abroad, but in Western democracies the public can also set limits and in some cases can also initiate or direct government external behavior. "The growing importance of the public has led many observers to conclude that domestic consensus is now the primary task of the Alliance" (Eichenberg, 1985a:4). This chapter examines some of the political implications evident from the. emperical findings of this study.

PAGE 282

266 Following a summary of the major findings, the linkages between attitudes and policies are explored. Next, American foreign policy attitudes are briefly observed, and finally, some suggestions are offered for strengthening Alliance cohesion by restoring confidence within the West European public. Summary of Major Findings There are indications from the analyses in the earlier chapters that the notion of Atlantic cooperation and NATO itself continue to receive widespread support from among West Europeans. The typology developed in Chapter III identified only 2 5% of the European sample as Isolationists (Figure 3-1) Similarly, Europeans favor continued membership in NATO by large majorities (Tables 5-12, 5-13, and 5-14) These findings would appear to auger well for public support of the Alliance. This broad support for NATO must be examined closely. European attitudes toward NATO resemble American views of apple pie: everyone loves it. Even among the French, the images evoked by the Atlantic Alliance are generally favorable, just like those for democracy, social security, and freedom. As a general construct, NATO is not controversial. Specific proposals intended to strengthen the Alliance, however, are controversial: such as, INF, increased defense spending, longer terms of conscription, acquisition of the

PAGE 283

267 Trident ballistic missile submarine by Britain, nuclear war-fighting plans, and SDI. This is the goals versus instruments dilemma discussed earlier. Political goals comprising positive affective evaluations are endorsed, such as Atlantic cooperation, deterrence, European unity, and economic growth; however, the specific means required to promote these goals, such as military spending, new weapons systems, and economic austerity programs are normally unpopular with the general public and are therefore opposed. The structure of European attitudes is revealing. Two attitudinal dimensions, military and nonmilitary cooperation, were uncovered in Chapter III. This means that Europeans make a distinction between foreign policy issue areas, which are no longer linked together. Rudolf Wildenmann shares this view: "The combined policy goals which seem to have been linked and fundamental in the late 1940s and 1950s — namely, stable economic conditions, social security, European integration, and defense — seem today neither to be linked nor any longer to be fundamental" (1983:25). Support by individuals for cooperative Atlantic efforts in one policy area does not necessarily mean that they endorse cooperative efforts in other areas. European-wide generalizations must be qualified, because there is considerable cross-national variation. West Germans are clearly the most Atlanticist of the four nations observed; they favor NATO and Atlantic

PAGE 284

268 non-military cooperation in much greater numbers than the others. The French, with their Gaullist tradition, are the Isolationists not enthusiastic about any cooperative entanglements that might limit their sovereignty. The British, labeled Military Allies support military cooperation but not nonmilitary. And the Italians earned their title Dovish Partners for their endorsement of nonmilitary cooperation and their hesitancy toward military cooperation. (These national labels are derived from Table 3-5.) Anti-Americanism and the fear of nuclear weapons are two additional challenges to Atlantic unity. Together, these trends are undermining some of the original assumptions of NATO. Weapons rather than politics, missiles rather than men, and nuclear arsenals rather than nations are being viewed increasingly as threats to peace. Since nuclear weapons are largely beyond the control of European leaders, the tendency is to view the United States and the Soviet Union as equally threatening. (These attitudes were highlighted in Tables 5-8 and 5-28.) Chapters IV and VI demonstrated the primacy of political influences and events over sociological processes as determinants of European foreign policy attitudes. Additionally, the national level variable of political culture or national identity was more significant than any of the individual level variables in accounting for views toward Atlanticism; British, French, Italians, and Germans perceive these issues qualitatively differently. Social process

PAGE 285

269 variables suggest direction and continuity; thus, the minimal importance attributed to these effects (age, education, class, and Postmaterialism) means that the European attitudinal shifts away from Atlanticism should not be interpreted as secular changes but as trends whose course may change again. Attitudes and Policies; Patterns of Linkage Public opinion surveys are becoming an institutionalized part of the policy making process in Western democracies (Eichenberg, 1985a:5). This development has perhaps advanced farthest in the United States because of its 2 systemic characteristics. Strobe Talbott's account of the INF negotiations in Geneva in 1982 contains an enlightening illustration. At one point, Ambassador Paul Nitze was arguing with Washington for alternatives to Reagan's "zero-zero" proposal: "We have a political problem in Europe. ... A considerable percentage of European public opinion is not satisfied with our zero-zero position. The first thing we've got to do is start exploring solutions so that it becomes more likely that the requisite percentage will support deployment" (1984:163). This episode is significant for showing not only that officials in the United States government are concerned about public opinion, but that they are concerned about European public opinion. This illustrates a direct linkage between the public and the policy making process.

PAGE 286

270 In the sections that follow, each of the four nations is examined for patterns of linkage between attitudes and policies. The issue of European integration and the role of political elites are also discussed within separate sections. Britain Since the beginning of NATO, Great Britain has been one of its strongest and most loyal members. British policies and statements since the war reflect the high level of support the British public has for military cooperation seen in Table 3-4. Currently, with the exceptions of Greece and Turkey, Britain devotes the highest percentage of GNP (5.5%) to defense among the European NATO countries (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:72). The United States stations close to 27,000 servicemen at 11 air bases in Britain, along with about 2500 American civilians and 28,000 family members ( New York Times 16 April 1986) The British Army of the Rhine, with close to 68,000 troops, is deployed in northern West Germany. Britain also maintains an independent nuclear deterrent, and the current government is committed to modernizing this force by acquiring four American-made Trident ballistic missile submarines. Anglo-American relations have been particularly close. "Postwar leaders saw the Atlantic tie [as] the most important of Britain's international relationships" (Lieber, 1985:5). In the 1980s, the "special relationship" between

PAGE 287

271 Britain and the United States has been converted into a personal relationship between the British Prime Minister and the American President. According to Martin Edmonds of the University of Lancaster, the values and convictions of Thatcher and Reagan are virtually identical: "They hold similar convictions regarding monetarist economic policies, have a common view toward notions of freedom and democracy and, in rather bald terms, condemn the nature of the Soviet system and warn of the extent and the imminence of the Soviet military threat to the West" (1984:158). On security matters they are likewise very close: "Over such issues as the control of theater nuclear forces, the need for a third generation of an independent British nuclear deterrent, sanctions against Poland, and Britain's involvement in rapid deployment forces outside the NATO area, the two have displayed an exceptional degree of accord" (Edmonds, 1984:158). Evidence of Anglo-American military cooperation is seen in the United States support of Britain in the 1982 Falklands conflict (an operation not possible without American military logistic and intelligence help) and Britain's approval for the United States to use bases in Britain to launch its raid on Libya in 1986. In comparison with its relationship to NATO, Britain's foreign relations in matters other than security and defense have been less uniformly cooperative. Britain's initial reluctance to participate in the Common Market and the

PAGE 288

272 subsequent differences over the terms of membership (especially the amount of support payments to the EEC's agricultural policy) underscore the ambivalence with which Britain views cooperative nonmilitary affairs. Differences with the United States (in episodes such as the 1973 Mideast war, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the natural gas pipeline) also illustrate the economic constraints that impede British cooperation in areas viewed as not being vital to European security interests. British political parties are polarized over defense issues to a greater extent than are the parties in other West European nations. The division is over nuclear weapons, not NATO. Since its party conference in 1980, the Labour party has been explicitly antinuclear. Its program calls for unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain, the removal of all American nuclear weapons and bases from Britain, and a nuclear-free zone from Poland to Portugal ( Economist 2 April 1983). Thatcher's Conservative party, on the other hand, remains committed to Britain's independent nuclear force and to its modernization, as well as to the stationing of United States nuclear forces in Britain. A new third party, the Alliance, is attempting to establish itself in the center of British politics on economic as well as defense issues. It is a union between the old free-market Liberal party and the new Social Democrats who are primarily moderate ex-Labour members of Parliament. The Alliance party is opposed to both Labour's

PAGE 289

273 unilateralist proposals and to Thatcher's nuclear modernization program. The British single-member districts electoral law makes it unlikely the Alliance party can establish itself as a credible political force. The two major parties win seats in Parliament because their support is concentrated along social class and regional factors: Labour has safe seats in the north and the inner cities, and the Conservatives in the south and the countryside. By coming in second almost everywhere, the Alliance party wins few seats, as in 19 83. Officials in the United States do not try to hide their concern about a Labour victory and the implementation of its antinuclear program. Defense Secretary Weinberger and Assistant Secretary Perle have been particularly outspoken in their criticism of Labour's proposals. A Labour government intent on carrying out its antinuclear promises would create severe difficulties for NATO. The resulting effect on the Alliance could be greater than French President Charles de Gaulle's decision in 1966 to leave NATO's military organization. A policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament in Britain could encourage the return to power of West Germany's Social Democrats, also somewhat antinuclear, and also boost the various peace movements throughout Western Europe as well as the Greens in West Germany. Traditionally, British policies have reflected the image of Military Allies attached to British respondents in

PAGE 290

274 Chapter III. The trends in British opinion away from some of the assumptions of the NATO Alliance uncovered in Chapter V appear to be concentrated in the Labour party with its historical ties with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) If the trends observed in Chapter V become majority viewpoints that are firmly entrenched and sufficiently salient, then the likelihood of a Labour government being elected and moving toward keeping its antinuclear promises is very high. France The interaction between the government and the public on defense policy in France is highlighted by the debate over the European Defense Community (EDC) In the immediate postwar period, the foreign policy aim of France was to keep Germany dismembered, occupied, and weak. With the onset of the Cold War, the British and the Americans wanted a politically and economically united and rearmed Germany on their side. The French government proposed the creation of a West European Army under the EDC as an alternative to an independently rearmed Germany within NATO. No sooner had the EDC been announced and formulated, however, than "it provoked a storm of protest in France" (Macridis, 1985:31). This manifestation of French public opinion illustrates the strength and the continuity of the preference among the French public for independence and freedom of action in foreign affairs, because the EDC was viewed as "a direct

PAGE 291

275 challenge to French sovereignty, clearly spelling the end of France's aspirations to remain a leading European nation" (Macridis, 1985:31). After much debate in the National Assembly, the French government reversed itself in 1954 and refused to ratify the plan it had proposed. The postering over grandeur and independence by France is often associated with de Gaulle; however, the policies reflecting these goals have their roots in traditional French political culture and as such supercede the influence of one leader. For example, the government's acquiescence to the public on the EDC issue preceded de Gaulle's Fifth Republic. The leaders of the Fourth Republic also initiated the French nuclear weapons program and "did not accept any genuine integration of military command within NATO and insisted on maintaining autonomy over their military forces" (Macridis, 1985:34,35). The Fourth Republic also opposed the establishment of American nuclear launching sites and nuclear stockpiles on French soil. Nonetheless, the French Isolationist character is best illustrated by de Gaulle's withdrawal of France from NATO's military command in 1966. This action, along with the French independent nuclear deterrent, fulfills the public's desire for France to possess international rank, power, and prestige. De Gaulle's abhorence of integrated military forces was demonstrated much earlier. In January 1945, General Eisenhower reacted to the German offensive in the Ardennes

PAGE 292

276 by ordering the French Army to evacuate Strasbourg. De Gaulle, fearing German reprisals against the Strasbourg population, disobeyed and ordered the French Army to remain, and he eventually won Eisenhower's approval. The lesson for de Gaulle was that allied generals, especially Americans, could not be trusted to take French interests sufficiently into account when formulating military policy (Grant, 1985:412) Although the French public and government prefer an independent foreign policy, that does not mean France is a weak or pacifist state. France is considered the world's top military power after the United States and the Soviet Union. France maintains the third largest nuclear force, a land army twice the size of Britain, 50,000 troops positioned inside West Germany, and 23,000 stationed in eight overseas bases ( Wall Street Journal 21 March 1984) Additionally, at 4.2% of GNP, France is second only to Britain in Europe for defense spending (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:85). There are several recent initiatives that may signal a more cooperative posture by France with respect to European defense. France is creating a conventionally armed rapid assistance force (FAR) of five divisions, which will be able to intervene alongside NATO forces during a European conflict. The purpose of the FAR, according to official statements, is "to eliminate all ambiguity concerning the ability of French conventional forces to contribute to West

PAGE 293

277 European defense" (Grant, 1985:418). Additionally, the largest joint French-West German exercise in 20 years is planned for Spring 1987, discussions are underway with the United States on the use of France as an entry point and staging area for NATO reinforcement, and Prime Minister Chirac suggested in September 1986 that French tactical nuclear weapons might be used in a battle on NATO's central front earlier than expected under current doctrine, in effect providing West Germany a bit of protection under a French nuclear umbrella ( Economist 25 October 1986) There is no partisan debate in France, as in Britain, over security policies. "France's independent nuclear deterrent ... is not challenged today by any of the major political forces, left or right. Even when still in opposition, both the PCF (French Communist party) and the PS (Socialist party) endorsed the independent nuclear force" (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:77). Socialist President Francois Mitterand is reputed to hold "visceral anti-Soviet feelings" (Grant, 1984:416), and it was the Socialists who initiated the uncontroversial five-year rearmament program that included the FAR. President Mitterand also forcefully supported NATO's new Cruise and Pershing II missiles (none of which are going to France, of course) Alongside the absence of any partisan conflict over security issues is an insignificant peace movement and little evidence of anti-Americanism (Laqueur and StoppaLiebl, 1984:77,81). Tables 4-5 and 4-6 showed the French to

PAGE 294

278 be less ideologically split on the issue of military cooperation, and Tables 5-24 and 5-27 showed the French to have less anti-American leanings than the others. Several reasons may account for these characteristics. France has its own nuclear weapons, the the French public feels reassured knowing there is French control over the nuclear trigger. Britain also has its own nuclear deterrent, but France, unlike Britain, has no American bases, missiles, or troops on its soil. France is also not a part of the United States-dominated NATO military command. An additional reason for the failure of the peace movement in France is that the PCF has total control over it. Therefore, in France, peace campaigns are equated with communist designs, which appear to the public to be in the interest of Soviet positions. This is unlike the situation in Britain and West Germany where to be for disarmament does not necessarily mean to be against "the system." The CND in Britain is a well-respected, legitimate organization that can count the latest two leaders of the Labour party, Michael Foote and Neil Kinnock, among its membership. There appears to be a consensus among the French public, the political parties, and the government about defense matters. This represents a powerful union capable of shaping a lasting and distinctive role for the nation. If France were part of NATO's military structure, it would enhance unity, eliminate ambiguity, improve planning, streamline logistics, and possibly decrease Alliance costs.

PAGE 295

279 However, given the nature of French opinion and traditions, it is extremely unlikely that any French government would attempt to reintegrate France into NATO's military command in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the current posture of French forces and leanings of the government are not necessarily disadvantageous to the interests of Western security. West Germany Successive governments in West Germany have supported the Atlantic Alliance and Western democratic values (Schweigler, 1984) "Continuing commitment to the NATO Alliance, confidence in American leadership, general agreement with the United States on defense issues, and coolness toward the Soviet Union have been, and remain, the official positions of the West German government" (Puchala, 1984:6). In these policy orientations the government in Bonn has clearly reflected the Atlanticist sentiment of the German public identified in Chapter III. Comments by former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in his farewell speech to the Bundestag attest to the pro-American character of the current Kohl government. In his speech, given on 10 September 1986, Schmidt criticized Kohl for following United States policy too closely: "The Federal Republic must remain the friend and partner of the United States, but not a client" (Time, 22 September 1986). Since

PAGE 296

280 regaining power in 1982, the CDU/CSU led center-right coalition has been a pillar of Atlantic cooperation. West Germany has continued over the years to increase its military contribution to NATO. In the 1960s and 1970s the German army, the Bundeswehr was enlarged and modernized to make it the most powerful conventional force in Western Europe. "Unlike other Western countries, including the United States, West Germany continued its defense efforts during the detente period. Bundeswehr defense expenditures were consistently increased by about 3% in real terms annually between 1969 and 1980" (Gortemaker, 1982:68). Moreover, West Germany extended it compulsory military service obligation from 15 to 18 months in 1985, to avoid acute manpower shortages in the 1990s likely to be caused by sagging birth rates ( New York Times 3 October 1985) Western analysts are sometimes troubled by various "isms" often attributed to West Germany, such as pacifism, neutralism, and nationalism. Ostpolitik initiated by SPD Chancellor Willy Brandt, led to considerable mistrust in the West (Grosser, 1982:252). There was fear of neutralist leanings that may lead to a secret deal with the Soviet Union: a new Rapallo or self-Finlandization. A different interpretation of Ostpolitik is that it was not possible without a strong, firmly committed, and Atlantic oriented West Germany (Gortemaker, 1982:66). The treaties of 1970-1972 accepted the territorial status quo and its implications: the partition of Europe and the

PAGE 297

281 existence of military blocs. At the same time, Ostpolitik attempted and succeeded to improve relations and decrease tensions with the divided parts of Europe. This second view is that Ostpolitik has promoted stability, not neutralism or irredentism. Concern with pacifism in West Germany is the result of political activism and partisan politics. There were massive political rallies staged in West Germany in the early 1980s to protest the deployment of Pershing lis and Cruise missiles. It is estimated that between 40% and 50% of the West German public are passive supporters of the peace movement (Grewe, 1985:107). As in Britain, the political parties of West Germany are polarized over these issues. The Greens, a coalition of ecologists and counter-culture proponents, are pacifist, anti-American, and anti-NATO. Significant elements within the Social Democrats now favor the withdrawal of all NATO missiles from West Europe, cuts in conventional defense spending, the adoption of a policy of "no first use" of nuclear weapons, the formation of "partnerships for peace" with the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe, and the reorganization of the West German army in order to render it incapable of offensive action. These measures comprise the SPD's "second Ostpolitik policy, and they represent a near-total rejection of the policies of the Schmidt era (Asmus, 19 87)

PAGE 298

282 The party chairman, Willy Brandt, openly claims that any threat of war in Europe stems from the presence of United States nuclear weapons in West Germany. According to Brandt: "The interests of our people are not served by people who say 'amen' when Washington prays" ( Time 8 September 1986) Comments like these tend to blur the distinction between neutralism and nationalism, instincts that have common roots. Recently, the West German voters confirmed Helmut Kohl's center-right coalition in office with 44.3% of the vote for his CDU/CSU and 9.1% for the FDP His campaign theme was familiar: strengthen NATO, work for a West European union, and keep relations with the neighbors to the east as relaxed as possible. Traditionally, the foreign policy orientations of the major West German political parties have been based on a broad consensus, unlike the situation today. At times, however, the consensus has broken down, as with the rearmament debate in the early 1950s and with the debate over Ostpolitik in the early 1970s. In these two cases the parties out of power adjusted to new realities (the SPD accepted rearmament and the CDU/CSU accepted Ostpolitik ) and the consensus was reestablished. The current proposals made by the SPD under the rubric of a "second Ostpolitik could be a similar experience (Asmus, 1987:52). Out of power in 1982, the SPD succumbed to the pressure to adopt even more radical foreign policy

PAGE 299

283 positions in the hope of attracting voters of the peace movement. As the 1987 election results seem to indicate, however, the road back to electoral power probably lies with moderation not radicalization. For this reason, the partisan debate over INF and nuclear policy may subside as the consensus is reestablished. The potential remains, however, for a problem that could still undermine Atlantic cohesion. The concern with German pacifism and neutralism would be intensified, "if radical SPD opposition to INF deployment were to legitimize extra-parliamentary opposition and thus encourage a shift of the political debate from the houses of parliament to the streets of West Germany" (Schweigler, 1984:84). These possibilities apply to Britain, as well. Italy The foreign policy of Italy since World War II has been described as resting upon the two "pillars" of NATO and the EEC (Bonvicini, 1983:71). Throughout the postwar period Italy has been a loyal, if not enthusiastic, member of the NATO Alliance. But in regard to the EEC, there is a deep commitment, because "Italy's well-being is clearly dependent on continued integration with the world economy, and most especially with the industrial nations of Western Europe" (Putnam, 1977:292) The importance of Italy to the Alliance was rediscovered just before the NATO INF decision was to be made in

PAGE 300

284 December 1979. Chancellor Schmidt made West Germany's approval to the stationing of American missiles contingent upon the concurrent approval of at least one other European continental NATO member. Italy's consent to deployment reforced Schmidt's position at home and allowed for the debate to be continued with a resultant decision favorable to INF. "Italy's support practically saved the day" (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl, 1984:86). In other areas, Italy's low material contribution to NATO reflects the Dovish Partner image presented in Chapter III. In defense spending and military manpower, Italy ranks among the lowest of NATO's members (Putnam, 1977:296). Italy's value to NATO lies primarily in where it is rather than in what it does. The provision of bases and logistic support for American naval and nuclear forces is essential for NATO. The role Italy has adopted within the Alliance is inconsistent with its formal obligations, but it does reflect the public's desires. The central tension in Italy's political system is the absence of any alterations in power between distinct political forces (Garner, 1984:182). This is because Italy's large Communist party (PCF) is widely perceived as being antisystem and not worthy of participating in the government, despite its record for the efficient management of several municipalities. The leading coalition partner in every postwar government has been the Christian Democrats (DCI) which is actually more of a clientelistic machine for

PAGE 301

285 dispensing patronage than it is an instrument for representation and policy innovation. Within this political climate the foreign policy debate has been somewhat muted, and the PCI's traditional hostility and distrust for the United States and NATO have been overshadowed by the overriding domestic agenda. In Italy, there is no significant peace movement. There is no Italian equivalent of the German Easter marches or of the women camping outside of Greenham Common in Britain. This is explained partially by the low salience on foreign policy issues just mentioned and partially by the close association of the PCI with the peace movement (as with the PCF in France) and the perceived absence of any genuine Italian roots in the peace movement (Rossi and Ilari, 1985). The debut of a Socialist premier in 1983 did not resolve the central political tension or heighten the foreign policy debate in Italy. The Socialists had been part of the ruling coalition for some time, and their electoral gains (up to 11%) along with the DCI's losses (down to 33%) made Craxi s premiership possible. To establish itself as a fully respectable party, the PSI put on display all of its Atlantic trappings: strong support for the installation of Cruise missiles in Comisco, Sicily and solid backing for the Italian military contingent sent to Lebanon in conjunction with the American "peace keeping" mission (Garner, 1984:162).

PAGE 302

286 There is a remarkable similarity between the Italian Communists and the British Labour party and West Germany's SPD. On issues of disarmament, East-West relations, Geneva negotiations, and so on, there is "an almost total coincidence of views" (Laqueur and Stoppa-Liebl 1984:90). The only difference being that in Britain and West Germany the Leftist parties are legitimate and are not considered a challenge to "the system." (The French Socialist party does not fit this generalization because of the existence of the French Communist party to its left.) Should the PCI overcome its pariah status and gain sufficient electoral strength to enter the government, the debate over security and defense issues can be expected to heat up dramatically and pose a significant challenge to Western unity. European Integration The political unification of Western Europe would have a significant effect on trans-Atlantic relations. The nature of its effect, however, is not clear: "European unity is not a major cure-all for Atlantic differences. In many respects it may magnify rather than reduce differences" (Kissinger, 1965:230). Attitudes about and efforts toward integration are associated with the conceptual dimension of nonmilitary cooperation analyzed in Chapters III and IV. Although Atlantic nonmilitary cooperation is obviously a distinct notion from European integration, many of the attitudinal

PAGE 303

287 predispositions overlap; such as, a trust in other Western nations and the belief in mutual benefits to be attained as a result of joint action. Chapters V and VI and the previous sections in this chapter have focused on defense and security matters: military cooperation. This section briefly addresses integration within the context of nonmilitary cooperation. The European public overwhelmingly favors integration (Table 7-1) While support in Britain is less than in the other countries, the British support for a political union has increased from 37% in 1973 to 69% in 1984; although the EEC continues to be viewed by the British as being not beneficial. The relatively low support among the British fits their characterization as Military Allies in Chapter III: those who favor military cooperation but oppose nonmilitary. This distinction of the British can be attributed to their being denied entry into the EEC until 1973, as well as to their island geography and ties with their Commonwealth. The result is that the British consider themselves to be somewhat other than "European" and are therefore less enthusiastic about European integration than others (Barzini, 1983:65). European attitudes toward integration contrast dramatically with their views on security and defense. Broad changes and reversals were noted in regard to security issues in Chapter V, while favorable European sentiment

PAGE 304

288 TABLE 7-1 ATTITUDES TOWARD EUROPEAN INTEGRATION (percentages) Question 1: "In general, are you for or against efforts being made to unify Western Europe?" Question 2: "Personally, do you yourself think the movement towards the unification of Europe should be speeded up, slowed down, or continued as it is at present?" Question 3: "Generally speaking, do you think that (your country's) membership in the Common Market is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither good nor bad?" Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Percent "for" Percent "speeded Percent "good up/continued" thina" 1973 1984 1973 1984 1973 'l984 France 68 80 76 84 61 63 W. Germany 78 80 83 81 63 57 Italy 70 85 73 87 69 72 Britain 37 69 57 74 31 38 Source: Hastings and Hastings (1986:686, 689, 690); original cited: EEC. Note : N = 1000 (approximately) for each national sample for each year.

PAGE 305

289 toward integration is increasing and approaching the level of consensus. The relevant question, however, is: Why has there not been more progress toward realizing the goal of a politically unified Western Europe? The skillful articulation of the goal by a number of European statesmen like Jean Monnet, the historical conditioning of World War II, a series of obligatory constituent treaties and institutions, and widespread public support are apparently insufficient to overcome the specific self-interests of sovereign states and their leaders. Theoretically, integration is predicted to result from the building of habits of cross-national cooperation through which the expectation of future benefits replaces the nationalist quest for power. This is the functionalist approach to explaining the process (Haas, 1958; Mitrany, 1966) International agencies and institutions, such as the EEC, are expected to create recognized patterns of transnational behavior by providing goods, regulations, and services that nations are unable to provide for themselves. As a result, loyalties become divided between the state and the international institutions, and as the process continues people will seek further benefits through greater crossnational cooperation ultimately ending in a politically unified community. This process has failed to make much progress in Western Europe beyond the EEC, despite widespread public

PAGE 306

290 support. The primacy of particular national interests remains. Additionally, the functionalist theory has been criticized for assuming that politics could be removed from cross-national collaboration, that learned habits of cooperation could be transferred from one sphere of activity to another, and that international institutions are better able to solve extensive economic and social problems than are nation-states (Feld, 1981:18). Within this context, the broad public support seen in Table 7-1 can be interpreted as perhaps being symbolic and noncommital affirmation. In other words, there is permissive consensus for a European union but a shallow commitment. There are no marches or demonstrations promoting unification, elections for the European Parliament elicit little enthusiasm, and current political leaders seem in no hurry to place this issue higher on the agenda. The public does not object to unification, but the support for it lacks any strong emotional or ideological thrust necessary to capture the attention of policy makers. This is an example of an issue area in which there is little apparent linkage between public opinion and policy. Elite-Mass Linkage The foreign policies of West European nations are in the hands of the political establishment, the political elite. The structural differentiation of society into

PAGE 307

291 elites and nonelites is indisputable, but there are different views of the primacy of these strata. Two theories (liberal-pluralist and power-elite) offer diverging interpretations of the nature of politics and the roles of elites and masses (Dahl, 1961, 1982; Mills, 1956; Prewitt and Stone, 1973; Truman, 1951). It is beyond the scope of this study to test the merits of the alternative theoretical views of the elite-mass relationship. Perhaps a middle position is called for: "The power-elite hypothesis and pluralism are not necessarily incompatible in very wide areas" (Prewitt and Stone, 1973:127). In this view, policy makers have a high degree of autonomy but are nonetheless constrained by the public within highly salient issue areas; the elite's perception of public expectations (anticipated demands) also influences policy making. Analysts have reported changes in the Atlantic orientations of the European elite that seem to parallel the trends in mass opinion presented in Chapter V. According to William Schneider: "Doubts about the Western Alliance and United States leadership seem to be increasing most rapidly among European elites — precisely the groups that have been most responsible for maintaining a consensus behind the Atlantic Alliance" (1983:6). Stephen Haseler claims that "in the realm of political ideas held at elite levels the trans-Atlantic gulf is widening dramatically" (1983:2).

PAGE 308

292 The amount of congruence between elite and mass attitudes is important. A high level of congruence would allow for more confident generalizations to be made about a nation's future policy orientations. Dissensus between elites and masses, on the other hand, would make such conclusions more problematic and might also indicate future political friction if policy makers remain out of step with the public on issues of high salience. There are many ways to operationalize the concept of an elite. Donald Puchala (1984:5) distinguishes between policy elites and societal elites. In the first case, policy elites are those whose roles, offices, reputations, or expertise place them close to or within the public policy process. These are also known as the "foreign policy establishment." Societal elites are the more "accomplished" members of society, the better educated, and the well-to-do. They are managers, administrators, professionals, academics, and so on. In his analysis of West German attitudes, Puchala (1984) subdivided the German society into the policy elites, the societal elites, and the general electorate. He found fairly high congruence between the policy elites and the general electorate, both having Atlanticist orientations (although he discerned some "superficiality" in the Atlanticist sentiment of the public similar to that observed in Chapter V) Among the societal elites, however, he observed dissensus and increasing "disaffection with

PAGE 309

293 Atlanticism" (1984:13). His operationalization for societal elites was based on higher education, and in that regard his findings are the same as those discussed earlier in Chapter IV; respondents with higher education tend to have less support for military cooperation (Table 4-2) Peter Schmidt (1984) reported on some 1980 crossnational survey data of nominees for the European Parliament. This provides an excellent sample of political elites. In regard to Europe's relations with the superpowers, these politicians prefer more independence from both (Table 7-2) This is similar to the preferences of the public seen in Table 5-25. In keeping with the national characterizations developed in Chapter III, the German politicians (as Atlanticists ) display the strongest preference (40%) for more coordination with the United States, and the French leaders (as Isolationists ) have the strongest preference for independence (91%) West German political elites also display their Atlanticist sentiment when stating preferences for military security arrangements (Table 7-3) Sixty-three percent of the German sample prefer NATO over a European or accommodationalist arrangement. The French leaders, again in keeping with their Isolationist character, have the lowest support for NATO (only 7%) The greatest support for accommodation is among the Italians (29%) which coincides with the Dovish Partner label attached to the Italian public in Chapter III.

PAGE 310

294 TABLE 7-2 ELITE PREFERENCES ON THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES, 1980 (percentages) Question: "In the future how should the European Community develop its relationship to the superpowers? (1) More independence from both the superpowers than hitherto. (2) More coordination with the USA than hitherto. (3) More coordination with the USSR than hitherto. France W. Ger. Italy Br itain (1) More Independence From Both 91 57 83 60 (2) More Coordination With USA 5 40 17 28 (3) More Coordination With USSR 1 3 1 1 Preserve Status Quo (Vol) 3 12 TOTAL 100% 100% 101% 101% Source: Schmidt (1984:14); original cited, Soerensen et al, (1980:354) Note : The sample is comprised of nominees for the European Parliament. The sample size is not known.

PAGE 311

295 TABLE 7-3 ELITE PREFERENCES FOR MILITARY SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, 1980 (percentages) Question: "In view of all changes in the relationship among the United States, Western Europe, and the Soviet Union that have taken place in the last ten years, which of the following statements comes closest to your own views of how Western Europe should provide for its military security?" (1) Continue current levels of support for NATO. (NATO Model) (2) Develop a European defense posture more independent of the United States. (EURO Model) (3) Seek to reduce the need for a strong defense through greater accommodation with the Soviet Union. (Accommodation Model) (4) Other. TOTAL 99% 101% 101% NATO Model France W Ger Italy Britain (1) 7 63 35 42 (2) EURO Model 53 24 37 45 (3) Accommodation 24 14 29 13 (4) Other 15 100% Source: Schmidt (1984:16); original cited, Soerensen et al. (1980:356) Note : The sample is comprised of nominees for the European Parliament. The sample size is not known.

PAGE 312

296 A survey of European elites was commissioned by the United States Information Agency in 1981. The samples from France, West Germany, Italy, and Britain included parliamentarians, high civil servants, businessmen, journalists, and academics; political party leanings from across the full spectrum were represented, and the ages ranged from under 40 to over 70. As with most elite studies, the sample sizes 3 were small: less than 100 in each nation. The composition of these samples is broader than that used by Schmidt (1984) and thus provides a look at the European elite from a different perspective. The data in Tables 7-4 and 7-5 are drawn from the USIA survey. European elites are favorably disposed toward arms control negotiations (Table 7-4) as is the European public (Tables 5-22 and 5-23) ; however, there is a substantially larger proportion of the elites than the public who favor strengthening Western military forces instead of pursuing arms control. Apparently, policy makers and influentials are not as convinced as is the general public of the merits of arms control negotiations on national security. On general foreign policy orientations, elite opinion again corresponds generally with the images of mass attitudes developed in Chapter III (Table 7-5) The Germans are the most Atlanticist with 80% selecting Atlantic responses, and the French are independents or Isolationists with almost 30% favoring a unilateral or independent foreign policy. The British elites favor an Atlantic outlook more

PAGE 313

297 TABLE 7-4 ELITE PREFERENCES ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 19 81 (percentages) Question: "In your judgment, which is the better way to provide for (survey country's) national security — to begin by strengthening Western military forces, or to begin by seeking arms control negotiations?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain Military Forces Arms Control Both Simultaneously Not Sure TOTAL N = 44 32 20 44 19 16 27 23 26 51 48 31 11 1 4 3 100% 100% 99% 101% 73 76 73 75 Source: International Leaders Survey 1981 USIA. Note : The sample is comprised of parliamentarians, high civil servants, businessmen, journalists, and academicians

PAGE 314

298 TABLE 7-5 ELITE VIEWS OF FOREIGN POLICY ORIENTATIONS, 1981 (percentages) Question: "What should the major thrust of (survey country's) external policies be in order to promote its national interest in the 1980s — should (survey country) align its policies more closely with those of the United States, develop more joint initiatives with its European allies, seek greater accommodation with the Soviet Union, pursue a neutralist policy, or what?" France W. Ger. Italy Britain N=73 N=76 N=73 N-75 Work w/US, Eur, 53 (34) 80 (62) 59 (44) 74 (56) Atlantic partnership, etc. Work w/European 38 (25) 17 (13) 38 (28) 21 (16) states no mention of the US Pursue an indepen29 (19) 4 (3) 12 (9) (0) dent or unilateral policy Negotiate w/the 16 (10) 17 (13) 14 (10) 23 (17) Soviet Union Other 19 (12) 12 (9) 12 (9) 14 (11) TOTAL 155% 100% 130% 100% 135% 100% 132% 100% Source: International Leaders Survey 1981 USIA. Note : Sample is comprised of parliamentarians, high civil servants, businessmen, journalists, and academicians. Multiple responses were possible. The figures in parentheses are percentages of the total responses.

PAGE 315

299 than the French and the Italians, but less than the West Germans. There appears to be a reasonable amount of congruence between elite and mass attitudes in Western Europe. This brief sketch of elite opinion is inadequate to draw definitive conclusions, and the absence of precisely equivalent survey items makes most observations tentative. Nonetheless, the linkages evident in the data lend credibility to the typology developed in Chapter III and to the notion of distinct national perspectives toward the Alliance and security affairs. The existence of congruence also argues against the likelihood of political conflict along horizontal, elite-mass cleavages. Any domestic political tensions within the security arena will probably be cross-cutting, with the principal differences being along vertical cleavages, such as partisanship and ideology, which is precisely what is happening in Britain and West Germany. Summary This brief sketch of foreign policy patterns was obviously not meant to be exhaustive but instead suggestive. The attitudinal characteristics attributed to these nations in Chapter III appear to be evident to some extent in their postwar foreign policy directions. There also appears to be a high level of congruence between the aggregate predispositions of the mass public with the political elite. Discontinuities between attitudes and policies were observed

PAGE 316

300 in regard to nonmilitary cooperation: specifically, European integration. Overwhelmingly favorable public support is not linked to further moves toward a European political union. Political parties are the central linkage mechanism in the political processes of Western democracies. Empirical research by Russell Dalton concluded that "to a large extent, Western European parties appear successful in representing mass preferences within the top stratum of political decision makers" (1985a:294). In Britain and West Germany the party systems are divided over foreign policy issues with the main opposition party in each case having adopted proposals that directly challenge established NATO doctrine. This reflects the attitudinal trends away from the Alliance noted in Chapter V. In France, the parties are somewhat unified in regard to the independent posture maintained by France outside of the NATO military structure, and this reflects the public's desires. In Italy, foreign policy is not yet controversial, and even the PCI has recently endorsed NATO in general terms. An intervening variable in the linkage equation is government structure and tradition (Wallace, 1978:49,50). The French government of the Fifth Republic is almost entirely free of formal domestic constraints. The National Assembly has little influence over foreign policy because control is centralized in the hands of the President. The

PAGE 317

301 British government is more formally accountable to Parliament; however, Parliament has not chosen to exert its influence very far, and there is not even a parliamentary committee for foreign affairs. The West German system is the most open allowing for extensive legislative input: primarily through the influential Committee for Foreign Affairs in the Bundestag In Italy, the Foreign Ministry is known for its widespread nepotism, conservative orientation, and tendencies toward immobilismo which contribute to the lack of an active foreign policy debate (Sassoon, 1978:84). These structural factors may have affected the nature and extent of the connection between the public and foreign policy decision making, because it is in Britain and West Germany — with their more accessible systems — that the highest level of public discontent is observed. The overall picture from this discussion of linkage patterns is that there is a high degree of congruence throughout the various aspects of these societies in regard to the Alliance. The point is not that attitudes are the cause of policies or vice versa, but that an awareness of this linkage enables attitudinal generalizations to be handled with confidence and as reasonable indicators of future policy orientations. Thus, "the main concern when looking at the domestic dimension should be to demonstrate that foreign policy is not made in a vacuum but rather reflects the particular values and priorities of the community from which it comes" (Hill, 1978:22).

PAGE 318

302 American Attitudes; A Comparison Trans-Atlantic harmony is influenced by the American public as well as by the European public. A ground-swell of anti-NATO sentiment in the United States would have the same, if not a greater, impact on the Alliance as would a similar occurrence in Western Europe. This section briefly addresses American mass attitudes on selected security and defense issues. The purpose is to compare American opinion with the generalizations formed thus far on European attitudes. There are broad similarities in how the American and European publics view many foreign policy concerns (Eichenberg, 1985a; Schneider, 1985; Thies, 1986). The aversion to nuclear weapons is not found only in Europe. In a survey administered in 1982, only 28% of the American respondents thought the United States would be justified in using nuclear weapons first to stop a Soviet attack on Western Europe (Thies, 1986:32); the first use of nuclear weapons in Europe is a fundamental part of NATO doctrine. Also, the nuclear freeze movement has been endorsed by many of the most influential leaders of the Democratic party. Americans, like Europeans, support United States-Soviet arms control negotiations "as a necessary element of conflict management" (Eichenberg, 1985a:22). Similarly, there is little support in the United States for increasing defense spending (Table 7-6)

PAGE 319

303 TABLE 7-6 AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEFENSE SPENDING (percentages) Question: "Do you think that we should expand our spending on national defense, keep it about the same, or cut back?" 1974 1978 1982 Expand 14 Keep the same 50 Cut back 3 5 34 22 48 54 18 24 TOTAL 99% 100% 100% Source: Wittkopf (1984:23); original cited, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Note: Sample size is approximately 1500 for each year.

PAGE 320

304 Americans demonstrate continuing support for the Atlantic Alliance. In both 1978 and 1982, 68% wanted to either maintain or increase the United States commitment to NATO (Table 7-7) Support for the defense of Western Europe and NATO is not controversial in American politics, despite the posturing of the Mansfield and Nunn amendments. Western Europe consistently ranks highest among those areas of the world that Americans favor sending and using troops (Table 7-8) Below the general concept of NATO, however, there is concern within the American public about burden-sharing withing the Alliance and about Western unity for policies outside of Europe. For example, a substantial portion of the American people (68%) believe that the West Europeans are not shouldering enough of the Western security burden, and that the United States is shouldering too much (Kelleher, 1984:46). Americans are also not satisfied with the level of backing the allies have given to the general foreign policy approach of the United States or to specific United States initiatives in response to events such as the Iranian hostage crisis, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the Polish crisis (Kelleher, 1984:40). American foreign policy attitudes have evolved throughout this century. Debates were traditionally structured unidimensionally along an internationalist-isolationist continuum. Following the Second World War, there was

PAGE 321

TABLE 7-7 AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATO (percentages) 305 Increase US commitment Keep commitment what it is Decrease commitment Withdraw entirely Not sure TOTAL 1974 1978 1982 4 9 9 50 58 58 13 9 11 7 4 4 26 20 18 100% 100% 100% Source: Schneider (1985:356); original cited, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Note: Sample size is approximately 1500 for each year,

PAGE 322

306 TABLE 7-8 AMERICAN ATTITUDES ABOUT THE USE OF U.S. TROOPS (percentages) Question: There has been seme discussion about the circumstances that might justify using U.S. troops in other parts of the world. Would you favor or oppose the use of U.S. troops if: (Percent "favor") 1974 1978 1982 a. N. Korea invaded S. Korea 19 25 22 b. Soviet troops invaded W. Eur. 50 62 64 c. Soviet troops invaded Yugoslavia 14 21 a d. Mainland China invaded Nationalist China 23 24 19 e. The Russians took over W. Berlin 44 56 a f. Japan was invaded by the USSR a 42 51 g. Arab forces invaded Israel a 17 30 h. The Arabs cut off all -oil shipments to the U.S. a 36 3 8 Source: Wittkopf (1984:23); original cited, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. [a] No data available. Note: Sample size approximately 1500 for each year.

PAGE 323

307 initially a general consensus on the internationalist and interventionist roles of the United States. In the postVietnam period, however, the cleavages in American opinion about the nation's appropriate role in world affairs have become very complex. There are several contending descriptions of the new 4 American multidimensional foreign policy belief system. Representative of these is Wittkopf and Maggiotto's (1981) characterization of American attitudes using a four-fold typology to describe respondents as Internationalists Hardliners Accommodationists and Isolationists There is evidence that similar attitudinal orientations also typify American leaders and elites (Kelleher, 1984; Wittkopf, 1983a). Wittkopf and Maggiotto's (1981) typology is derived from the joint distribution of respondents along two orthogonal factors (dimensions) : militant internationalism and cooperative internationalism. In both structure and content, this image of the American belief system is similar to that of the Europeans uncovered in Chapter III. Within the current state of American foreign policy opinion, there are indicators of dilemmas similar to those faced by the European public. There is no consensus, and concerns about war and entanglements are evident. The growth of the nuclear freeze movement occurred simultaneously with the surge of nationalism and anti-Soviet hostility in 1980. The post-Vietnam malaise is overlaid with Cold

PAGE 324

308 War II producing contradictory currents in American opinion. The intervention in Grenada was very popular (swift, decisive, and relatively costless) yet in a survey taken after the Grenada episode, the American people overwhelmingly (60% to 21%) rejected the notion that the United States "should help people in Nicaragua who are trying to overthrow the pro-Soviet government there" (Schneider, 1985:362). The evidence of a breakdown in the foreign policy consensus of the American public and its leaders suggests that the management of United States policies abroad will become more difficult. President Carter's troubles with the Panama Canal Treaty and SALT II as well as Reagan's difficulties with pursuing his Central American policy (among others) illustrate the new policy making environment. In the absence of consensus, the latitude for options is reduced, and the pressures from competing centers of diverse viewpoints are more intense. In short, American opinion is divided over international affairs and the role of the United States in the world. The multidimensional nature of American attitudes works against the reemergence of a new foreign policy consensus without a major external stimulus of some kind. What is interesting is how closely the cleavages of American attitudes resemble those of Western Europe: the multidimensional structure, the general support of NATO, the dilemmas over more specific issues, concern over nuclear weapons, and doubt about United States intervention abroad. Ironically,

PAGE 325

309 "the European attitudes that have led some American analysts to question the value of the Alliance are similar in important respects to attitudes widely held by Americans" (Thies, 1986:31) Toward Alliance Cohesion The collective security of NATO rests at least as much on political cohesion as on strictly military capabilities. Alliance unity in the 1980s is showing signs of strain, but it has yet to come apart. There is no shortage of warnings, however, as evidenced by former Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger when he testified before Congress in June 1986, that "U.S. relations with Europe are deteriorating and that the NATO Alliance could be virtually meaningless by the end of the century" (cited in Clark, 1987:1). The West European public plays a key role in determining the level of political cohesion within the Alliance, and the data presented in this study indicate the absence of an Atlanticist consensus in Europe as well as the existence of some attitudinal trends away from traditional Atlanticist values. Of the four attitude types identified in Chapter III only 34% of the European sample could be categorized as Atlanticists Cross-national variations were large, as seen in Table 3-5. Chapter V showed the European public to be increasingly: anti-American, less threatened by the Soviet Union, frightened about nuclear weapons, and worried about the possibility of war. Political determinants of

PAGE 326

310 attitudes were found in Chapter IV to be more influential than socioeconomic factors (a finding given substance by the political parties in Britain and West Germany) The conclusion from Chapter VI was that changes in the international system (nuclear parity and the European recovery) and a host of political events (period effects) are the best explanations for the trends in European security attitudes. It is unlikely that the system level changes can be altered (United States nuclear superiority cannot be retrieved and Europe will probably not collapse economically) Political leaders must therefore take the public pulse more carefully and be aware of the domestic political consequences that are likely to result from various foreign policy decisions. At the same time, efforts should be made to construct Alliance, and more importantly United States, policies and initiatives designed to restore a West European Atlantic consensus. Attempts to bolster West European public support for NATO policies face intrinsic difficulties. All military alliances contain the seeds of instability; specifically, there are the tensions induced by the fear of being abandoned in a crisis and by the fear of being entrapped in a conflict not of one's choosing. These fears are magnified within weaker powers, and they are clearly evident in the NATO Alliance. West European nations are afraid, on the one hand, that the United States may not be willing to use its nuclear weapons to defend Europe, and on the other hand,

PAGE 327

311 they are afraid that the United States may resort to nuclear weapons too soon by trying to limit any nuclear exchange to Europe; they are also afraid of the spillover effect in which a superpower conflict in another part of the world may lead to war in Europe. This security dilemma has produced a cycle of conflicting anxieties within Western Europe. A loss of confidence about the United States (triggered for example by the Korean War, Sputnik, Vietnam, or SS20s) causes the allied leaders to seek reassurances from Washington. Efforts by the United States to reaffirm its commitment to defend Europe (which are usually in the form of more troops or the latest nuclear hardware) create new tensions and fears among the European public, which are manifested in the CND, the peace movement, anti-Americanism, and recently in a polarized partisan debate in Britain and West Germany. The latest iteration of this cycle is the INF decision: a European response to the SS20s which led to the dramatic political events of the 1980s. In addition to the difficulties created by the traditional alliance security dilemma, there have been several inconsistencies and wrongheaded decisions within American foreign policy that have exacerbated the fears and doubts among West Europeans. President Carter's flirtation with the idea of withdrawing a portion of the American forces from South Korea and his reversal of the neutron bomb decision (after allied leaders had expended much political

PAGE 328

312 capital in presenting the idea to their publics) fostered doubts about the resolve and commitment of the United States. Similarly, Ronald Reagan's promises during the 1980 campaign about restoring American nuclear superiority and Secretary of State Haig's illadvised statement about nuclear warning shots created anxieties among Europeans that could have been easily avoided. Europeans traditionally have viewed the American foreign policy establishment as amateurish and even inept. They have difficulty understanding the United States political system, with its decentralized structure and separated powers. The complicated and extensive bargaining between institutions and agencies in Washington confuses Europeans. The policy U-turns that took place on the neutron bomb, the B-l bomber, and the MX missile are unfathomable in Europe where even between governments consistency of policy is the norm. The debate and competition in Washington over the Panama Canal Treaty and the SALT II Treaty are also unimaginable to Europeans used to the disciplined processes of a parliamentary system. This political spectacle that is constantly unfolding in Washington (the latest episode being the Iranian arms scandal) creates within the European public the sense that the United States is unpredictable at best and dangerous at worst. These images, no doubt, contributed substantially to the increased anti-Americanism observed in Chapter V.

PAGE 329

313 Antinuclear feelings in Europe have been fueled byvarious statements and policies originating in the United States about limited nuclear war or nuclear war-fighting strategies. President Carter's PD59 that addressed counterforce nuclear targeting and war-fighting and Secretary Weinberger's statements about "prevailing" in a limited nuclear war were very unsettling to Europeans who tolerate nuclear weapons only for their deterrent value. Deterrence is enhanced little by talking about these options, which the Soviet Union must take into account anyway; but the European public is clearly not reassured by such comments, and the net effect is an increase in anti-American and antinuclear attitudes, thus further eroding Alliance cohesion. President Reagan's messianic rhetoric has also been cause for alarm in Europe. His characterization of the USSR as the "Evil Empire" frames East-West relations as an ideological struggle to the death. This is an image greatly at odds with that held by the Europeans, who have come to view the Soviet Union as a more normal power as was seen in Chapter V. Reagan's statements about the blessings of SDI are interwoven with disparaging references to the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) as being immoral and unconscionable. The SDI debate began (in these terms) shortly after West European governments had just fought a terrific domestic battle over the INF deployment precisely on the merits of MAD.

PAGE 330

314 What can be done, from the perspective of the United States, to restore European confidence in America and support for NATO policies? Samuel Huntington, borrowing Michael Howard's (1983) concept of "reassurance," observed that "strategy must now be explicitly directed to not one but two problems: deterrence and reassurance" (1983:125). Assuming that NATO's deterrent posture is secure at the moment — since INF, MX, and the B-l are coming on line — the critical need is to reassure the European allies. From the discussion of United States policies above, several suggestions within the realm of public diplomacy are obvious. First, eliminate any public references to nuclear war-fighting or limited nuclear war. Second, stress the need for military "balance" not "superiority" through the acquisition or maintenance of "defensive" systems. Third, get Soviet power and intensions into perspective and erase the "Evil Empire" imagery (allow Soviet actions to speak for themselves as in Afghanistan) Next, stop promising Utopia, as with the initial claims about SDI and the glimpse of a nuclear-free world offered by Reykjavik. There is a revolution of rising expectations among the Western public about arms control. The road from SALT I to Iceland is leading to increasingly unrealistic public expectations that are being fueled by politicians trying to outbid each other on this issue. A sense of proportion and realism must be presented by policy makers. Unfulfilled hopes of nirvana will contribute to a loss of

PAGE 331

315 confidence in the arms control process and to an increase in demands for simple solutions outside the process, as with the peace movement and the nuclear freeze movement. Also, where possible, reduce redundant or obsolete tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. This should be done with much fanfare to capture the moral high ground so often surrendered to the critics. For example, 1000 warheads were withdrawn in connection with the 1979 "dual track" decision, and a decision was made in 1983 to withdraw 1400 more, leaving some 4600 tactical warheads still in Europe (Sharp, 1985b:38,39) These developments received little attention but held the potential for a considerable diplomatic coup. These five suggestions are somewhat superficial and do not address more substantive and formidable issues. Other possibilities include clarifying the global role of the Alliance and reducing European anxiety about the spillover of Third World conflicts. These additional issues illustrate the magnitude of the agenda that must be confronted if the West European public is to be reassured and the political cohesiveness and viability of the Atlantic Alliance is to be enhanced. Notes Other domestic or internal influences on foreign policy are the following: geographic and other nonhuman characteristics of a nation; social, economic, cultural, psychological, and political processes; the media and mass communication; the character of a nation's elites: their

PAGE 332

316 backgrounds, role orientations, attitudes, and solidarity; decision-making processes; organizational, institutional, and bureaucratic tendencies; and the past experiences and value orientations of a society (Rosenau, 1980:115-117). Interest in these internal influences on foreign policy must not be at the neglect of external stimuli: the behavior of other nation-states and the structure of the international system. The point is that the public is obviously only one (an important one as argued in this study) among several variables influencing the foreign policies of West European nations. 2 In the parliamentary systems common to Western Europe, executive and legislative powers are fused together in the cabinet, thus providing the heads of European governments with ^ substantially more explicit authority than that of the American president, who often must rely on persuasion and bargaining to win congressional cooperation for his initiatives. Presidential popularity, a public opinion measure taken almost daily, is critical to the American president's powers of persuasion. Sample size and composition of the International Leaders Survey 1981 are as follows: irian France W (Pe: Ger rcentages) Italy Britain Political 1. Parliament 2. Ministry 3 Other 26 20 1 27 17 1 26 19 21 16 3 Business 4. Corporations 5. Banking 6. Other 10 8 12 8 12 7 1 13 8 Media 7. Print 8. TV/Radio 9. Academics 25 10 22 10 1 30 4 25 13 TOTAL 100% 98% 99% 99% N = 73 76 73 75 See note 3 in Chapter III.

PAGE 333

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS USED IN CHAPTER III 1 1. INTLEXP (International Expectations) Variable 0012: "It (1981) will be a peaceful year more or less free of international disputes, a troubled year with much international discord, or remain the same?" (1) Peaceful year (4) Remain the same (7) Troubled year 2. The DEFPRI (Defense Priority) measure was created by combining two separate survey questions. Variable 0016: "There is a lot of talk these days about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Which of these goals would you give top priority within the next ten years? (1) Economic growth (2) Maintain strong defense forces (3) Giving people more say at work and in their community (4) More emphasis on cultural growth than the economy 317

PAGE 334

318 Variable 0017: "And what would be your second choice?" (1) Economic growth (2) Maintain strong defense forces (3) Giving people more say at work and in their community (4) More emphasis on cultural growth than the economy According to their choices on these two questions, respondents were categorized into two groups. Those selecting response #2 (strong defense forces) on either question (top or second priority) were classified as giving defense a high priority, and all others were considered to have given defense a low priority. The final variable was: (1) Low priority for defense (7) High priority for defense 3. UNIEUR (Unify Europe) Variable 0022: "In general, are you for or against efforts being made to unify Western Europe? (If FOR) Are you very much for this, or only to some extent? (If AGAINST) Are you only to some extent against or very much against?" (1) Against very much (3) Against to some extent (5) For to some extent (7) For very much

PAGE 335

319 4. EECMEM (European Economic Community Membership) Variable 0023: "Generally speaking, do you think that (country's) membership in the Common Market is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither good nor bad?" (1) Bad thing (4) Neither good nor bad (7) Good thing 5. NATOESS (NATO Essential) Variable 0026: "Some people say that NATO is still essential to our country's security. Others say it is no longer essential. Which of these views is closer to your own?" (1) No longer essential (or "never was," if volunteered) (7) Still essential 6. NATOSPT (Support of NATO) Variable 0027: "In your opinion, should our defense spending in support of NATO be increased, decreased, or remain at the present level?" (1) Decreased (4) Remain at the present level (7) increased

PAGE 336

320 7. TRUSTUS (Trustworthiness of Americans) Variable 0041: "How trustworthy are Americans?" (1) Not at all (3) Not very (5) Fairly (7) Very 8. FORPOL (Foreign Policy) Variable 0045: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views of how (country) should conduct its foreign policy?" (1) Join with the other EEC member states and with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to develop an all-European policy (3) Make its own foreign policy decisions independent of other nations (5) Join with the other EEC member states to develop a common European Community foreign policy toward the rest of the world (7) Join with the other EEC member states and the United States to develop a common Atlantic foreign policy 2 9. ECPOL (Economic Policy) Variable 0046: "And which of the following statements comes the closest to your view on how (country) should conduct its economic relations with the rest of the world?"

PAGE 337

321 (1) Make its own economic policy independent of other nations (4) Develop a common European Community policy by working closely with the other European Community states (7) Develop an Atlantic economic policy by working closely with other European Community states and the United States (7) Develop a common economic policy not only with the United States and the other European Community states but also with Japan 10. SCTYPOL (Security Policy) Variable 0047: "Thinking now of the protection of (country) against possible attack from the outside, which of the statements listed on this card comes closest to your own view of how (country) should provide for its security in the 1980s?" (1) Reduce our emphasis on military defense and rely on greater accommodation with the Soviet Union (2) Rely on our own nation's defense forces without belonging to any military alliance (4) Establish an independent West European defense force under European command, but not allied with the United States

PAGE 338

322 (4) Withdraw our military forces from NATO but otherwise remain in NATO for things such as policy consultation (6) Establish within NATO a unified West European defense force under European command, but allied to the United States (7) Continue in NATO among the countries of Western Europe and the United States and Canada Notes Items are taken directly from the Eurobarometer 14 Codebook; however, the responses reflect the recoded values. Variable identity numbers from the Codebook are provided. 2 The final two items, ECPOL and SCTYPOL, each contained two responses that received equal values during recoding. This was necessary because in each case the pair of responses were interpreted as not being amenable to ordinal ranking

PAGE 339

APPENDIX B TESTS FOR INTERACTION FROM CHAPTER IV Interaction exists when the strength of association between two variables varies according to the levels of a third variable (Agresti and Agresti, 1979:227). Apparent effects may be spurious. It is not useful to consider the differences in means of the levels of a categorical variable using ANOVA, if those differences vary according to the level of another categorical variable entered in the two-way analysis. In the absence of interaction, the nature of the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable does not change for different levels of the control variable. Cross-product terms are used to test for the presence of interaction. These are created by multiplying together the values for the categories of the independent variables so for each pair of variables there are several crossproducts. The cross-products are then tested for significance with the F statistic just as the other variables are. The null hypothesis is that for each pair of independent variables interaction does not exist. Small F values producing large P values result in H.o being accepted. This 323

PAGE 340

324 means that for the specific cross-product terms being tested for each pair of the variables, interaction does not exist, and the cross-product terms can be eliminated from the model. In Chapter IV, the multivariate analysis of the European sample began with seven independent variables. Twenty-one combinations of independent variables for two-way interaction effects (higher level interaction effects were not tested) were produced for each dependent variable. All yielded significant levels of p < .05 except for one. This indicates that interaction may exist. However, "large sample sizes may lead to a rejection of the null hypothesis of no interaction in situations where the extent of the interaction is so small as to be unimportant" (Agresti and Agresti, 1979:440). The European sample exceeded 4000 cases. Therefore, to reduce the sample size, tests were conducted again using the smaller separate samples from each country. Table B-l in this appendix displays all of these interaction terms for the two scales. Out of 168 combinations of independent variables, only 23 (about 14%) were significant at .05. The term recurring the most often was that of ideology /participation, which was significant four times Sample sizes around 1000, as was the case for these analyses, are still large and could continue to produce significant but not substantial indicators of interaction.

PAGE 341

325 W < 12 O —1 H •H Eh £ < 2 2 >1 rH z >H (0 p H rH *. •H CO 2 w Eh !Z O H Eh u w E-< S3 H o CQ w > w rHw u z '*(Nf>inHOO'j HMnncoHNin HOONriinN"*ONOOf1Hh*(lU1 rOOi^HCNOHCOinHHOCN^COCNOrO T^Ot-l!-iror-*3'<\lvOVO(TiCOOOV0r--. c ftJ P o o H Cr> H >i a C .-a H -H >i CO -p U H rj*-H >i -P -P CD CO (0 rH •H >i 4-) O •H Cn rl <1) >H U 3 CO o -P -P en A3 rH -H >,-P O CJ T3 rO (0 rH ra 3 OJ M U to CJ -P -P crj rH H >lH niH'a'o id a id 3 D rH U U P -P > u w H CM tx H TS T3 (0 (0 3 CD M u c e c u W h a, cm H3 r 03 rd o o rH r— 1 H H H •H W H Ph Pm H -H H 03 fl il3 o3 id id w co W W5 cq -P -P -P rH u M u M H CD ai CD CD CD U to B3 CO id id id a 1 -< c C H rH rH H rH 03 o3 id a3 3 3 3 OJ CD CD CD CD QJ rd rd txt rd frjrHHrHrH r d r C r O Oe300CJU>>>>>UUUUWWW <0 CD 3 G •H +J u

PAGE 342

326 rH Q 1 W a P 5 w H S Eh CQ 2 2 o EH u o^ r-i H r- m < c c r rH CM > 0) •H • • • O rH l • • | Eh iH 2 U u c m rH (0 p •h en , rd Xi •H P C U m •P id U CD P T3 U •H •P rd cd CD >^ -P >i CD to CJ a, u -i rd o U -H CJ Cm fd (d n rH •H >i XI > en Cm • >i-H -P -P G CD > u g M >h M en •H CD H (d c ia ib-h 3 -P r( H -P o Cm Cu -P Eh Xi -P CD rl •H !2 C > CD rH >i>i(i •H W -P •H II tj> &*H rH en Cm s O CD £ -p id rH rH rH -H U tjl •• r-i Xi II -rl -P H •rl CD 3 u g CD CD >H 3 05 -P tn rH a T3 >0 (0 CD C •rl M H Cm CO 2 -H 2 2

PAGE 343

327 Another test for interaction involves the direct observation of the sample means in the various cells of the crossclassification tables to determine the importance of interaction. The object is to compare the amount and direction of the differences in means for all of the pairs of means across each variable. Minor variations can be determined to be substantively unimportant despite the apparent statistical significance (Agresti and Agresti, 1979:440). Cross-classification tables of the standard deviations from the mean were constructed for those interaction terms that were listed as significant in Table B-l. These selective terms are displayed by nation in Tables B-2 to B-5. The effects of interaction are most apparent and substantive in those cross-classification comparisons in which participation is one of the variables. For France, in Table B-2, comparisons 1 and 6 illustrate that the variable participation has no independent effect, but rather, each category of the other variables apparently include activists who exceed the dominant view of their group. For example, in comparison 1, postwar Frenchmen tend to oppose military cooperation, and the activists appear to oppose it more than the nonactivists; but for the prewar Frenchmen, the opposite is the case, the activists are the strongest supporters of military cooperation. A similar condition exists among the parties in France. According to comparison 6, activists in the PCF oppose nonmilitary cooperation more than the

PAGE 344

328 TABLE B-2 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR FRANCE I For the Milits .ry Cooperation Sea le 1. Participation 2. Party Generation Activist Nonact Generation PCF PSF UDF RPR Postwar -. .51 -.05 Postwar .64 -.13 .52 .39 WW II ~~ < ,22 -.07 WW II .61 -.29 .30 .37 Prewar < ,37 .27 Prewar .84 .43 .50 .64 3. Party Class PCF PSF UDF RPR Working -.49 -.18 .17 .31 New Mid -.88 -.19 .32 .52 Bourgeois -.52 -.35 .12 .85 II. For the Nonmilitary Cooperation Scale 4. Party Generation PCF PSF UDF RPR 5. PartyClass PCF PSF UDF RPR Postwar -.47 -.05 .28 .47 Work -.73 -.11 -.02 .38 WW II -.82 -.05 .36 .10 New Mid -.77 .04 .48 .26 Prewar -.98 .04 .32 .08 Bourgeois .15 .08 .18 .50 6. Participation PCF Party PSF UDF RPR Activist -1.16 .12 .64 .45 Nonactivist -.57 -.05 .31 .12 Source: Eurcbarometer 14 (October 1980) Note: Cell entries a re standard deviations from the scale mean. Positive score indicates support for the scale. Results produced by ANOVA.

PAGE 345

329 TABLE B-3 CROSS-CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF INTERACTION TERMS, FOR WEST GERMANY 1. Generation Postwar WW II Prewar I. For the Military Cooperation Scale Values 2. Participation Postmat Neither Mat Ideology Activist Nonactivist -.38 -.05 .18 Left -.1.18 -.39 -.94 -.06 .27 Center .26 .03 -.95 .02 .05 Right .67 .19 3. Ideology Left Center Right Party Greens/SPD FDP -.52 -.37 -.02 -.04 -.02 .15 CDU/CSU .06 .27 .37 II. For the Nonmilitary Cooperation Scale 3. Party_ Ideology Greens/SPD FDP CDU/CSU Left -.04 -.43 -.31 Center -.14 .09 .17 Right -.04 .16 .12 Source: Eurobarometer 14 (October 1980) Note : Cell entries are standard deviations from the scale means. Positive scores indicate support for the scale. Results produced by ANOVA.

PAGE 346

330 i n w PI a Eh fa o CTJ h BS H 5 o fa £ o u Q w fa Eh O U fa W iA W CO 00= 2 fa w O En ss z O O H H Eh Eh o CO N > oo rH CO h in m T to H ^r CN LH •H C>J rH CO CJ OvJ CN 00 -P • • • -P • • • Q • • • p c 1 c U i to f0 CJ H c •H c co P -P o > Id J2 id Z P CD D, tt M > •H H cd -H C) O fa P •H P H +• H •H P n P to W to P H ^o IN CO P •rH cn CO rH fa CTi CO t-~ R) > r^ r r id > CO ^r c ^^ 00 CO 1 >i c u H P 8 P. CO P CD CD rH H CD p HJ rH CD -P CD ErC CC •H P + P o p + 3 +J P o -P fa Z 2 CD 1 e > u p o p t& >1 P UH i P H CD C X! H s cn • H CO 5 to (D CTi 'S' in .— •H T3 •H •H •rH rH O rH rH o P CD s K O rH • 00 (d U CD r f" m CD rrrH o a\ •H 3 0) CJ' H H o CD p\ o rH rH u rH > "0 x; P • • J3 P • • 0) P 3 1 p 3 P (D T3 P 0. p pq P (XI x: cm O <* X! na t7>0 ^r o p to fa T3 fa T3 c •H • S 1 • • 4-> i CD to cd H 00 un CO •H • cr> CN p i CD O M iH o rH M rH o CO id r-> o CTl •p to P • • • u • • S rH rH O p p | 1 1 o 1 1 1 •H • • • cd -P H id P ? H id U •• 0) -p H 2 CD -P H 5 CD p H s P CD Ch c u CD C co CD a CO CD 3 P a • CD jg P • CD O s P • 0) s p 3 H o Hi § fa 00 u th § fH uo o Ch § fa U) s CO

PAGE 347

331 in I pq K 5 fa o CO w o z Cm H a <: O En Q CQ w En u o W fa co co &4 o 2 o 2 H O Eh H rf E-i u u H id M 0) o c u >1 rH (13 P •H H H £ CD P M O fa H +.' in in >* BjOHH S • • • l CN G B 4J 01 O Cm in CD 1 1 2 10 -P e P 01 o Cm m r.-h o m U O ^O rH •* n "* Eh • • • 01 CD CD 45 vo m CN G 4-> O O O rH •H • • • (0 CD 1 1 > 2 >1 P P. 3 P £< H 03 iH 0) rQ r-H LD cn m I I U c (0 ffMCN • i i I I I 01 5 •H t^-a o G -H 0) •rlS 0> a; >h >1 M £ G Cr> 0) u sa H CD -P 4-> -P Xi 0! >n G tr> • TJ CD CD -H "& M J U c H P ft) Qj •rH u -H -P H Rj fa V O (0 ^O CN iJD CnoN • • • 2 I 4-> u cn oo r- a\ n *r • • C •H H P M Bi 13 rt Vh rH rH > h m rH Q) -P 0) 4J H £ •P -P A c 01 CD 0) 'H C tJi 0) O S M • T3 0) CD -H 15 ftSi u RJ -P •H H •H g B o 2 CD 45 P U o H c o •H -P R) Ch H O •rH P M ro Oh r^ o in ro HHNin • • • l l ffl M <* CN O t* IT) G rC H >1 O CD •P rH CD CO &> ftf (OH CD U g T5 rG rH 3 H T3 CT'rH • 'O U -H -H 1 w diSffiU CD P (0 u •H >c c •H U3 CD U 01 a. > •rH P •H 01 Ch • G (T3 CD g CD rH m 01 CD -G 4-1 • < g > o U 2 4H f< 01 >t G J2 • O — •H 13 o 4-> CD CO fd U c^ •H G H > T3 CD O rH T3 rH CD Cu X! XI u w -P CO 4-1 a h o G G — cC W -P 0) 3< m 1— 1 CD P M • CD (0 CD •P H CD CO f0 g CD O O •H W u M CO 4J CD P o .. rH CD a G P a G CO 2 01

PAGE 348

332 nonactivists; but for the other parties, activists support it more than the nonactivists. Thus, the effect of participation varies according to the category of the other variables. This is true also of comparison 2 in Table B-3 for West Germany, comparisons 2 and 4 in Table B-4 for Italy, and comparisons 3 and 5 in Table B-5 for Britain. This further supports the earlier refutation of hypothesis H.8 which possited an association between activism and lower support for Atlantic cooperation. That is not the case. Those groups tending to support Atlantic cooperation have their own activists who are the strongest supporters. Thus, participation effects behavior, but not attitudes. To avoid having cells with no cases, the parties of the Left in West Germany and Italy were combined. Empty cells cause the entire computer procedure to abort, so this recoding was a technical requirement. This does not, however, appear to have altered these results in regard to interaction. Interaction is also present to some degree with class and generation, but not to the extent as with participation. For example, in comparison 2 for France, to compare the prewar generation with the WW II generation for the different parties, the differences are as follows: for the RPR (prewar WWII =) : .27; UDF : .20; PSF: .72; but for the PCF, it is -.23. For the PCF the direction of difference changes. Exceptions of this type affecting one or a few cells within a comparison exist in most of the other

PAGE 349

333 comparisons displayed in this appendix; however, the overall effects tend to be uniform. Thus, interaction is determined to be substantial and meaningful for participation, but not for the other variables. This explains why the participation variable does not contribute at all to the multivariate model in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. Future analyses of this type should exclude this variable.

PAGE 350

REFERENCES Achen, Christopher H. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response." American Political Science Review 69 (December 1975): 1218-1231. Adler, Kenneth P. "The Successor Generation: Why, Who and How." In The Successor Generation: International Perspectives of Postwar Europeans pp. 4-16. Edited by Stephen F. Szabo. London: Butterworth, 1983. Adler, Kenneth P., and Wertman, Douglas. "Is NATO in Trouble?" Public Opinion 4 (August-September 1981) : 8-13. Agresti, Alan, and Agresti, Barbara F. Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences 2 ed. San Francisco: Dellen, 1979. Alford, Jonathan. "Toward an Alternative European Defense Entity." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October 1985. Alford, Robert R. Party and Society: The Anglo-American Democracies Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael. "The New American Challenge: Reaganism and the Prospects for Foreign Policy Collaboration in Western Europe." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October 1985. Alliance/Security Survey 1981 (machine-readable data file) Washington, D.C.: United States Information Agency, 1981. Almond, Gabriel A. The American People and Foreign Policy New York: Harcourt 19 50. Almond, Gabriel A. "The Intellectual History of the Civic Culture Concept." In The Civic Culture Revisited pp. 1-36. Edited by Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980. 334

PAGE 351

335 Almond, Gabriel A., and Powell, G. Bingham. Comparative Politics Boston: Little Brown, 1978. Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations Princeton: Princeton University, 1963. Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture Revisited Boston: Little, Brown, 1980. Alt, James E. "Dealignment and the Dynamics of Partisanship in Britain." In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment pp. 298-329. Edited by Russel J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Alting von Geusau, Frans, ed. Allies in a Turbulent World Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982. Andreotti, Giulio. "The Alliance's Political Dimension: Time For a Renewed Commitment." NATO Review 34 (April 1986): 1-4. Andrews, F.; Morgan, J.; and Klein, L. Multiple Classification Analysis 2d ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1973. Apter, David, ed. Ideology and Discontent London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Asher, Herbert B. Causal Modeling 2d ed. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983. Asmus, Ronald D. "The SPD's Second Ostpolitik." Aussen Politik 38 (January 1987) : 40-45. Atlantic Council. The Successor Generation Washington, D. C. : The Atlantic Council of the United States, 1981. Baker, Kendall; Dalton, Russell; and Hildebrandt, Kai. Germany Transformed: Political Culture and the New Politics Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. Bardes, Barbara, and Oldendick, Robert. "Beyond Internationalism: A Case for Multiple Dimensions in the Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes." Social Science Quarterly 39 (December 1978): 495-508. Barnes, Samuel H. and Kasse, M. ed. Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.

PAGE 352

336 Barnes, Samuel H. "Secular Trends and Partisan Realignment in Italy." In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment pp. 205-230. Edited by Russel J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Barzini, Luigi. The Europeans New York: Penguin Books, 1983. Beck, Paul A. "Young vs Old in 1984: Generations and Life Stages in Presidential Nomination Politics." PS 17 (Summer 1984) : 515-524. Beer, Samuel. Britain Against Itself New York: Norton, 1982. Bell, Daniel. The End of Ideology New York: Free Press, 1960. Bertram, Christoph, ed. America's Security in the 1980 's New York: St. Martin's, 1982. Bertram, Christoph, ed. Defense and Consensus: The Domestic Aspects of Western Security New York: St. Martin's, 1983. Biedenkopf, Kurt. "Domestic Consensus: Security and the Western Alliance." In Defense and Consensus: The Domestic Aspects of Western Security pp. 6-13. Edited by Christoph Bertram. New York: St. Martin's, 1983. Blalock, H. M. Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964. Bolten, Ferdinand, and Jagodzinski, Wolfgang. "In An Environment of Insecurity: Postmaterialism in the European Community, 1970-1980." Comparative Political Studies 17 (January 1985) : 453-484. Bonvicini, Gianni. "Italy: An Integrationist Perspective." In National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation pp. 71-84. Edited by Christopher Hill. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983. Borinski, M. "West Germany." Washington Quarterly 8 (Summer 198 5) : 2 8-34. Boyd, Peter. "The Development of the Peace Movement in Britain." In The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States pp. 63-103. Edited by Werner Kaltefleiter and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.

PAGE 353

337 Braunthal, Gerard. "A New Era in West Germany." Current History 83 (April 1984): 149-152, 179-180. Bruce-Briggs, B., ed. The New Class ? New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1979. Bull, Hedley. "European Self-Reliance and the Reform of NATO." Foreign Affairs 61 (Spring 1983): 874. Cahen, Alfred. "Relaunching the Western European Union: Implications For the Atlantic Alliance." NATO Review 34 (August 1986) : 6-12. Calleo, David. The Atlantic Fantasy: The United States, NATO, and Europe Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970. Calleo, David. "On Restructuring the Alliance." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October 1985. Campbell, Angus, ed. Elections and the Political Order New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Capitanchik, David, "Public Opinion and Nuclear Weapons in Europe." Arms Control 4 (September 1983): 111-120. Capitanchik, David, and Eichenberg, Richard. Defense and Public Opinion Boston: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1983. Clark, David. "NATO's Public Relations Problems." Unpublished manuscript, 1987. Cohen, Elliot A. "The Long-Term Crisis of the Alliance." Foreign Affairs 61 (Winter 1982/83): 325-343. Conradt, David P. "Germany." In Comparative Politics pp. 153-233. Edited by Dan N. Jacobs, David P. Conradt, Guy B. Peters, and William Safran. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1983a. Conradt, David P. "The 1983 Federal Election: A Preliminary Analysis." Paper presented to the Annual American Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago, September 1983b. Conradt, David P. The German Polity 3d ed. New York: Longman, 1986. Converse, Philip E. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics." In Ideology and Discontent pp. 206-261. Edited by David Apter. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.

PAGE 354

338 Converse, Philip E. "Attitudes and Non-Attitudes." In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems pp. 168-189. Edited by E. R. Tuft. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1970. Craig, Stephen C, and Hurley, Thomas L. "Political Rhetoric and the Structure of Political Attitudes: Some Experimental Findings." Western Political Quarterly 37 (December 1984): 632-640. Crewe, Ivor. "Britain Evaluates Ronald Reagan." Public Opinion 7 (October/November 1984) : 46-49. Crewe, Ivor. "Britain: Two and a Half Cheers for the Atlantic Alliance." In The Public and Atlantic Defense pp. 11-68. Edited by Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger. London: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985. Cronbach, L.T. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests." Psychometrika 16 (September 1951): 297-334. Dackiw, Oksana. "The British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: Defense Policy and Public Opinion." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October 1985. Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs ? New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Dahl, Robert A. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs Control New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Dalton, Russell J. "Was There a Revolution? A Note on Generational and Life-Cycle Explanations of Value Differences." Comparative Political Studies 9 (January 1977): 459-475. Dalton, Russel J. "Values in Change: A Panel Study of German Youth." Research project for the USIA, Washington, D.C., 1980. Dalton, Russel, J. "The West German Party System Between Two Ages." In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment pp. 104-133. Edited by Russel J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Dalton, Russel J. "Political Parties and Political Representation: Party Supporters and Party Elites in Nine Nations." Comparative Political Studies 18 (October 1985a): 267-299.

PAGE 355

339 Dalton, Russei J. "Values and Electoral Change." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October 1985b. Dalton, Russell J., and Duval, Robert. "The Political Environment and Foreign Policy Opinions: British Attitudes Toward European Integration 1972-1979." British Journal of Political Science 16 (January 1986) : 113-134. Dalton, Russell J.; Flanagan, Scott C; and Beck, Paul A., ed. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Davies, A. F. "The Child's Discovery of Nationality." In Socialization to Politics: A Reader pp. 105-118. Edited by Jack Dennis. New York: Wiley, 1973. Davis, Kingsley. "The Sociology of Parent Youth Conflict." American Sociological Review 5 (June 1940) : 523-535. Dawson, Richard E. and Prewitt, Kenneth. Political Socialization Boston: Little, Brown, 1969. DeGaulle, Charles. War Memoirs vol 3, Salvation New York: Simon and Shuster, 1960. Dennis, Jack, ed. Socialization to Politics: A Reader New York: Wiley, 1973. DePorte, A. W. Europe Between the Superpowers: The Enduring Balance New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. Deutsch, Karl. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control New York: Free Press, 1963. Deutsch, Karl W. Arms Control and the Atlantic Alliance: Europe Faces Coming Policy Decisions New York : wTley and Sons, 1967. Deutsch, Karl W. and Edinger, Lewis J. Germany Rejoins the Powers: Mass Opinion, Interest Groups, and Elites in Contemporary German Foreign Policy Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959. Deutsch, Karl W. ; Edinger, Lewis J.; Macridis, Roy C ; and Merritt, Richard C. France, Germany and the Western Alliance: A Study of Elite Attitudes on European Integration and World Politics New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967.

PAGE 356

340 Deutsch, Karl W. and Merritt, Richard L. "Effects of Events on National and International Images." In International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis pp. 130-187. Edited by, Herbert C. Kelman. New York: Holt, 196 5. Di Palma, Giuseppe, ed. Mass Politics in Industrial Society Chicago: Markham, 1972. Dominguex, Jorge I. "Conclusion: The Politics of Age." In Political Generations and Political Development pp. 135-141. Edited by Richard J. Samuels. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1977. Dougherty, James E., and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L. eds. Shattering Europe's Defense Consensus New York: Pergamon-Brassey s, 1985. Dumont, Joel-Francois. "The Peace Movement in France." In The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States pp. 132-139. Edited by Werner Kaltefleiter and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. Economist 2 April 1983, pp. 39-42. Economist 25 October 1986, pp. 50, 51. Edmonds, Martin. "British Foreign Policy." Current History 83 (April 1984): 157-159, 180. Eichenberg, Richard C. "The Myth of Hollanditis. International Security 8 (Fall 1983): 144-151. Eichenberg, Richard C. "Force, Balance and Arms Control in European Public Opinion." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C. March 1985a. Eichenberg, Richard C. "Public Opinion as Inputus, Backdrop and Counterpoint." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington D.C, October 1985b. Eisenstadt, S.N. From Generation to Generation: Age Groups and Social Structure Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1956. Eldersveld, Samuel J. Political Parties in American Society New York: Basic Books, 1982. Evan, William M. "Cohort Analysis of Survey Data: A Procedure for Studying Long-Term Opinion Change." Public Opinion Quarterly 23 (Spring 1959): 63-72.

PAGE 357

341 Farrell, R. Barry, ed. Approaches to Comparative and International Politics Evanston, 111: Northwestern University Press, 1966. Feld, Warner J. West Germany and the European Community: Changing Interests and Competing Policy Objectives New York: Praeger, 19 81. Feld, Werner J., and Wildgen, John K. NATO and the Atlantic Defense: Perceptions and Illusions New York: Praeger, 1982. Flanagan, Scott C. "Measuring Value Change in Advanced Industrial Societies." Comparative Political Studies 15 (April 1982) : 99-126. Flynn, Gregory. The Internal Fabric of Western Security London: Allanbald, Osam, 1981. Flynn, Gregory. "Public Opinion and Atlantic Defense." NATO Review 31 (December 1983): 5. Flynn, Gregory, and Rattinger, Hans, ed. The Public and Atlantic Defense London: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985. Fotheringham, Peter. "Great Britain: Generational Continuity." In The Successor Generation: International Perspectives of Postwar Europeans pp. 76-99. Edited by Stephen F. Szabo. London: Butterworth, 1983. Freedman, Lawrence. "NATO Myths." Foreign Policy 45 (Winter 1981/82): 48. Fritsch-Bournazel, Renata. "France: Attachment to a Nonbinding Relationship." In The Public and Atlantic Defense pp. 69-100. Edited by Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger. London: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985. Gallois, Pierre. The Balance of Terror: Strategy for the Nuclear Age Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Gallup, George H., ed. The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls, France: 1939,1944-1975 2 volumes. New York: Random House, 1976a. Gallup, George H. ed. The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls, Great Britain: 1937-1975 2 volumes. New York : Random House, 1976b. Garner, Lawrence. "A Change in Italy's Choirmaster?" Current History 83 (April 1984): 160-163, 181-183.

PAGE 358

342 Garthoff, Raymond L. "The NATO Decision on Theater Nuclear Forces." Political Science Quarterly 98 (Summer 1983): 197-214. George, Alexander L. and Smoke, Richard. Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice New York: Columbia University Press, 1974. Girardet, Raoul. "Neutralism and Pacifism." NATO Review 30 (October 1982): 18-23. Glen, Norval D. Cohort Analysis Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977. Gortemaker, Manfred. "West Germany's New Foreign Policy." Washington Quarterly 5 (Winter 1982) : 61-70. Grant, Robert. "French Defense Policy and European Security." Political Science Quarterly 100 (Fall 1985): 411-426. Gress, David. "What We Should Know About German Neutralism." Commentary 75 (January 1983): 26-31. Gress, David. Peace and Survival: West Germany, the Peace Movement, and European Security Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1985. Grewe, Hartmut. "The West German Peace Movement." In The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States pp. 104-131. Edited by Werner Kaltefleiter and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff. New York: St. Martin's, 1985. Grosser, Alfred. The Atlantic Alliance New York: Vintage Books, 1982. Haas, Ernst B. The Uniting of Europe Stanford: Stanford University, 1958. Haas, Ernst. "The Study of Regional Integration." International Organization 24 (Autumn 1970): 607-646. Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis Boston: Beacon, 1973. Halle, Louis. "The Cracked Alliance." New Republic 23 February 1963, pp. 17-20. Hanrieder, Wolfram F., and Auton, Graeme P. The Foreign Policies of West Germany, France, and Britain Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Harrison, Michael M. "France Under the Socialists." Current History 83 (April 1984): 153-156, 181.

PAGE 359

343 Harrison, Richard M. "The Successor Generation, Social Change and New Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy in France." In The Successor Generation; International Perspectives of Postwar Europeans pp. 17-42. Edited by Stephen F. Szabo. London: Butterworth, 1983. Haseler, Stephen. "The Demise of Atlanticism: European Elites and NATO." Public Opinion 6 (February-March 1983a): 2-4. Haseler, Stephen. "The Euromissile Crisis." Commentary 75 (May 1983b) : 28-32. Hastings, Elizabeth H., and Hastings, Philip K. ed. Index to International Public Opinion, 1980-1981 Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982. Hastings, Elizabeth H., and Hastings, Philip K., ed. Index to International Public Opinion, 1984-1985 New York: Greenwood Press, 1986. Heisler, Martin. "Trapped Governments in Alliance." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October 1985. Hill, Christopher. "A Theoretical Introduction." In Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe: A Comparative Approach pp. 7-31. Edited by, William Wallace and W. E. Paterson. Westmead, England: Saxon House, 19 78. Hill, Christopher. "Public Opinion and British Foreign Policy since 1945." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (September 1981): 53-62. Hill, Christopher, ed. National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation London: George Allen and Unwm, 19 83. Hoffmann, Stanley. "The Western Alliance: Drift or Harmony." International Security 6 (Fall 1981): 105-125. Hoffmann, Stanley. Dead Ends: American Foreign Policy in the New Cold War Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1983. Hoffmann, Stanley. "Cries and Whimpers: Thoughts on West European Relations in the 1980 's." Daedalus 113 (Summer 1984): 221-252. Holsti, Ole R. "The Three-Headed Eagle: The United States and System Change." International Studies Quarterly 23 (September 1979): 339-359.

PAGE 360

344 Holsti, Ole R. and Rosenau, James N. "Does Where You Stand Depend On When You Were Born?" Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (Spring 1980) : 1-22. Holsti, Ole R. and Rosenau, James N. American Leadership in World Affairs; Vietnam and the Breakdown of Consensus Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1984. Hovland, Carl I., and Rosenberg, Milton J., eds. Attitude Organization and Change New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Howard, Michael. "Deterrence, Consensus, and Reassurance in the Defense of Europe." In Defense and Consensus: The Domestic Aspects of Western Security pp. 115-124. Edited by Christoph Bertram. New York: St. Martin's, 1983. Humphreys, Colin. "Telling It As It Is." NATO Review 34 (February 1986); 19-23. Huntington, Samuel. P. "Post-Industrial Politics: How Benign Will it Be?" Comparative Politics 6 (January 1974): 163-191. Huntington, Samuel P. "Generations, Cycles, and Their Role in American Development." In Political Generations and Political Development pp. 9-27. Edited by Richard J. Samuels. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977. Huntington, Samuel P. "Broadening the Strategic Focus: Comment on Michael Howard's Paper." In Defense and Consensus: The Domestic Aspects of Western Security pp. 125-130. Edited by Christoph Bertram. New York: St. Martin's, 1983. Inglehart, Ronald. "The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies." In Mass Politics in Industrial Societies pp. 280-333. Edited by Giuseppe Di Palma. Chicago: Markham, 1972. Inglehart, Ronald. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Inglehart, Ronald. "Post-Materialism in Environment of Insecurity." American Political Science Review 75 (December 1981): 880-899.

PAGE 361

345 Inglehart, Ronald. "Changing Structure of Political Cleavages in Western Society." In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment pp. 70-103. Edited by Russell J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984a. Inglehart, Ronald. "Generational Change and the Future of the Atlantic Alliance." PS 17 (Summer 1984b): 525-535. Inglehart, Ronald. "New Perspectives on Value Change." Comparative Political Studies 17 (January 1985a) : 485-532. Inglehart, Ronald. "Aggregate Stability and Individual-Level Flux in Mass Belief Systems: The Level of Analysis Paradox." American Political Science Review 79 (March 1985b): 97-116. International Attitudes Survey 1976 (machine-readable data file) Washington, D. C. : United States Information Agency, 1976. International Leaders Survey 1981 (machine readable data file) Washington, D.C. : United States Information Agency, 1981. International Survey 1955 (machine-readable data file) Washington, D.C. : United States Information Agency, 1955. International Survey 1969 (machine-readable data file) Washington, D.C: United States Information Agency, 1969. Iversen, Gudmund R. and Norpoth, Helmut. Analysis of Variance Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976. Jackson, John E. "The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences With Survey Data." Journal of Politics 45 (November 1983) : 840-865. Jacobs, Dan N.; Conradt, David P.; Peters, B. Guy.; and Safran, William; eds. Comparative Politics Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 19 83. Joffe, Josef, "European-American Relations: The Enduring Crisis." Foreign Affairs 59 (Spring 1981): 835-851. Joffe, Josef. "Europe and America: The Politics of Resentment (Con't)." Foreign Affairs 61 (America and the World 1982) : 569-590.

PAGE 362

346 Joffe, Josef. "The Eclipse of the Peace Movement." The New Republic 11 June 1984a, pp. 21-23. Joffe, Josef. "Europe's American Pacifier." Survival 26 (July, August 1984b): 174-181. Joffe, Josef. "The Foreign Policy of the Federal Republic of Germany." In Foreign Policy in World Politics 6th ed., pp. 72-111. Edited by Roy C. Macridis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1985. Judd, Charles M. and Milburn, Michael A. "The Structure of Attitude Systems in the General Public: Comparisons of a Structural Equation Model." American Sociological Review 45 (August 1980): 627-643. Kaltefleiter, Werner, and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L. eds. The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States New York: St. Martin's, 1985. Kaplan, Mortan A. The Rationale for NATO Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973. Kelleher, Catherine M. "America Looks at Europe: Change and Continuity in the 1980s." Washington Quarterly 7 (Winter 1984) : 33-49. Kelman, Herbert C. ed. International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis New York: Holt, 1965. Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S. Power and Interdependence Boston: Little, Brown, 1977. Kim, Jao-On, and Mueller, Charles W. Introduction to Factor Analysis Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978. Kim, Jao-On, and Mueller, Charles W. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985. Kissinger, Henry A. The Troubled Partnership: A Re-appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1966. Klecka, William R. "Applying Political Generations to the Study of Political Behavior." Public Opinion Quarterly 35 (Fall 1971) : 358-373. Klingemann, Hans D. "Ideological Conceptualization and Political Action." In Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies pp. 279-304. Edited by Samuel Barnes and Max Kaase. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.

PAGE 363

347 Knudsen, Baard B. Europe Versus America: Foreign Policy in the 1980s Paris: Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, 1984. Kriegel, Annie. "Generational Differences: The History of an Idea." Daedalus 107 (Fall 1978): 23-38. Ladd, Everett C. Where Have All the Voters Gone ? New York: Norton, 1978. Lafferty, William M. and Knutsen, Oddbjorn. "Postmaterialism in a Social Democratic State." Comparative Political Studies 17 (January 1985) : 411-430 Laqueur, Walter. A Continent Astray: Europe 1970-1978 New York: Oxford, 1979. Laqueur, Walter. "Hollanditis : A New Stage of European Neutralism" Commentary 72 (August 1981): 19-26. Laqueur, Walter. Europe Since Hitler rev ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Laqueur, Walter. America, Europe, and the Soviet Union: Collected Essays New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1983a. Laqueur, Walter, ed. Looking Forward, Looking Back: A Decade of World Politics New York: Praeger, 1983b. Laqueur, Walter. "Foreward." In West German Foreign Policy: The Domestic Setting pp. v-vii. By Gebhard Schweigler. New York: Praeger, 1984. Laqueur, Walter. "Youth and Politics." Washington Quarterly 8 (Summer 1985): 5-11. Laqueur, Walter, and Stoppa-Liebl, Paolo. "Europe After INF: Attitudes Toward Defense and Implications for NATO." Paper prepared for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., 1984. Leebaert, Derek, ed. European Security: Prospects for the 1980 s Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1979. Lehmbruch, Gerhard. "Liberal Corporatism and Party Government." In Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation pp. 147-184. Edited by Philippe C. Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979. Levi, Arrigo. "Western Values and the Successor Generation" NATO Review 30 (June 1982) : 2-7.

PAGE 364

348 Lewis-Beck, Michael S. "France: The Stalled Electorate." In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment pp. 425-450. Edited by Russel J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Lieber, Robert J. British Politics and European Unity: Parties, Elites, and Pressure Groups Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Lieber, Robert J. The Oil Decade: Conflict and Cooperation in the West New York: Praeger, 1983. Lieber, Robert J. "British Foreign Policy: The Limits of Maneuver." In Foreign Policy in World Politics 6th ed., pp. 1-19. Edited by Roy C. Macridis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985. Lijphart, Arend. "The Comparative Cases Strategy in Comparative Research." Comparative Political Studies 9 (July 1975): 158-177. Lijphart, Arend. "Religious vs Linguistic vs Class Voting: The Crucial Experiment of Comparing Belgium, Canada, South Africa, and Switzerland." American Political Science Review 73 (June 1979) : 442-458. Lipset, Seymour M. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1960. Long, J. Scott. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983. Macridis, Roy C, ed. Foreign Policy in World Politics 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1985a. Macridis, Roy C. "French Foreign Policy: The Quest for Rank." In Foreign Policy and World Politics 6th ed., pp. 22-69. Edited by Roy C. Macridis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1985b. Mandelbaum, Michael. "The Anti-Nuclear Weapons Movements." PS 17 (Winter 1984): 24-32. Mandelbaum, Michael, and Schneider, William. "The New Internationalism." In Eagle Entangled: United States Foreign Policy in a Complex World pp. 34-88. Edited by Kenneth A. Oye, Robert J. Lieber, and Donald Rothchild. New York: Longman, 1979. Mannheim, Karl. Essays On the Sociology of Knowledge Edited by Paul Kecskmeti. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1952.

PAGE 365

349 Marcus, George E.; Tabb, David; and Sullivan, John L. "The Application of Individual Differences Scaling to the Measurement of Political Ideologies." American Journal of Political Science 18 (May 1974) : 405-420 Martin, Stephen S. "New Methods Lead to Familiar Results: A Comment on Judd and Milburn, The Structure of Attitude Systems." American Sociological Review 46 (October 1981): 670-675. Mas low, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality New York: Harper, 1954. Mason, Karen 0. "Some Methodological Issues in Cohort Analysis of Archival Data." American Sociological Review 38 (April 1973): 242-258. Mclver, John P., and Carmines, Edward G. Unidimensional Scaling Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981. Merritt, Richard L. and Puchala, Donald. West European Perspectives Toward International Affairs New York: Praeger, 1968. Miller, Judith. "US Is Planning Bid to Win Over Europe's Young." New York Times 4 April 19 83, p. 1. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Mitrany, David. A Working Peace System Chicago: Quadrangle, 1966. Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace 5th ed. New York: Knopf, 1978. Morony, Thomas. "Allies Are Different." Parameters 16 (Winter 1986) : 9-14. Mueller, John. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion New York: Wiley, 1973. Myers, Kenneth, ed. NATO and the Next Thirty Years Boulder, CO: Westview, 1980. Nachmias, David and Nachmias, Chara. Research Methods in the Social Sciences 2d ed. New York: St. Martins, 1981. Neustadt, Richard E. Alliance Politics New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. New York Times, 3 October 1985, p. A, 4.

PAGE 366

350 New York Times 16 April 1986, p. A, 14. Noelle-Neuman, Elisabeth, ed. The Germans: Public Opinion Polls, 1967-1980 Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981a. Noelle-Neuman, Elisabeth. "Much Ado About Nothing." Public Opinion 4 (August, September 1981b): 13. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. "The Missile Gap: The German Press and Public Opinion." Public Opinion 6 (October-November 1983): 45-49. Norusis, Marija J. SPSS Introductory Statistics Guide New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983. Norusis, Marija J. SPSS Advanced Statistics Guide New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. Ostrom, Charles W. Jr. Time Series Analysis: Regression Techniques Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978. Ostry, Sylvia. "The World Economy in 19 83: Making Time." Foreign Affairs 62 (America and the World 1984) : 533-560. Oye, Kenneth A.; Lieber Robert J.; and Rothchild, Donald, eds. Eagle Entangled: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Complex World New York: Longman, 1979. Parsons, Talcott, and Shils, Edward A., eds. Toward a General Theory of Action Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. Patterson, William E. "Forward." In Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe: A Comparative Approach pp. 1-6. Edited by Christopher Hill. Westmead, England: Saxon House, 1978. Penniman, Howard R., ed. Italy at the Polls: The Parliamentary Elections of 1976 Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977. Penniman, Howard R. ed. Italy at the Polls, 1979: A Study of the Parliamentary Elections Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research, 1981. Peters, B. Guy. "France." In Comparative Politics pp. 81-151. Edited by Dan N. Jacobs, David P. Conradt, B. Guy Peters, and William Safran. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1983.

PAGE 367

351 Pfaltzgraff, Robert. The Atlantic Community: A Complex Imbalance New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969. Prewitt, Kenneth, and Stone, Allan. The Ruling Elites: Elite Theory, Power, and American Democracy New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Przeworski, Adam, and Teune Henry. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1970 Puchala, Donald J. "Europeans and Europeanism in 1970." International Organization 27 (Summer 1973): 387-392. Puchala, Donald J. "West Germany and the United States: The End of Atlantic Consensus?" Unpublished manuscript. University of South Carolina, 1984. Puchala, Donald J., and Rosenthal, Glenda G. "The Atlantic Alliance and the New Europeanist Identity." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 1983. Putnam, Robert D. "Italian Foreign Policy: The Emergent Consensus." In Italy at the Polls: The Parliamentary Elections of 1976 pp. 287-326. Edited by Howard R. Penniman. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977. Pym, Francis. "Defense in Democracies." International Security 7 (Summer 1982) : 40-44. Rabier, Jachques-Rene, and Inglehart, Ronald. 1970 European Community Study (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1976a. Rabier, Jacques, Rene, and Inglehart, Ronald. European Community Study: Political Attitudes in Europe September-October 1973 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor; Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1976b. Rabier, Jacques-Rene, and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 6: Twenty Years of the Common Market, October-November 1976 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1978. Rabier, Jaques-Rene, and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 8: Men, Women and Work Roles in Europe, October-November 19 77 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1980a.

PAGE 368

352 Rabier, Jaques-Rene, and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 10; National Priorities and the Institutions of~ Europe, October-November 19 78 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbors Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1980b. Rabier, Jaques-Rene, and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 11; Year of the Child in Europe, April 1979 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1981. Rabier, Jaques-Rene; Riffault, Helene; and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 13: Regional Development and Integration, April 1980 (machine-readable data file) 2d ed. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1983a. Rabier, Jaques-Rene, Riffault, Helene; and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 14: Trust in the European Community, October 19 80 (machine-readable data file) 2d ed. Ann Arbor: inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1983b. Rabier, Jaques-Rene; Riffault, Helene; and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 16: Noise and Other Social Problems, October 1981 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1983c. Rabier, Jaques-Rene; Riffault, Helene; and Inglehart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 17: Energy and the Future, April 1982 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1983d. Rabier, Jaques-Rene; Riffault, Helene; and Ingelhart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 18: Ecological Issues, October 1982 (machine-readable data file) Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1983e. Rabier, Jaques-Rene; Riffault, Helene; and Ingelhart, Ronald. Euro-Barometer 19: Gender Roles in the European Community, April 19 83 (machine-readable data file) 2d ed. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1983f. Rattinger, Hans. "The Federal Republic of Germany: Much Ado About (Almost) Nothing." In The Public and Atlantic Defense pp. 101-174. Edited by Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger. London: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985.

PAGE 369

353 Rattinger, Hans. "Lasting Success of the Successor Generation? West German Public Attitudes on National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the Early 1980s." Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Anaheim, CA, March 1986. Reid, Escott. Time of Fear and Hope Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977. Reynolds, H.T. Analysis of Nominal Data 2d ed. Beverly Hills: Sage 1984. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values New York: Free Press, 1973. Rose, Richard, ed. Comparative Electoral Behavior New York: Free Press, 1974. Rosenau, James N. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy New York: Random House, 1961. Rosenau, James N. "Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy." In Approaches to Comparative and International Politics pp. 27-92. Edited by Barry Farrell. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1966. Rosenau, James N. ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy New York: Free Press, 1967. Rosenau, James N., ed. In Search of Global Patterns New York: Free Press, 1976. Rosenau, James N. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy rev ed. New York: Nichols, 1980. Rosenberg, Milton J., and Hovland, Carl I. "Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Components of Attitudes." In Attitude Organization and Change pp. 1-14. Edited by Carl I. Hovland and Milton J. Rosenberg. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Rossi, Sergio A. "The Peace Movement in Italy." In The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States pp. 140-161. Edited by Werner Kaltefleiter and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff. New York: St. Martin's, 1985a. Rossi, Sergio A. "Public Opinion and Atlantic Defense in Italy." In The Public and Atlantic Defense pp. 175-220. Edited by Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger. London: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985b.

PAGE 370

354 Rummel, R. J. Applied Factor Analysis Evans ton: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Russett, Bruce, and DeLuca, Donald R. "'Don't Tread on Me': Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in the Eighties." Political Science Quarterly 96 (Fall 1981): 381-399. Russett, Bruce, and DeLuca, Donald R. "Theater Nuclear Forces: Public Opinion in Western Europe." Political Science Quarterly 98 (Summer 1983) : 179-196. Safran, William. The French Polity New York: David McKay, 19 77. Safran, William. "France." In Comparative Politics pp. 81-151. Edited by Dan N Jacobs, David P. Conradt, B. Guy Peters, and William Safran. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1983. Samuels, Richard J., ed. Political Generations and Political Development Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977. Sartori, Giovani. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Sassoon, Donald. "The Making of Italian Foreign Policy." In Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe: A Comparative Approach pp. 83-105. Edited by William Wallace and W. E. Paterson. Westmead, England: Saxon House, 1978. Savage, James. "Postmaterialism of the Left and Right: Political Cleavage in Postindustrial Society." Comparative Political Studies 17 (January 1985): 431-452. Schmidt, Peter. Europeanization of Defense: Prospects of Consensus ? Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1984. Schmidt, Peter. "Public Opinion and Security Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany." Orbis 28 (Winter 1985): 719-742. Schmitter, Philippe C, and Lehmbruch, Gerhard, ed. Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979. Schneider, William. "Elite and Public Opinion: The Alliance's New Fissure?" Public Opinion 6 (February-March, 1983): 5-8.

PAGE 371

355 Schneider, William. "Peace and Strength: American Public Opinion on National Security." In The Public and Atlantic Defense pp. 321-363. Edited by Gregory Flynn and Hans Rattinger. London: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985. Schweigler, Gebbard. West German Foreign Policy: The Domestic Setting New York: Praeger, 1984. Serfaty, Simon. Fading Partnership New York: Praeger, 1979. Serre, Francoise de la. "Foreign Policy of the European Community." In Foreign Policy in World Politics 6th ed., pp 411-433. Edited by Roy C. Macridis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1985. Shaffer, Stephen M. "West European Public Opinion on Key Security Issues." USICA Research Report, 1982. Sharp, Jane M. 0. "Arms Control, Alliance Cohesion, and Extended Deterrence." Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C. October 1985a. Sharp, Jane M. 0. "Reshaping NATO Nuclear Policy." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1985b): 38-44. Shively, W. P. The Craft of Political Research: A Primer Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Shoemaker, Christopher, and Spanier, John. Patron-Client State Relationships: Multilateral Crises in the Nuclear Age New York: Praeger, 1984. Sloan, Stanley R. NATO's Future: Toward a New Transatlantic Bargain Washington, D.C: National Defense University Press, 1985. Smith, Michael. Western European and the United States: The Uncertain Alliance London: George Allen and Unwin, 1984. Soerensen, Carsten, Lehmann, Ian, Inglehart, Ronald, and Rabier, Jacques-Rene. "A European Security Policy? The Attitudes of Candidates for the European Parliament." Scandinavian Political Studies 4 (October 1980): 347-371. Spanier, John. American Foreign Policy Since World War II 9th ed. New York: Holt, 19 83. SPSSx Basics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 84.

PAGE 372

356 SPSSx User's Guide New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983. Stimson, James A. "Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election." American Journal of Political Science 19 (August 1975) : 393-418. Stokes, Donald E. "Spatial Models of Party Competition." In Elections and the Political Order pp. 161-179. Edited by Angus Campbell. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Stoppa-Liebl, Paolo. "Italy." Washington Quarterly 8 (Summer 1985) : 28-34. Stoppa-Liebl, Paolo, and Laqueur, Walter. "Europe After INF." Washington Quarterly 8 (Spring 1985): 73-85. Stoppa-Liebl, Paolo. "Italy." Washington Quarterly 8 (Summer 1985) : 28-34. Szabo, Stephen F. "The Successor Generation in Europe." Public Opinion 6 (February-March 1983a): 9-11. Szabo, Stephen F. ed. The Successor Generation: International Perspectives of Postwar Europeans London: Butterworth, 1983b. Szabo, Stephen F. "Brandt's Children: The West German Successor Generation." Washington Quarterly 7 (Winter 1984): 50-59. Talbott, Strobe. Deadly Gambits: The Reagan Administration and the Stalemate in Nuclear Arms Control New York: Knopf, 1984„ Thies, Wallace J. The Atlantic Alliance, Nuclear Weapons, and European Attitudes: Re-examining the Conventional Wisdom Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies, 1983. Thies, Wallace J. "What Future For the Atlantic Alliance." Parameters 16 (September 1986) : 26-35. Thompson, Wayne. E. and Wittig, Peter. "The West German Defense Policy Consensus: Stable or Eroding?" Armed Forces and Society 10 (Spring 1984): 327-360. Time 8 September 1986a, p. 45. Time 22 September 1986b, p. 57. Time 13 October 1986c, p. 51.

PAGE 373

357 Truman, David B. The Governmental Process New York: Knopf, 1951. Tuft, E.R., ed. The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1970. Verba, Sidney. "On Revisiting The Civic Culture: A Personal Postscript." In The Civic Culture Revisited pp. 394-410, Edited by Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980. Verba, Sidney; Brody, R.; Parker, E.; Nie, N.; Polsby, P.; Ekman, P.; and Black, C. "Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam." American Political Science Review 61 (June 1967) : 317-333. Verba, Sidney; Nye, N.; and Kim, J. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Wall Street Journal 21 March 1984, p. 1. Wallace, William. "Old States and New Circumstances: The International Predicament of Britain, France, and Germany." In Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe: A Comparative Approach pp. 31-55. Edited by William Wallace and W. E. Patterson. Westmead, England: Saxon Kouse, 1978. Wallace, William, and Patterson, W. E., eds. Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe: A Comparative Approach Westmead, England: Saxon House, 197 8. Wallach, John. "What Europe's Leaders are Saying." Washington Quarterly 5 (Winter 1982): 33-46. Webb, Norman L., and Wybrow, Robert J. "Friendly Persuasion: Advice From Britain." Public Opinion 6 (February/March 1983): 13,52. Wertman, Douglas. "Italian Attitudes on Foreign Policy Issues: Are There General Differences?" In The Successor Generation: International Perspectives of Postwar Europeans pp. 100-116. Edited by Stephen Szabo. London: Butterworth, 1983. Wildenmann, Rudolf. "Public Opinion and the Defense Effort: Trends and Lessons, Europe." In Defense and Consensus: The Domestic Aspects of Western Security pp. 24-28. Edited by Christoph Bertram. New York: St. Martin's, 1983. Wildt, Albert R. and Anatola, Olli T. Analysis of Covariance. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978.

PAGE 374

358 Williams, Geoffrey. The Permanent Alliance; The European-American Partnership 1945-1984 Leyden, The Netherlands: Sijthoff Publishing Company B.V. 1979. Winn, Gregory F. T. "Westpolitik: Germany and the Atlantic Alliance." Atlantic Community Quarterly 21 (Summer 1983): 140-150. Wittkopf, Eugene R. "The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes: An Alternative View." Social Science Quarterly 62 (March 1981): 108-123. Wittkopf, Eugene R. "Elites and Masses: Constancy and Change in Public Attitudes Toward America's World Role." Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Southern Political Science Association, Birmingham, AL, November 19 83. Wittkopf, Eugene R. "Public Attitudes Toward American Foreign Policy in the Post-Vietnam Decade." Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 1984. Wittkopf, Eugene R. and Kegley, Charles W. "Beyond Consensus: The Domestic Context of American Foreign Policy." International Journal 38 (Winter 1982-83): 77-106. Wittkopf, Eugene R. and Maggiotto, Michael A. "American Public Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy." International Studies Quarterly 25 (December 1981): 601-631. Wittkopf, Eugene R., and Maggiotto, Michael A. "Elites and Masses: A Comparative Analysis Toward America's World Role." Journal of Politics 45 (May 1983a): 303-334. Wittkopf, Eugene R. and Maggiotto, Michael A. "The Two Faces of Internationalism: Public Attitudes Toward American Foreign Policy in the 1970s — and Beyond?" Social Science Quarterly 64 (June 1983b): 288-304. Yost, David S. "European-American Relations and NATO's Initial Missile Deployment." Current History 83 (April 1984) : 145-149, 184-186. Yost, David S., and Glad, Thomas C. "West German Party Politics and Theater Nuclear Modernization Since 1977." Armed Forces and Society 8 (Summer 1982): 525-560. Ziegler, Andrew H., Jr. "Foreign Policy and Defense Attitudes in West Europe: Trends and Implications." Unpublished thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1984.

PAGE 375

359 Ziegler, Andrew H. Jr. "Public Attitudes in Europe Toward Atlantic Cooperation: A Comparative Analysis." Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987a. Ziegler, Andrew H. Jr. "The Structure of West European Attitudes Toward Atlantic Cooperation: Implications for the Western Alliance." British Journal of Political Science (forthcoming July 1987b)

PAGE 376

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Andrew H. Ziegler, Jr. Major of Infantry, United States Army, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. His responsibilities there include being course director for the comparative politics elective and administering the Academy's Crossroads Africa program. Prior to his present assignment, Major Ziegler served in a variety of command and staff positions in the Army. These included secretary of the general staff for the 3d Armored Division, Frankfurt, West Germany (1981-1982); mechanized infantry company commander, Gelnhausen, West Germany (1979-1981) ; and platoon leader, company executive officer, and assistant operations officer in an airborne infantry battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (1975-1979). Major Ziegler' s military awards include the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal. In August of 1987, Major Ziegler will become a student at the Army's Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Following a year of studies there, he 360

PAGE 377

361 will return to an infantry battalion in one of the Array's active divisions either in the United States or overseas. Major Ziegler has a Bachelor of Science degree from Florida State University (1974) a Master of Arts degree from the University of Florida (1984) and he is a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Florida. He is also a graduate of the Army's Infantry Officer's basic and advanced courses as well as the airborne and ranger courses. Major Ziegler was born in Alliance, Ohio, in 1952, and he graduated from Brandon High School in Brandon, Florida, in 1970. He currently lives in Newburgh, New York, with his wife, Kalli, and cheir two daughters, Rebekah and Rachel.

PAGE 378

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ^ %JjP David P. Conradt, Chairman Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. be Keith R. Legg x Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. YltU/A n Sparvl ofessor^of Political Science

PAGE 379

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Kenneth Wald Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. OC&SL,— / '*£ Alan Agrestl Professor of Statistics This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 1987 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 380

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08553 7578


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EQTNUTS7H_6UX48L INGEST_TIME 2017-07-11T22:06:25Z PACKAGE AA00003801_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES