First of all, yes, there is an overwhelming support for Obama in Iceland. There are various reasons for this. I think the biggest reason is that just like the other Scandinavian countries we are very liberal. And therefore most of us find it hard to agree with McCain on pretty much anything. [. . .]
But as you can see these are issues that don´t really affect us much over here although we all feel very strongly about them.
However, the US´s foreign policy does.
We feel that in the last 8 years the US has gone back to cold war tactics with worsening relations between the US and the EU and the US and Russia. [ . . . ] International collaberation is essential to help solve some of the major global crisis we are all facing. Not just economic crisis, but just as much (if not more, in the long run) poverty, climate changes, need for renewable energy sources etc.
[ . . . ]
Freyja, good to hear you're well, and that you can still make it to WDW this time around. We all hope you enjoy it, as always!
Thanks for the link, and for answering the comments that pop up. I agree with you that the results of the poll are fascinating, and being of Nordic descent myself, I agree with much of your analysis.
I can understand why liberal Icelandics would feel greater affinity with Obama than McCain, but that doesn't help to explain why the percentage supporting Obama is so high in other countries where the value base is different (say, in Roman Catholic Latin America, or in the Islamic countries). Also, you may find that some of Obama's views - such as on the right to bear arms - are far closer to those of McCain than to Scandinavians.
I think the second reason you give is the stronger one. For much of the rest of the world, the US is the elephant in the room, an elephant that has recently become (or at least been seen to have become) more unpredictable and liable to do more damage than good. When polls begin to indicate that the US is almost universally seen to be a greater danger to world peace than, say, Russia, China or even Iran or North Korea, than something is wrong. (I can give the references if anybody is interested.) This development has been strongly associated with George W, and for better or worse McCain as a fellow Republican is regarded as being prepared to follow the same foreign policy. Obama, in turn, is widely assumed to offer a different approach: more multilateralist, more likely to negotiate, less confrontational.
You list a number of issues that come up in international discussions - the financial crisis, poverty, climate change and energy. Military intervention is, of course, another biggie.
What I find interesting is that even though the domestic agenda presented by Obama and McCain are quite different, what little either one has said about foreign policy suggests that no matter which one wins in five days' time, U.S. foreign policy is not going to change that much come inauguration day.
It's true that both Obama and McCain appear to understand that the global image of the U.S. has to be improved, and either one will probably start mending fences with the EU, with Russia, with China, and even with Pakistan and other countries. However, neither one (no, not even Obama) is a multilateralist. It's true that Obama will probably try to work also through the UN - which he thinks is in need of serious reform - while McCain wants to replace the UN with a "league of democracies", but if any foreign country thinks that the U.S. will be more willing under Obama to negotiate away U.S. national priorities, they got a rude awakening coming.
The financial crisis? The two candidates are pretty much on the same page as this one.
Poverty alleviation? The sad truth is that as a result of the financial crisis, the U.S. is going to have to turn inwards for a while. There is too much work to do on Main Street, U.S.A., which means less attention to Haiti or Burkina Faso.
Climate change? Both Obama and McCain support caps.
Energy? A lot has been said about alleged differences between the two ("Drill, baby, drill!") but I don't think that the foreign policy implications are that great. Both want to decrease U.S. dependence on energy imports.
Military action? Despite what many Republicans are saying, there is not that much difference between the two on the war on terror and in particular against militant Islam. For example, Obama has clearly stated that military action again Iran remains on the table as an option, depending on how things go. And both Obama and McCain agree on strengthening U.S. military forces. (I don't know where the money is going to come from, though!)
Probably the main difference between the two is a simple result of the greater hopes directed by foreign countries towards Obama, and thus it is a difference in how they are perceived, not in their substance. Obama may be granted a longer honeymoon on the international stage than the more prickly McCain.
But even a long honeymoon has to come to an end.
Thanks again for posting the poll!
Feel free to ask if there´s anything I can help clarify.
