A new policy analysis by Michal Onderco and Atsushi Tago, published in Conflict Management and Peace Science, explores how geographic proximity shapes public support for aiding friendly nations under attack. The experimental study offers insights into how individuals in Japan and Czechia respond to hypothetical foreign invasions, with implications for international crisis response and alliance planning.
The research challenges simplistic assumptions about universal support for allies in conflict, showing instead that distance—and the perception of it—plays a key role in public willingness to back military and non-military interventions.
Key findings include:
1) Geographic closeness increases support for military intervention.
The study confirms that individuals are more inclined to support the use of force to defend friendly nations that are geographically proximate. Czech respondents showed lower support for helping distant Taiwan, while Japanese respondents strongly favored assisting nearby Taiwan. Perceived distance—not just actual geography—was the dominant factor influencing support.
2) Distance affects support for non-military aid, too.
Beyond military force, support for sanctions, economic assistance, and humanitarian aid also diminished with greater perceived distance. However, support for accepting refugees and providing financial or arms aid showed more variation, with distance still exerting a significant effect in most cases.
3) Publics use heuristics and emotional proximity in decision-making.
The paper argues that people rely on cognitive shortcuts such as availability heuristics and emotional resonance to judge foreign crises. Conflicts perceived as “closer” (geographically or culturally) elicit more concern, fear, and a sense of moral obligation to help.
4) National context and identity matter.
While both Japanese and Czech respondents showed distance-based preferences, the Japanese public exhibited consistent support for Taiwan, suggesting identity and geopolitical alignment can override distance effects. Conversely, Czech support for Moldova was not significantly different from support for a fictional, faraway country—revealing potential gaps between regional geography and perceived threat.
5) The findings have implications for alliance politics and future conflict response.
The study highlights that public backing for interventions cannot be assumed, even for friendly or strategically important states. Geographic and psychological distance act as major barriers to generating broad-based support for conflict responses—posing challenges to sustaining the liberal international order in times of regional crises.