Pakistani Disapproval of U.S.

Leadership Soars in 2012

Pakistanis’ approval of the leadership of their ostensible ally, the United States, has historically been quite low. However, perceptions began to change, albeit modestly, through much of Obama’s first term. As recently as May 2011, 27% of Pakistanis approved of U.S. leadership, the apex of support. Noticeably, approval declined after the May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, carried out by the U.S. military without the assistance of the Pakistani military — an event that many Pakistanis viewed as a blatant disregard for Pakistani sovereignty.

These findings are based on a survey conducted from Sept. 30-Oct. 16, 2012, in Pakistan. The survey directly followed massive demonstrations against the release of an anti-Muslim film made in the U.S.
Concurrently, Pakistanis now more than at any other time in the past three years feel threatened by interaction with the West, according to a May 12-June 6, 2012, survey. A majority (55%) say interaction between Muslim and Western societies is “more of a threat,” up significantly from 39% in 2011. This sharp increase is observed at a time of heightened Pakistani concerns regarding U.S. encroachment on Pakistani sovereignty, including an intensified number of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, as well as the aforementioned May 2011 killing of bin Laden by the United States military. Thirty-one percent instead see interaction between Muslim and Western societies as “more of a benefit,” and the other 13% are unsure.

Similar majorities of younger and older Pakistanis — 57% of Pakistanis aged 15 to 29 and 53% of those 30 or older — deem interaction with the West as a threat. However, younger Pakistanis are slightly more likely to have an opinion on this matter: Fewer than one in 10 (9%) answered “don’t know,” whereas almost a fifth (17%) of older Pakistanis were unsure. Nearly half of the Pakistani population (49%) is between the ages of 15 and 29. The largely anti-Western sentiment among these young Pakistanis suggests that, even as this sizable group ages and begins to have a larger role in Pakistani governance, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan may continue to be fraught with challenges.

Ahead of Elections, Faith in Civilian Government Collapses
Relatedly, the public’s confidence in the Pakistani national government — sometimes seen by Pakistanis as too cozy to the U.S. government — has nosedived, reaching a low of 23% in March and October 2012. This is down from 54% in December 2008, shortly after the beginning of democratically elected President Asif Ali Zardari’s administration.
Conversely, confidence in the interventionist military — the organization that has ruled the nation for over half of its post-independence history — climbed to 88% in October 2012. While support for the military in Pakistan has traditionally been very high, it has regularly met or eclipsed 80% since 2010.

The upcoming May elections in Pakistan will be of seismic importance for the future direction of the country and for U.S.-Pakistani relations. The elections will mark the first time in the country’s history that a civilian government peacefully transfers power to a new civilian government. Insomuch as the role of the U.S. in Pakistan weighs on the campaign dialogue, the perceived failures of the current regime might translate into the election of political actors that are more hostile or confrontational toward U.S. interests.
Implications
Due to such events as the elimination of bin Laden by the U.S. military and the reported authorization of 350 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, relations between the Obama administration and Pakistan have been steadily deteriorating. By virtue of John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA and a recently leaked Justice Department memo outlining the legal justification for using drones to target suspected terrorists who are also U.S. citizens in foreign countries such as Pakistan, the wisdom and/or effectiveness of this policy is receiving new attention in the U.S. Undoubtedly this question must be viewed through a number of different lenses, including, but not limited to, the overall strategic success of the drone campaign and its impact on necessary actors, such as the Pakistani government, in the United States’ continued efforts to identify and eliminate terrorists.
On both accounts, these data may give U.S. policymakers pause. The growing, indeed essentially universal, distaste for U.S. leadership in Pakistan, a nation of such crucial importance — while perhaps not directly attributable to the increasing number of drones deployed there — will undoubtedly strain future relations between the two countries.

As this happens, Pakistan itself is at a pivotal moment in its history. The upcoming May elections have the potential to begin a tradition of civilian government and peaceful transitions between democratically elected administrations. Yet this opportunity comes, somewhat ironically, at a time when the public has lost confidence in its civilian government. The degree to which the U.S.-conducted operations within Pakistan have weakened the political position of the existing Pakistani government is an open question, but the concomitant erosion of approval of U.S. and Pakistani leadership on the Pakistani public’s part is impossible not to notice. Pakistanis instead put their trust in the military, an important institution with a meddlesome history in national governing affairs. What these trends mean for the coming election is unclear, but they suggest that the next few months could be of vital importance for the stability of the Pakistani government and the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.
For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries Gallup continually surveys, please contact us.

Survey Methods
Results are based on face-to-face interviews with about 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older. Surveys were conducted in October 2012, June 2012, March 2012, May 2011, May 2010, December 2009, June 2009, May 2009, December 2008, October 2008, June 2008, June 2007, and September 2005 in Pakistan.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error ranges from ±3.1 to ±4.2 percentage points. Results presented by subgroup would have a higher margin of error. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For  complete  survey , please Click:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160439/2012-pakistani-disapproval-leadership-soars.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=World

Print this Report

Print this Report

1.              A Report (58 pages) “The Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan“, pub by Pew Research Center, on 27 Jun, 2012. Results for the survey in Pakistan are based on 1,206 face-to-face interviews of adults conducted March 28 to April 13, 2012. According to report Pakistanemerged as the only country where ratings for Obama were no better than the ratings for George W Bush in his final year in office. The report also showed that Pakistanis consider India as their top threat.

2.              The report has fol main points:-

•   Roughly Pakistanis (74%) consider the U.S. an enemy, up from 69% last year and 64% three years ago.
•  The report revealed that only 13% Pakistanis believe thatrelations with the US have improved in recent years, down 16% points from 2011.
•   Only 17% back American drone strikes against leaders of extremist groups, even if they are conducted in conjunction with the Pakistani government.
• In international comparison, an overwhelming 80% majority in Pakistan currently have an unfavorable view of the US — with the 21 nations included in the spring 2012 Pew Global Attitudes survey, only Jordanians gave a more negative rating to the US (86%). Italy is on top with a 74% approval rating for the US.
•  With many experts claiming that almost the entire foreign policy of Pakistan is shaped keeping archrival India in mind, it is not surprising that only 22% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of India.
• A majority of the respondents when asked what the biggest threat to their country was, named India (59%) as opposed to the Taliban or al Qaeda. Pakistanis have consistently identified India as the top threat since the question was first asked in 2009, according to the Pew report.
•  Since 2009, the Pakistani public has also become less willing to use its own military to combat extremist groups. Three years ago, 53% favored using the army to fight extremists in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and neighboring Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but today just 32% hold this view.
• The most popular leader included on the survey is Imran Khan. Seven-in-ten Pakistanis offer a favorable opinion of the former cricket star and leader of the Pakistani Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI). This is essentially unchanged from last year, but up significantly from 2010.
• The military continues to receive overwhelmingly positive marks from the Pakistani public –77% say the institution is having a good influence on the country. Roughly six-in-ten (58%) also say this about the court system.
• Slightly more than half rate Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry favorably.  Ratings for both the army chief and the chief justice have slipped slightly since 2010.

Complete Report:  Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Pakistan-Report-FINAL-Wednesday-June-27-2012

Print this Report

Study:Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012

It is a matter  of satisfaction and pride for the ‘mediapoint.pk’ to have received a study from Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department Lahore on ‘”Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012″ . We are pleased not only to accept the study for publish but also congratulate the institution and the course instructor for guiding the young generation towards research work which is almost fading away in this part of the world. We also thank the Course Instructor for appreciating the research base which we are trying to provide to our readers. The remarks of course instructor and the important portion of the study are as below and the complete study has been placed on the link.

Course Instructor‘s Remarks

Dear …….(mediapoint.pk),

MA Part II, of Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department ,did a research study on ‘”Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012″ as their Final Exam Project for the subject of Media Laws under the supervision of Course Instructor Yasmeen Aftab Ali. The research study is being offered to be used,or part thereof, to Media Point.

Yasmeen Ali

The students doing the 4 segments is as follows:

M.A 1

Group Leader: Syed Ali Raza Hassan(Part 2 & 4)

Group Members

Yasir Sharif (Part 1)

Muneeb Sheikh(Part 3)

Rhansha Hassan(Part 3)

Conclusions of the Study

Data Analysis and Conclusion

PAK-US Relations:

The relations between both the countries were remained critical since the start. The reason behind it was that both of the nation always remained firm in their attitudes and benefits. The relations were totally selfish for own benefits. According to former Ambassador Bilminar, “I think Pak-US relations are somewhat rocky but both nations have always processed the benefits instead of friendship.”

…When the war between Pakistan and India were started, it was shocking for Pakistanis that Americans did not help us in this situation. Yet again, in 1971 and 1999, the U.S did not help us in the war against India. But Zia got a chance when Soviet Union attacked the Afghanistan and to defeat the super power the Americans needed someone in that region to help her to defeat that time’s super power in the Afghan war. After a long fight, the Soviet Union was defeated and this was the time when Taliban came into existence.

These are the few examples which depict that Pak-US relations were always used for their own benefits.

NATO Attack on Pakistani Check post:

On 26 November 2011, the NATO planes bombarded the Salala Check Post near the Mahmund Agency in which 26 soldiers were martyred. It was not the first time that such incident took place but the martyrs were greater in number this time that the Pakistani Government had to take action due the Pak army’s involvement and pressure. Pakistani official condemned this US drone attack and they demanded immediate action called inquiry of this incident. After sometime; the United States claimed that the incident has come into their notice; they offered their condolence to Government of Pakistan and they assured for timely inquiries.

Pakistan closed these supplies after the attack of NATO on Pakistani check post as a protest against this accident. Its Pakistan’s right!Pakistan reaction; stopping NATO supply Pakistani Government demanded U.S troops to vacate the Shamsi Air Base within 15 days. According to the inquiry report given by U.S that was released; it was mentioned that NATO had made a drone attack as a self defense from Pakistani troop’ firing. This increased the relationship barrier between the two countries. It is proving that Pakistan is guilty of everything because they fired first and NATO did was in defense. The most important point discussed in this article confuses the reader by saying that American officials did not trust their Pakistani counterparts enough to give them detailed information about American troop locations in Afghanistan. The reality is that there is no border clearly defined on the incident place where NATO killed 24 soldiers.

Collateral Interest:

1. 1.    United States:

The interest for U.S is as follows:

• Pakistan was charging negligible fee of transit which was just US$250 per truck.
• The price for the same trucks would have cost double; if the transportation route would have been Russia and Central Asia. In addition, if America would adopt Russia’s route, she would have to change her policies. In that case, Russia might put forth several conditions before U.S.

·         Other route is costly than the Pakistani government has demanded US$5000 transit fee for each NATO container and also said that we know that US is using far longer transport routes through Central Asia, is paying at least double the amount they have requested from them.

1. 2.    Pakistan:

The interest for Pakistan is as follows:

• Pakistan gets aid of billions of dollars.
• Pakistan is given ammunition from America as exchange deals.
• It remains convenient for Pakistan to continue its nuclear programs since no sanctions are imposed by U.S.

Mutual Interest:

It tells us how the NATO supplies benefits the people in different ways. An ordinary person tells that get quality things with reasonable prices by smuggling, the government of Pakistan gets an aid from US, for US this route is cheaper than western Asia and Russia and also Taliban gets weapons and ammunition when they attack the containers.

The option is giving to Pakistan that its presence is important because they will help striking a peace deal with the Taliban for US. Also HinaRabbani interview is actually clear diagnosis of what will happen? Chicago meeting is about forthcoming of Afghanistan once the withdrawal of Americans and also NATO in 2014.Apart from these issues like drones and also the apology, the two countries targeted four targeted things of energy cooperation: counterterrorism, the NATO provide lines, military help payments and also the Taliban serenity process are yet to be solved.

 Threat to Pakistan:

In any case the sufferer is Pakistan; if it keeps the NATO supply block U.S would block Pakistan’s aid and on the contrary if Pakistan opens the NATO supply, it might suffer future repercussions from the Taliban’s side since U.S is expected to call back its troops in 2014. Now it is up to Pakistan to make the decision whether it need short term or long term advantage.

Media Coverage Analysis:

This scenario reached its critical situation when as a time of Chicago Summit; U.S imposed a condition on Pakistan that she would be allowed to attend the Summit when the NATO supply would be restored. So it’s obvious that Pakistan was invited in Chicago after giving a clue to re-open the NATO supplies.The deal was expected between both sides after getting invitation of Chicago Summit. But the results of the summit were not so fruitful since Pakistan had charged a new price of rupees US$5000 per truck and the US expectations were not met. US still wants the NATO supply to be restored because this route is actually the key for them as it costs much less. The reason given by Pakistan for charging high prices were that NATO trucks are quite heavy and they cause a significance damage to the roads thus for maintaining the infrastructure Pakistan added the cost for the infrastructure maintenance. In addition to that Pakistan included the cost for scanning and road taxes. Pakistan held the stance that it needs to boost up its economy; this included the expenditures in upcoming elections and the budget. Regardless to interest to any specific country U.S has either ways to pay for the NATO trucks.

 The US believes that the supply issue will be solved because this route is critical for them because it costs less and it is much important for both sides.

It is clear that western media is hoping that Pakistan is interested in opening NATO supplies that’s why Pakistani president is going to attend summit in Chicago because he has plans to end its six-month blockade of the NATO supplies. It is pointing on the military establishment that they are forcing the government to open supplies because the US has frozen the flow of aid which is rated over $1 billionby U.S.

The western media has shown biased attitude by putting the examples that Pakistani Islamic parties are the biggest hurdle in the opening of supplies since Pakistan is under the influence of Taliban.

The second point tells us that this summit is important for Pakistan because it will decide the future of Pakistan when the Americans will withdraw in 2014. It is obvious that when the US and its allies will leave Afghanistan then in my point of view, the Taliban will come back because Karzai will also flow back but future will answer this question better.

It’s evident that the restoration of the NATO supplies hold the mutual interest for both the countries.

But it tells us that the refusal of apology by U.S would bring a domestic outcry in Pakistan which indicates that it will affect the US repute in the eyes of the people. Pakistan is divided into different thoughts and cultures which is ruling by an opinion leaders which will bring different thoughts for US in front of their followers so dual minded set will form after that refusal.

The facilitation is needed from both sides to reach the solution but the major issue still present of rampant of aid by US after blockage of routes.

The US and Pakistan talks have been failed due to the demand of the apology from Pakistan side and in return the Americans are withholding the promised military aid.

Political Interests:

The both sides are firm in their demands because if anyone step back/ showed any bent then it would not be good for its future in upcoming election. Obama if apologies with Pakistan then its competitor will raise a question that Obama spend all his era apologizing with other nations. Similarly, if Pakistan ruling alliances will open NATO supplies without apology then same thing would happen during elections.

Our unity is looked upon as a question mark in the whole world. Moreover, this step was considered to be a source for the government to negotiate with the U.S. the important point discussed was that all political parties wanted to have good relations with the United States but that “it cannot be an imbalanced relationship.” In short, the peace road and relation is open between Pakistan and U.S but the step has to be taken from both sides.

Propaganda of West:

The west is continually doing a propaganda against Pakistan by giving their biased option and telecasting the biased articles.

Our local channels are just reproducing the west propaganda because they work for money and majority of them only spreads distress and worry in society.

Data Analysis:

The questionnaire was given to 100 sample spaces. After collection of data we got following results which are as follows:

Do NATO Supply be opened?

Educational Level Awareness:

Transit Fee:

Media Coverage:

Do you like American policies?

Do Drone kill terroists:-

Complete:   Final Project NATO Supply Route

Print this Report

Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) tops the list of popular parties in Pakistan both at the national as well as provincial level, leaving Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peopleís Party (PPP) behind.

The survey from February 09 to March 08, conducted by the US-based International Republican Institute (IRI), reflected the popularity levels of different political parties.It showed PTI led with 31 percent votes, PML-N was the second leading party with 27 percent votes and PPP was at third position with 16 percent votes.

The population under study was representative of the adult population of Pakistan with sample size of 5,985 people aged 18 years and above. Kish method was used to select respondents aged 18 years and older within the randomly selected household. The left hand method was used to select every third household in localities selected through area probability sample.

PTI sources told The News a presentation was also given to the political parties about how the survey was conducted.In Punjab, PTI was second in terms of popularity, as it bagged 33 percent votes, PML-N popularity was recorded at 41 percent and PPP popularity stood at 09 percent. While in Sindh, the PPP led with 42 percent votes in polls, PTI secured second position with 15 percent, MQM was reflected having its popularity at 09 percent and PML-N stood at 06 percent. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Imranís party performed impressively and secured top position with 49 percent votes, whereas ANP stood at second position with 13 percent of votes, PPP popularity reflected its position at 09 percent and PML-N stood at 08 per cent in terms of popularity.

In Balochistan, PTI stood at top position with 35 percent votes, PML-N grabbed second position with 09 percent of the polled votes, JUI-F popularity graph was at 09 percent, whereas Balochistan National Party got 06 percent of the total votes.

It is said that the survey might be showing a picture of rise and fall of political partiesí popularity in the country but the polls results carried out by global or local institutes are far different from the results of general elections as shown in the past.

Keeping that factor in view, electoral experts believed the rising popularity of the PTI might be impressive but it was to be seen how this party will perform on the polling day if and when the general election is held.

IRI survey was not released for public so far. However, IRI made available the methodology and the demographics to demonstrate that the poll complies with professional standards in the industry.The sample was distributed at the provincial level, rural and urban, in all four provinces of Pakistan (except for Fata and Chitral).

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-14418-IRI-survey-shows-PTI-on-top-of-popularity-list

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Detailed Methodology for Survey of Pakistan Pulic Opinion, February 9-March 3, 2012

The population under study is representative of the adult population of Pakistan (see demographics below).

A multi-stage probability sample was used.   In the first stage, the sample was stratified into four provinces.  In the second stage, the sample was further stratified into districts within each province by rural and urban categories.  In the third stage, each district was further stratified by union councils.

Kish method was used to select respondents 18 years and older within the randomly selected household.  The left hand method was used to select every third household in localities selected through area probability sample.

The sample was distributed at the provincial level, rural and urban, in all four provinces of Pakistan (except for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Chitral).  The sample was then post-weighted to make it proportionate to national representation by province.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted.  The interview teams were comprised of both of males and females; the female respondents were interviewed by female interviewers and male respondents by male interviewers.

Sample size: 5,985

Eligibility: Age 18 and order

Margin of error: ±1.27 percent

Response Rate: Slightly more than 84 percent

The field work was conducted from February 9-March 3, 2012

Demographic Breakdown

http://www.iri.org/news-events-press-center/news/detailed-methodology-survey-pakistan-pulic-opinion-february-9-march-3-

Print this Report

3 X  polls conducted by Gilani Research foundation on 16^th, 17  and 18^th Apr 2012  respectively are as under:-  

    a.      A nationally representative sample of men and women from across the four provinces was asked “In your opinion, who is responsible for target killings in Karachi?” Responding to this, 46% believe that political parties are behind target killings in Karachi, 14% believe it to be work of US agencies, 8% believe it to be the work of Indian agencies while another 8% believe Pakistani agencies are behind target killings. 13% blame the land mafia however 11% did not give a view. 

b.       A nationally representative sample of men and women from across the four provinces was asked ““Recently, India offered 5000 Megawatt electricity to Pakistan which it accepted. In your opinion, by accepting this offer, Pakistan did a good job or bad?” Responding to this, 49% are in favor of Indian offer to sell electricity to Pakistan while 31% oppose the Indian offer. However 20% did not give a view.

c.      A nationally representative sample of men and women from across the four provinces was asked “How intense is the problem of load shedding in your area?” Responding to this, 75% believe it to be a very serious problem, 21% believe it to be a somewhat serious problem whereas 3% believe that it is not a problem at all.  However 1% did not give a view. www.gallup.com.pk

Print this Report

Half in Afghanistan Believe the Taliban Have Moderated;

Most Back Settlement Talks, Even with Territorial Concessions

Afghans express a growing sense that the Taliban have become more moderate, and the public broadly supports a negotiated settlement with them – even if that means ceding government control of some provinces, the latest Afghan Futures survey has found.

Forty-eight percent in this national survey say the Taliban have become more moderate, double the number three years ago. More, 74 percent, support a negotiated settlement that would allow Taliban members to hold political office, and 65 percent say they would accept a deal that gave the Taliban control of some provinces.

Three-quarters also would back a settlement allowing Taliban members to serve in the armed forces. And most would accept Taliban-inspired restraints on women’s ability to appear in public unescorted, although majorities reject other restrictions on women’s rights in a settlement deal.

For most, in any case, support for negotiations is premised on the Taliban laying down their arms.

Behind these attitudes lies an increased view that the Taliban have become more moderate since they ruled the country from 1996 to 2001. In early 2009, just 24 percent of Afghans saw the Taliban as more moderate than before; in late 2010, 32 percent said so; and in this survey – amid declining reports of Taliban-directed violence – nearly half see the group as more moderate.

That said, the Taliban hardly are popular: Only 12 percent of Afghans see them favorably overall. That compares with favorable ratings of 72 percent for the Afghan government and, at the time the survey was completed, 51 percent for the United States.

The survey was completed in January and February, 2012, via face-to-face interviews with a random national sample of 2,018 Afghans in all 34 provinces of the country. It’s the second in a series of publicly released surveys on attitudes in Afghanistan sponsored and conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR) in Kabul. Langer Research Associates of New York produced this analysis of results.

The survey was completed shortly before two events that may have affected views of the United States and NATO forces – the burning of Korans and other holy books by U.S. forces on Feb. 20 and the killing of 16 Afghan civilians, allegedly by a U.S. soldier, in Kandahar province March 11. ACSOR will repeat such questions, and others related to those incidents, in a follow-up survey to be released in May.

As of early February, fewer than one in four Afghans favored the immediate withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces, with more saying they should stay until Afghan forces are trained (37 percent) or the Taliban have been defeated (27 percent), if not longer. Seven in 10, moreover, said their lives in general had improved since the start of the U.S. presence in the country a decade ago.

Forty-five percent in the survey report development projects occurring in their area, and a majority, 57 percent, also say the country is generally heading in the right direction, 6 points fewer than said so in the first Afghan Futures survey in May 2010.

The survey also found some gains from polling last summer in ratings of basic living conditions. Availability of clean water, education for children, the security situation and freedom of movement all are rated positively by 70 percent or more. But the availability of jobs and electricity continue to languish, both rated positively by 39 percent.

Reconciliation

In addition to substantial support for reconciliation, the survey, as noted, finds new lows in reports of bombings, killings and arson of public buildings by the Taliban. Fewer than a quarter of Afghans report such activities in their area (23, 23 and 21 percent, respectively), well down from their highs of 43, 42 and 45 percent in a 2006 survey.

Among the survey’s results on reconciliation:

 Three-quarters support a negotiated settlement that would allow Taliban members to hold political office. At the same time, in response to a follow-up question, eight in 10 of those who support a settlement also say the government should negotiate only if the Taliban first put down their arms.

Support for a settlement holds steady if an agreement allows the Taliban to join the Afghan national security forces, and it’s 65 percent for a settlement that cedes control of some provinces to the Taliban.

Among groups, backing for a settlement is considerably lower in the Hazarjat region, chiefly populated by members of the Hazara ethnic group, which has been suppressed by the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

Fifty-seven percent of Afghans say they would support a settlement with the Taliban that prohibited women from being outside unescorted – not a reach, since in a 2010 survey, even in the absence of the prospect of a deal with the Taliban, Afghans divided 50-50 on whether women should be out unescorted in their own village or neighborhood, and by 61-38 percent opposed women going farther afield without an escort.

Regardless, majorities are unwilling to give up other women’s rights as part of a Taliban deal, including the ability to attend school, vote, work or hold political office.

Beyond the Taliban, nearly two-thirds also support negotiations with the Haqqani network, another armed insurgent group.

Belief that the Taliban have moderated is a strong factor in views on negotiating with the group: Depending on the conditions, support for a settlement is about 25 points higher among Afghans who think the Taliban are more moderate than it is among those who reject that suggestion. Support for a settlement allowing Taliban to hold political office, for example, includes 86 percent of those who see them as more moderate, vs. 61 percent of those who don’t.

Views that the Taliban have become more moderate peak in two areas of particularly strong Taliban influence, reaching 69 percent in the South West, which includes their home base, Kandahar; and 59 percent in the East, along the Pakistan border. This sentiment dives to 33 percent in the West, 38 percent in the Hazarjat and 41 percent in Kabul province.

Methodology

This survey was conducted Jan. 24-Feb. 3, 2012, by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR) in Kabul via in-person interviews with a random national sample of 2,018 Afghan adults in all 34 of the country’s provinces.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/04/08/20120408PNI0409-wir-U.S.html

Print this Report

Main points of the "gallup  survey"  pub on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th Feb 201 are as under:-

(1)          57% of Pakistani trust that ballot box (government through elections) can deliver good government; however 33% put greater trust in street revolution; 10% are unsure.( pub on :7 Feb,2012)

(2)          67% of women and 56% of men in Pakistan believe a working woman secures better prospects to live comfortably in old age.

(pub on : 6 Feb, 2012)

(3)          38% of Pakistanis say they do not know about the issue of ‘Presidential Immunity’. (pub on : February 03, 2012)

(4)          62% of Pakistanis heard or read about the sad death of a young computer genius girl, Arfa Kareem. (pub on :  February 02, 2012)

(5)    Majority (63%) favored Prime Minister’s personal appearance in the Supreme Court; 16% disapproved; 21% did not give a view.  (pub on :   February 01,2012)

www.gallup.com.pk

Print this Report

     An extract of survey “Arab Spring Fails to Improve US Image: Pew   Survey” pub by Pew Research Center, on 17 May, 2011.

2.              The four Chaps discuss  President Obama, American foreign policy, demonstrations in the Middle East , attitudes toward democracy and the role of Islam in society and extremist groups and suicide bombing.

3.              Results for the survey are based face-to-face interviews. All surveys are based on national samples except Pak, where the sample was disproportionately urban. Multi-stage cluster sample of all four provinces stratified by province (the FATA/FANA areas, Azad Jammu and Kashmir were excluded for security reasons.

    The survey has following main points.

a.    As President Obama prepares to make a major address on the tumultuous changes spreading throughout the Middle East, a new survey finds that the rise of pro-democracy movements has not led to an improvement in America’s image in the region. Instead, in key Arab nations and in other predominantly Muslim countries, views of the U.S. remain negative, as they have been for nearly a decade. Indeed, in Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, views are even more negative than they were one year ago.

b.    A perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally, opposition to the war on terror, and fears of America as a military threat. And in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Pakistan, most say their own governments cooperate too much with

c.    In Pakistan – a nation plagued by terrorism over the last few years – 41% of Muslims said these attacks are often or sometimes justified in 2004; just 4% hold that view today.

d.    Countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Pakistan, most say their own governments cooperate too much with the U.S.

e.    The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project March 21- April 26, suggests the enthusiasm for democracy displayed by protestors in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere is consistent with public opinion in majority Muslim nations.

f.     There is relatively little support for al Qaeda in Arab nations, Turkey and Indonesia.

g.    Meanwhile, almost no Turks (4%) or Lebanese (3%) express positive sentiments about al Qaeda.

Complete: www.pewresearch.org

Print this Report

1.          A survey ‘U.S Image in Pak Falls No Further Following Bin Laden Killing’ pub by Pew Research Center, on 21 Jun, 2011.

•               Main points of the survey are as under:-

(1)            Most Pakistanis disapprove of the U.S. military operation that killed Osama bin Laden, and although the al Qaeda leader has not been well-liked in recent years, a majority of Pakistanis describe his death as a bad thing. Only 14% say it is a good thing.

(2)           Moreover, many Pakistanis believe the U.S. raid on bin Laden’s compound – which was located about 35 miles from Islamabad will have a negative impact on the already strained relations between the U.S. and their country.

(3)          However, the current survey, taken after the raid, showed no material change in opinion of the U.S., when compared with polling conducted immediately before it. In fact, prior to the raid favorable ratings of the U.S. had already fallen to a level not seen since 2002, following the invasion of neighboring Afghanistan.

(4)          Currently, just 12% express a positive view of the U.S. and only 8% have confidence in President Barack Obama to do the right thing in world affairs.

(5)           Pakistanis are uncertain about their own government’s role in the military operation that killed bin Laden. About three-in-ten (29%) believe the Pakistani government authorized the raid and 23% say it did not, but 49% say they do not know. Only 18% think the government knew bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad and 29% do not think that was the case; again, roughly half (53%) offer no opinion.

Complete: www.pewresearch.org

Print this Report