This special issue focuses on the role of civil society in international relations. It highlights the dynamics and impacts of public opinion on international relations (Zaller, 1992). Until recently, it was usual to consider public opinion in terms of its influence on policy makers and in terms of moulding public opinion in the broad frame of the policy makers in one's country. Given that public opinion in the United States was assessed and judged so frequently and diffused so globally, it was natural to frame questions guided by those concepts which pertained to the global and domestic context of the United States.

Chinese influence in Asia is complicated by many factors. There are those who argue that China's growing military and economic power make this influence an automatic threat, while others maintain that China's recent attempts at a ‘charm offensive’ mute this threat and have succeeded in creating a positive image for many of its regional neighbors. Drawing on survey data collected across 23 countries, we enter this debate by asking what individuals in and across Asia think about Chinese influence. Do they see this influence as positive or negative? What factors at the individual and national levels most clearly shape their perceptions? Using multilevel statistical analysis, we find that Asian opinions of Chinese influence are on the whole quite positive and are influenced by a range of factors, including foreign policy interest, national identification, foreign contact, and recent military conflict.

In what countries and among which individuals in Asia is China's influence seen as least favorable? Drawing upon AsiaBarometer survey data from 12 Asian societies between 2006 and 2008, this study tests a series of hypotheses aimed at identifying those variables that most consistently predict individuals’ perceptions of China. With the exceptions of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, a clear plurality or a majority of respondents in each polity views China's influence positively. Concerns about domestic economic management were most consistently associated with perceptions of China that are more unfavorable, while greater levels of contact with the Chinese film and television culture were consistently associated with perceptions of China that are more favorable. These results suggest that China is more likely to be seen as an economic rather than military threat by Asian publics, and that Asia may prove responsive to a nuanced soft power campaign by Beijing in the future.

Despite Australia's increasing economic ties with Asia, little is known about how it is perceived by the typical citizen in the region. This paper seeks to contribute to the Australian discussion on ‘Asian engagement’, as well as to a general understanding of the structure of foreign policy beliefs, by examining perceptions of Australia's influence among the mass publics of 14 Asian polities. Despite some anxiety in Australia on national op-ed pages and among political leaders over how the country is perceived, we find that the average person in Asia probably does not have a strong or meaningful opinion about Australia's foreign policy. Using survey data covering the years 2006 through 2008 from the AsiaBarometer project, we find that, on average, far more people view Australia's influence on their country favorably (40.5%) than view it unfavorably (6.1%). A similar percentage (41.5%), however, have neutral views of Australia's influence, and 12% of people in Asian nations express no opinion on the topic. We suggest these high frequencies of neutral perceptions and non-response are evidence of considerable indifference towards Australia. Furthermore, we investigate the correlates of perceptions of Australia's influence and find that in almost all cases citizens’ views about US and Chinese influence on their country are much better predictors of their views of Australia's influence than core values, identity, information, and demographic characteristics. We posit that opinions about Australia, even those that are favorable, may have less to do with perceptions of Australia specifically, and more to do with respondents’ general internationalist sentiment or perceptions of major powers.

Samuel Huntington's influential clash of civilizations hypothesis (Huntington, 1993; Huntington, 1996) has been widely debated, but empirical tests of his ideas about core states remain limited at the micro-level. In this paper, we bring new evidence to bear, focusing on the ‘cauldron of civilizations’: Greater Asia and the Pacific. Using the AsiaBarometer, we examine the extent to which publics in the region identify with the core states of the supposedly most contentious civilizations in the region – the US, China, and Iran – and the factors that influence those perceptions. We give attention to the role of globalization and nationalism and whether both may be subsumed by religiosity as Huntington suggests. Our descriptive evidence affirms some of the tensions between the US, China, and Islamic-predominant Asia identified by Huntington as areas of potential conflict. At the same time, we find no evidence to suggest that attitudes toward core states are zero-sum; Asian publics often see rival powers as mutually good influences. Using multivariate analysis, we find that religiosity, as the clash paradigm surmises, boosts Iranian influence and undermines American influence in several predominantly Islamic states. We also find, contrary to Huntington, that overall exposure to foreign cultures leads to a more positive assessment of American influence among Chinese and Pakistanis, as well as American perceptions of China. When foreign exposure influences perceptions of Iran, the effect is modestly, but consistently, negative. Taken together, the findings raise questions about two key assumptions of the Huntington framework – civilizational identity formation and cultural resurgence – and suggest that alternative approaches in recent civilizations literature show greater empirical promise.