Richard Lugar Introduction

On March 11, 2009 Jonathan Fanton and other members of the MacArthur Board met with former Senator Richard Lugar to discuss the new Obama administration and direction of the country more generally.

Introduction of Senator Richard Lugar
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
7:45 – 9:00 a.m.

The MacArthur Board is holding its March meeting in Washington to talk with members of the new Administration, many of whom have received grants from us in the past.  Yesterday we met at the State Department with Bill Burns and Ann Marie Slaughter.  On the domestic side, we met with Shaun Donovan and Peter Orszag; tomorrow we will speak with Arne Duncan.  At the White House we spoke with Valerie Jarrett

But we recognize that the new Administration must work closely with Congress to achieve all that it hopes to accomplish.  So we welcome the opportunity to talk off the record with you, knowing that you  share many of our passions.  Welcome back.

I will dispense with the formal introduction except to remind us of when we have worked together.

MacArthur has a long standing interest in reducing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction through its Peace and Security Program, which dates back to when Jerome Wiesner was on our Board.

We recognize your vision and leadership in establishing a set of programs at the end of the Cold War that continue to pay dividends for international peace and security.  Under the 1991 Nunn-Lugar Act, which launched the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the U.S. and Russia have deactivated 7,504 strategic nuclear warheads, eliminated 1375 intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missiles, upgraded security at 24 nuclear weapons storage sites, and built and equipped 16 biological monitoring stations.  Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the CTR program.

We are very proud to have supported experts such as Ash Carter and Graham Allison, who helped you and Senator Nunn conceive and shape this historic program.  We are also pleased to have fostered a new generation of outside government experts devoted to carrying the work forward, such as Matt Bunn.

You are an active supporter and long time participant in the Aspen Congressional Roundtable – a program that MacArthur and other foundations have supported to provide opportunities for members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to meet with scholars and other experts to explore international and domestic issues.

We mainly want to hear what you want to tell us.  Along the way, we hope you might comment on:
Will we be able to return to the tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy?
What the new President can accomplish in foreign policy.
How the Congress is working with the new Administration;
Your thoughts on the economy and future steps necessary to stimulate a recovery – and when that might come;
Insight into policy initiatives on issues of particular interest to us like housing, metropolitan regions, education, disarmament, human rights;

Senator Lugar will speak for 10 or 15 minutes and then we will open it up to a general discussion.

Ann Marie Slaughter and William J. Burns Introduction

On March 10, 2009 Jonathan Fanton and other members of the MacArthur Board met with William J. Burns, former Under Secretary for Political Affairs for the State Department, and Ann Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning for the State Department.

Introduction of Under Secretary Burns and Ann Marie Slaughter
Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Thank you for taking the time to meet with the MacArthur Board and senior staff.  Bill we are grateful to you for organizing this conversation and are appreciate the support you provided to MacArthur activities in Russia when you were Ambassador.

Ann Marie Slaughter is currently Director of Policy Planning.  She has worked extensively on democracy promotion as a key component of US foreign policy and just returned from the Middle East and Europe with Secretary Clinton.  She was previously dean of the Woodrow Wilson School, a MacArthur grantee.

I am going to say a few words about what brings us to Washington, and then pose a couple of questions that are on our minds.  Mainly we want to hear from trusted friends about how foreign policy is shaping up in the first weeks of the new administration and, of course, this session is completely off-the-record.

We are holding our March Board meeting in Washington so we can talk with senior members of the new Administration about issues of mutual concern.  We are obviously pleased that our friend and Chicago neighbor has become President, and proud that he has recruited so many people with MacArthur ties as Senior Advisors, to his Cabinet and in key positions throughout the executive branch.  On the domestic side, we will be talking with Valerie Jarrett, Shaun Donovan, and Arne Duncan.

MacArthur spends about 40% of its philanthropy on international issues:  conservation, human rights and international justice, population and reproductive health, and international peace and security.  We have four country offices – and another coming soon in China – and work in 60 countries.

But in the end, the amount we spend on these issues is modest and it takes government policy and action to really make a difference.

For the most part, the landscape in the U.S. is changing in ways that create a more favorable context for our work.  We need to understand those changes and then adapt to new opportunities – and perhaps new challenges as well.  We will spend our June Board meeting on that review, so our conversations today and tomorrow are part of the learning process.

I anticipate that there will be many opportunities to work together toward shared goals.

Some of the topics that I hope your colleagues will touch on today include your views on how to manage relations with key countries – China and India in Asia, Russia, as well as thorny hotspots such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.  In addition, given our longstanding work in disarmament, we would be interested in hearing about the future of arms control and non-proliferation efforts.  Finally, any comments on the role of human rights and its effect on foreign policy will be appreciated.

Bill, it’s a tall order and I leave it to you and your colleagues to start what I hope will be a first discussion with us and others in the Foundation on the defining foreign policy challenges ahead and how MacArthur can contribute to the nation’s foreign policy thinking.

John Hamre and Jessica Matthews Introduction

On March 10, 2009 Jonathan Fanton introduced John Hamre, President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to discuss the foreign policy challenges and priorities facing the then recently-elected President, Barack Obama

Jonathan F. Fanton

Introduction of John Hamre and Jessica Matthews

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

I am pleased to welcome John Hamre, President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Thank you for taking the time to meet with the MacArthur Board and senior staff.

We are holding our March Board meeting in Washington so we can talk with senior members of the new Administration about issues of mutual concern.  We are obviously pleased that our friend and Chicago neighbor has become President, and proud that he has recruited so many people with MacArthur ties as Senior Advisors, to his Cabinet and in key positions throughout the executive branch.

As you know, MacArthur supports a variety of initiatives, including research, policy analysis, demonstration projects, and capacity building on issues like affordable housing, education, peace and security, and conservation.  But, in the end, our financial contribution is modest, and it takes government policy and action to move good ideas to scale.  In the U.S. and in 60 countries around the world, we work with government agencies and follow government policies closely.

For the most part, the landscape in the U.S. is changing in ways that create a more favorable context for our work.  We need to understand those changes and then adapt to new opportunities – and perhaps new challenges as well.  We will spend our June Board meeting on that review, so our conversations today and tomorrow are part of the learning process.

On the domestic side, we will be meeting with Valerie Jarrett, Shaun Donovan, and Arne Duncan.  And Bill Burns has organized a conversation at the State Department with Anne Marie Slaughter, the new Director of Policy Planning.  Other senior officials may join, if confirmed and available.

Before embarking on those meetings, we thought it would be useful to get an overview from people we know, trust, and respect with whom we have been working.  Bruce Katz of Brookings and Len Burman of the Urban Institute Tax Policy Center gave us a good hour on domestic policy.

We have been pleased to support CSIS for international security policy studies, workshops in the areas of Russian security, biological threat reduction, and Asia-Pacific issues, among others.

And we have benefited from John’s long experience in government, during which he served as the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense.  John maintains strong ties to the Department of Defense, serving as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory committee to Secretary Gates.  From 1993-1997, he served as under secretary of defense (comptroller), and for ten years he was a professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

MacArthur has benefited from a long relationship with Jessica, which goes back to the early days of the World Resources Institute.  Currently, we work with the Carnegie Endowment on international migration research, nonproliferation work, and in Russia.  where we enjoy a particularly close relationship with Carnegie’s Moscow office and support its journal, Pro et Contra.

So John and Jessica together touch on every aspect of our international program.

In the opening days of his administration, President Obama set a clear tone for some of the changes he intends for U.S. foreign policy—from closing Guantanamo to the appointment of the high level envoys George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke to manage relations with key countries. John and Jessica, we would like to hear what your thoughts on these steps and what you project to be the defining foreign policy challenges of the new administration.

In particular, we are interested in the future of disarmament talks, prospects for the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship, your thoughts on peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery (such as in African or South Asian conflicts), and your thoughts on the roles India and China may play in international institutions and development — what opportunities do their evolving roles in foreign policy afford the new administration?

We would be interested in knowing what your greatest hopes and worries are for the new Administration and how your institutions will adapt to the new context.

 

Jonathan Fanton Appearance on “Open Mind”

In 2009, MacArthur President Jonathan Fanton discussed philanthropy and the work of the MacArthur Foundation on Richard Heffner’s Open Mind program, a weekly public television series that has featured hundreds of interesting and significant American personalities. For more information about the Open Mind, click here

Letter to the Editor, The New York Times, 12/1/2006

In this letter to The New York Times, Jonathan Fanton highlights recent political developments in Nigeria.

Published: December 1, 2006 by The New York Times

To the Editor:

Money and Violence Hobble Democracy in Nigeria” (front page, Nov. 24) rightly emphasizes the importance of the April 2007 election. But its negative conclusion that “a political culture of graft and intimidation … has led to widespread neglect and disillusionment” is a harsher judgment than facts on the ground warrant.

I visited Nigeria 10 days ago and came away with a more hopeful view. No doubt the coming election will tell us a lot about the future of Nigerian democracy. But it is not the whole story.

As we have seen elsewhere, an election does not secure democracy. Other markers like the growth of civil society and the rule of law are prerequisites.

Civil society and a free press flourish in Nigeria. Judicial reform is promising. A talented and committed younger generation is emerging in key leadership positions. Some of them are running for governor in important states, opening the possibility for reform at the state level.

It is useful to shine a spotlight on Nigeria, one of the most important transitions to democracy anywhere in the world. But it is not helpful to showcase only the negatives. There is another story to tell.

Jonathan F. Fanton
President, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Chicago, Nov. 29, 2006

“Taking Human Rights Seriously”

On January 10, 2006 the Chicago Tribune published the article below, written by Jonathan Fanton, on revising the structure and leadership of the UN Commission on Human Rights.  

Taking human rights seriously

By Jonathan Fanton,
president of the Chicago-based John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
and a former chairman of Human Rights Watch

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

On its Web site, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights describes itself as “the world’s foremost human rights forum.”

Unfortunately, given its membership and structure, the commission has become little more than a punch line for late-night comics. Its current members include Sudan and Zimbabwe, nations with their own dubious human rights records. In 2003 Libya, widely recognized as one of the world’s most repressive governments, chaired the commission. The commission meets only once each year, failing to act on egregious rights abuses that occur between its meetings.

Politics, which should not be a consideration, have too often come to dominate the commission’s work. For example, Sudan helped to water down language and constrain discussion of the flagrant human rights violations occurring in Darfur.

The UN must play a leading role in setting international standards and offering a forum to air and address human rights grievances. When governments fail to protect their citizens or abide by their obligations, the international community has a responsibility to act–a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and to hold nations accountable. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed in September that human rights become the third pillar of UN activity, along with security and development. He recommended the current commission be replaced by a smaller council with new membership selection procedures to decrease the likelihood that human rights abusers would serve on the council.

Council membership must not be a tool for bad actors to avoid criticism or thwart international action. Members should be elected on an individual vote by a two-thirds majority. Regions should be required to nominate more candidates than there are slots, ensuring more competition in the voting. The council needs to meet more often to ensure public attention and international criticism is never far away for countries violating human rights.

We should be pleased the U.S. is backing such reforms. But we must not let slide this historic opportunity to reform the UN and strengthen its focus on human rights. American officials and other UN member states should be more forceful in advocating the importance of the Human Rights Council and should ratchet up their role in the negotiations, which resume Wednesday.

 

“The Putin Paradox”

On October 30, 2005, The Boston Globe published the article below. Written by Jonathan Fanton, it describes the growth of civil society and private universities in Russia. While Dr. Fanton acknowledges that Russia’s political system is not always transparent and/or respectful of civil liberties and free expression, he argues that foundations like MacArthur play a crucial role in nurturing the country’s “fragile democracy.”

 The Putin Paradox

By Jonathan F. Fanton

October 30, 2005

The Boston Globe

HEADLINES IN the Western press are pessimistic about Russia’s commitment to democracy. The arrest and conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky; the takeover of NTV; constitutional reforms that replace elected regional officials with appointed governors; vague assurances from Vladmir Putin that while he would not run for a third term in 2008, he would not disappear from Russian politics. All paint a portrait of sharp retreat from the Yeltsin era.

But the picture in Russia is more complex. Leaders in higher education and civil society have a more nuanced story to tell.

Changes underway in higher education are a good indicator of the deep transformation taking place in Russia. Private universities are gaining strength, and state universities are being encouraged to modernize by opening themselves and their curriculum to the West.

For instance, cutting-edge science is being conducted at 16 Research and Education Centers across the country. Affiliated scientists have produced thousands of publications. In the past year alone, more than 70 patents have been filed and 16 new enterprises have been started. Nine other campuses host Centers for Advanced Study and Education in the social sciences. They are building a cadre of policy experts that advise the government on issues like sustainable economic development, migration and ethnic diversity, human rights and the rule of law, and healthcare.

At the national level, the Ministry of Education and Science is bringing Russia into the ”Bologna process,” which is creating a Europe-wide higher education area. University systems in 40 countries will have a common framework for undergraduate and graduate degrees, transferable credits, shared standards for academic quality, and mobility for students and faculty.

The isolation of Russian intellectual life is over. Although much more must be done before Russia’s universities will fully recover from years of neglect and repression, the progress is real. These developments in higher education do not square with the image of Russia moving backward into isolation and suspicion of the outside world. No government bent on long-term authoritarian control would promote Internet connectivity, faculty and student exchanges, and the adoption of a Western model of higher education.

The MacArthur Foundation has been active in Russia since 1992, making a 20-year, $100 million commitment to building a robust system of higher education and to strengthening the country’s intellectual life. In the area of human rights, we have made almost $20 million worth of additional grants.

The number of civil society groups is growing, and there is positive movement on fundamental issues. To be sure, the situation in Russia is paradoxical. On high profile cases of political sensitivity, the Kremlin interferes with the judicial process, is willing to use force to put down demonstrations, and violates civil rights in the pursuit of terrorists. Yet Russia has begun to improve prison conditions. A new criminal procedures code is making incremental improvements in the justice system. And a broad network of human rights groups across the country is working undeterred, often helping the government reform itself.

For instance, the INDEM Foundation is developing a registration process at police stations in 15 precincts in Moscow and Kazan. Because most instances of police torture occur during the first hours spent in custody, booking detainees, logging the charges against them, and other procedural improvements are an important step for combating abuse.

To monitor the police and the courts, human rights ombudsmen are at work in 31 of Russia’s 89 regions, and there are plans for significant expansion. An umbrella organization of the ombudsmen is developing a common, automated system to register complaints and track their disposition. A USAID/Russia project on legal reform has helped more than 1,000 judges attend training seminars in the United States and has been building a database of Russian court decisions to enhance consistency and strengthen the judicial system.

Russia is at a critical crossroads. There is no question that Putin is tightening his grip on various sources of power — political, economic, media. But so far, he has allowed civil society to grow, scholars to pursue their work, and niche media to criticize the government. The West needs to be open to a more nuanced view of Russia’s progress while continuing to criticize the backward steps that Putin takes. This is a moment of paradox and new voices that requires patience as the country’s fragile democracy takes root.

Jonathan F. Fanton is president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.