The post-Cold War period lasted just under a decade — from the signing, on June 17, 1992, of a joint agreement between U.S. President George Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin calling for the reduction of each country's nuclear arsenal by two-thirds, to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — attacks that, in addition to claiming 3,000 lives, recast virtually every issue related to U.S. homeland security in a harsh new light and signaled the start of a dangerous geopolitical confrontation between the U.S. and radical Islamic fundamentalism.

The Chicago-based John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation has long been concerned with international security issues and the promotion of peace within and among countries. In pursuit of that goal, the foundation has supported projects and institutions that work to foster disarmament and international cooperation, with a focus on reducing nuclear weapons arsenals and biological and chemical weapons stockpiles, destroying or safeguarding weapons materials, and promoting innovative frameworks for achieving international peace and security.

In July, Philanthropy News Digest spoke with MacArthur Foundation president Jonathan F. Fanton about the foundation's response to the events of September 11, the role of the media in educating Americans about shifting geopolitical realities, and issues that organized philanthropy should be paying more attention to in the wake of 9/11.

Jonathan F. Fanton became president of the MacArthur Foundation on September 1, 1999. Prior to his appointment, he had been president of the New School University in New York City for seventeen years. The foundation, one of the nation's ten largest, makes grants in the United States and abroad, with an emphasis on human and community development, education, the environment, population issues, international security, human rights, creativity, and media. Fanton received a Ph.D. degree in American history from Yale University in 1978, where he served as assistant to President Kingman Brewster and as associate provost. From 1978 to 1982, he was vice president for planning at the University of Chicago, where he also taught American history. In addition to his responsibilities at the MacArthur Foundation, Fanton chairs the board of Human Rights Watch, is an advisory trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and is a former co-chair of the 14th Street/Union Square Local Development Corporation in New York City.

Philanthropy News Digest: You became president of the MacArthur Foundation in September 1999. What did you do before you came to the foundation?

Jonathan F. Fanton: For the previous seventeen years, I had been the president of the New School for Social Research in New York City, and before that I was a vice president at the University of Chicago. I'm an American historian by training, educated at Yale University, where I began teaching and working in university administration.

PND: Where were you on the morning of September 11?

JFF: Well, as it happens, I was chairing a meeting of the Human Rights Watch board at its offices in the Empire State Building, looking south. I saw the second plane plough into the World Trade Center. It was a sight never to be forgotten.

PND: Did you assume, at that moment, that you had just witnessed an act of terrorism?

JFF: When the first plane hit, it looked to many of my colleagues like it might have been a small plane that had gone off course. As you recall, the first plane was heading south, away from the Empire State Building, when it hit the north tower, so we saw just the gaping hole in the tower. But when the second plane, which was traveling north, hit, we could see the flames roll through the south tower and come out the side we were facing. And, of course, two collisions within twenty minutes couldn't have been coincidence, so it was clear that this was a calculated act of terrorism. Because we were in the next-tallest building in the city, we got out of the building quickly.

PND: In late September, the MacArthur board approved the creation of a fund to support various organizations working to provide information about and analyses of the attacks and their aftermath. In announcing the fund a few weeks later, you said it would focus on important questions that had been brought into "sharp relief" by the events of the eleventh. What were some of those questions?

JFF: The impulse for the special grant initiative came from long-time grantees who were calling us for help. The MacArthur board quickly established a special fund to respond to people and organizations we knew well and with whose work we were very familiar. And as we proceeded, it turned out that our grants were clustered in three groups. One group of grantees was providing good information and analysis for the public, both about events as they unfolded in Afghanistan, but also about domestic events, such as the impact of increased homeland security spending on the budget and the implicit tradeoffs for domestic programs in the future. A second cluster came under the heading of the U.S. and the world's response to terrorism: understanding its underlying causes, immediate threats, and what countermeasures should be taken. In that group are organizations like the Monterey Institute of International Studies, which tracks the location and security of nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, and the Century Foundation, which mounted a task force on homeland security. The third cluster involved the theme of civil liberties, constitutional guarantees, and adherence to international law. The International Rescue Committee's work in Afghanistan, the ACLU's work on domestic civil liberties issues, and Human Rights Watch's monitoring of the U.S. military response are illustrations of grants in that category.

We could move quickly after September 11 because MacArthur's existing programs and grantees aligned closely with the issues the attacks raised. With respect to the future, September 11 places a greater premium on establishing a system of international justice. The need for an international criminal court has come into sharper relief. MacArthur has provided significant support to civil-society groups attending the Rome Conference that conceived the Court treaty, the coalition that has worked for its ratification, and the groups now trying to see it implemented. The new Court makes it clear to states that sponsor terrorism that there is no hiding if they facilitate crimes against humanity.

Finally, there is the need to reduce the dangers associated with weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological — work, incidentally, that we've been engaged in for a long time. Terrorism, as a political phenomenon, has existed in international politics for some time. But the threat and risk of catastrophic terrorism is one we are just beginning to grapple with. One illustration of this was the concern and confusion surrounding the anthrax incidents last fall. So we've identified an urgent need to apply technical and scientific expertise to emerging security problems, particularly those concerned with arms control and nonproliferation. We are in the process of launching an initiative that will train a new generation of scientists to work on the technical dimensions of security issues. We are also supporting efforts to rethink the traditional arms control paradigm and adapt it to a rapidly changing international security environment. We are consulting widely on a range of emerging threats related to trends in biotechnology, the chemical sciences, and the increasing use of space for both commercial and military applications. Another issue that we're looking at is the challenge that terrorism poses to scientific research and open dissemination. The biosciences are poised to make revolutionary contributions to human health and the challenge now is to design safeguards against more destructive applications.

PND: September 11 was, as you suggested, a horrible crime against humanity. But is that all it was? Could it be seen as a violent protest against American-led globalization? And is it still too early to talk about 9/11 in those terms?

JFF: I do not think it's too early to consider the motivations of the attackers and their supporters — indeed a lot of thoughtful work has already been done and is ongoing. But I do not think it is useful to see 9/11 as a symbol of protest against globalization or injustice in the international system. The fact is, we may never be sure what precisely motivated the attackers, even if the agenda of the organization that supported them becomes clear. The process of attaching deeper meaning to the attacks, it seems to me, relieves the attackers from moral responsibility. Their act of terrorism demonstrated a ruthless contempt for human life, and that fact should never be lost as we move forward and think about ways to combat it.

PND: The MacArthur Foundation has a long-standing interest in global security issues. For much of the 1990s, at least, Russia and the post-Soviet states have been the focus of that program. Will that continue to be the case?

JFF: Yes. As you pointed out, we have a long-standing and major interest in Russia. We have offices and programs in three countries that are undergoing a transition to democracy: Russia, Nigeria, and Mexico. Each, in its own way, is important, both in its own right and as a pacesetter for the transition to a market economy and democracy in a particular region of the world.

Our work in Russia has three parts to it. One involves strengthening scholarly infrastructure, and that means investing in both public and private universities, independent research institutes, and scholarly journals. We also make individual research grants in support of scholars from across the former Soviet Union working on a variety of issues, from justice reform, to human rights, the environment, and security and non-proliferation issues. A second area of our work is human rights, strengthening Moscow-based organizations like the Moscow-Helsinki Group that works throughout the country and, at the same time, strengthening regional human rights groups and connecting them to each other and to the Moscow groups. The third area, which is smaller than the other two, is environmental policy. In July I visited Voronezh, Saratov, and Perm, three regional capitals where we support science centers at the state university and, in two of them, along with the Carnegie Foundation, social science centers as well. We are also working in those three regions with local human rights groups.

PND: Have you, as result of September 11, considered broadening the program's focus to include other countries?

JFF: Our existing work — international justice; human rights; peace and security; the new science, technology, and security initiative — is pretty well aligned with issues that were highlighted by September 11. The only programmatic change flowing from September 11 is a decision to continue our work in biological and chemical weapons, which is an area we had thought about discontinuing. All of our international programs — and we work in eighty-five countries — support civil society groups: human rights, women's reproductive health and rights, environment, the rule of law, and so forth. Building a vibrant civil society is essential to opening space for discourse and dissent even in countries which are not fully democratic. Such outlets diminish the isolation and despair that give rise to terrorism.

PND: You mentioned the threat of bioterrorism. In terms of homeland security, what other new calculations or factors were introduced by 9/11?

JFF: September 11 was a painful wake-up call for all of us, and I think it's a good thing we're taking our domestic security more seriously. However, I also think it's important to balance the requirements of homeland security with a commitment to civil liberties. For example, the Century Foundation project we are supporting has both of those aspects to it — that is, trying to help design an effective homeland security function, and also thinking hard about the privacy and civil liberty questions that are raised when a society tries to tighten security.

PND: In your view, is military action, either within the framework of a multinational coalition or by the U.S. unilaterally, a necessary component of our response to future terrorist threats?

JFF: Speaking personally, I would not rule out a military component in the continuing war on terrorism. But there is much we can do — could have done — using non-military means at our disposal to combat terrorism. More effective use of intelligence information, monitoring flows of arms, and tracing illegal financial flows are some examples. If further military options are to be weighed, I do not think the U.S. should act alone without meaningful consultation and cooperation, ideally through the United Nations.

Last year, MacArthur supported an international commission on intervention and state sovereignty that produced a thoughtful report that suggests ground rules for such military action. Although written for situations like Bosnia and Rwanda, it has relevance to this question as well. It's called The Responsibility to Protect (108 pages, PDF).

PND: The media, both print and broadcast, played an enormous role in transforming 9/11 into a global event. As a strong supporter of public-interest media, how would you rate the performance of the media in the months following the attacks?

JFF: Well, I think the media did pretty well, in covering both the events themselves and the U.S. response in Afghanistan. Public radio and television did particularly well, and we provided special support to assist National Public Radio with the cost of its coverage. The media stimulated a pretty good discussion of the issues that flowed from 9/11. However, I think by now the coverage is repetitive, and fresh material at another level of depth would be useful.

PND: Such as?

JFF: Take Afghanistan. Mainstream media have not done much outside of Kabul or reported much on the ongoing human rights abuses in the countryside. Americans need to learn a lot more about the Muslim world, about the range of opinions in the Muslim world, about Muslims who have different interpretations of the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. We, along with Carnegie and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, are supporting a meeting of Muslim intellectuals and opinion leaders with Western counterparts to encourage a process of dialogue and improved understanding.

PND: Do you think U.S. media outlets in general do enough to inform the U.S. public about events beyond our borders?

JFF: No. I don't. And that very concern led us to support the creation of a new satellite channel, called WorldLink, with a mission to provide international news and information to the American public. I worry a lot about the cutbacks of foreign bureaus by major papers and electronic media outlets.

PND: You've taught history. Is the growing interest of the American public in international news and reporting likely to be a permanent thing, or will it wane as 9/11 fades from our collective memory?

JFF: I think the interest will persist, especially among young people who now understand that events in far away places can impact their lives. I hope that universities will renew their attention to parts of the world neglected of late. I was interested to learn that a new international affairs Masters program for mid-career students at the New School University attracted over one hundred students in its first year — an example, I think, that interest in international affairs is growing.

Right after September 11 there was talk about the search for the underlying roots of terrorism, a search that leads to poverty, inequality, and other social ills that afflict so much of the world. I would not like to see that concern lost because of a narrow focus on the war on terrorism. And I think it should be broadened to include the social and political exclusion that comes from the denial of human rights. Many countries suffer from deep poverty but do not give rise to terrorism. Repressive countries do and that connection is worth a deeper examination.

PND: Did the mainstream media treat organized philanthropy fairly in the weeks and months following September 11?

JFF: Yes. I think the media treated organized philanthropy fairly.

PND: And do you think organized philanthropy responded effectively to the events of September 11?

JFF: I do. Responses were varied — some foundations put significant amounts of money into the relief funds in New York and Washington, D.C. Others, like the MacArthur Foundation, made money quickly available to grantees working on one or another aspect of the situation. The Mellon Foundation focused on helping the recovery of arts and cultural institutions in New York City. The Markle Foundation launched a blue-ribbon commission to look both at how intelligence information can be better used and which protections against abuse of personal information and invasion of privacy need to be strengthened. I think the variety of responses reflects the pluralism that characterizes the philanthropic sector.

PND: What, if anything, should organized philanthropy have done differently in the wake of September 11?

JFF: I'm not sure. I mean, there were certainly the early difficulties with some of the relief funds and in coordination. One might have wished that process had gone more smoothly, but I am not prepared to be critical. It was, after all, a completely unprecedented situation. Overall, I think philanthropy did very well in responding and I am proud of what the nonprofit sector accomplished. History will record the generosity of people in this country and throughout the world. Overall, we can feel good about the ingenuity and flexibility of foundations in the immediate aftermath.

PND: Again, in the context of 9/11, is there any area, issue, or need you think organized philanthropy should be addressing, eleven months after the attacks, that it hasn't?

JFF: There are plenty of issues to which I think we should give more attention. Let me mention just three:

First, we ought to keep the focus on issues of poverty and inequality in the world. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is giving strong leadership to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, the centerpiece of which is, by 2015, reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day, achieving universal primary education, and improving maternal health while promoting gender equality. The programs of major foundations overlap with those goals, and we should try to do more in the way of concerted action.

Second, there is no question in my mind that increased respect for human rights in countries around the world is a good investment in combating the sources of terrorism. Most human-rights organizations take no money from governments or corporations, leaving foundations and individuals as the main sources of support. International groups like Human Rights Watch are bringing more intense scrutiny to closed societies that historically have been an incubator of terrorism. Local human rights groups are forming in many countries and need support in order to join together in national and international networks.

Third, Americans need to know a lot more about the world than they do. That means more attention to area studies in universities, more cosmopolitan public school textbooks, and better international coverage by the media. Our collective sophistication about how to do business abroad exceeds our understanding of the politics, culture, and traditions of other countries. I believe there is an innate fairness, decency, and compassion in the American people that can, if educated on the issues, influence our government to pursue sensible policies.

PND: When you look at the current global situation, do you do so as an optimist or a pessimist? Will we succeed, in the coming decades, in ameliorating the problems that threaten humanity — global warming, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, growing income inequality, the continuing spread of HIV/AIDS, overpopulation and environmental degradation — or are we likely to stumble and lose ground on those issues?

JFF: This is an either/or question. As a historian, I think that history moves in uneven cycles — progress on some issues in some places, backsliding on others. How do I feel myself? I feel more optimistic than pessimistic. Maybe that's a reflection of just having returned from Russia, where I met with the leaders of many non-governmental groups — some of them only a year or two old — doing tremendously important work. I draw hope from talking to hundreds of young people in Russia, people in their twenties and early thirties, who are optimistic about the future of their country. Seeing the whole redefinition of the relationship of the individual to the state and the embrace of such concepts as human and individual rights begin to take root in Russia is a source of tremendous optimism for me.

Or take another country where we work. I certainly see progress being made in Nigeria. To be sure, it still has plenty of problems — ethnic strife, the growth of AIDS, persistent poverty and corruption. But Nigeria is no longer a dictatorship, civil society is growing, universities are getting better, environmental groups are working with the government and putting pressure on oil companies to take the environment seriously. Nigeria is a country full of talented people determined to make democracy work and avoid a return to military rule. I do not think the positive developments there get fair coverage in the Western media.

PND: Are there other regions or countries you could point to where you see a similar spirit at work?

JFF: My work with Helsinki Watch in the 1980s brought me to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltics — places where real progress has been made in the last decade in terms of human rights, market reforms, and democracy. But there are other places where there is little or no progress, for example Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. It is hard to feel optimistic about Colombia, Belarus, or Liberia.

But let's not end on a note of pessimism. The creation of a workable institutional system of justice is within our grasp. The creation of an international criminal court sends a powerful signal to future Milosovics, Pinochets, Hissane Habres that there will be no place to hide for those who commit gross abuses of human rights. I would feel better, of course, if the United States joined the International Criminal Court and put itself on the right side of history during the critical formative stages of the Court.

PND: Well, thank you, Jonathan, for taking the time to speak with us today.

JFF: Thank you. I enjoyed it.

Mitch Nauffts, PND's editorial director, interviewed Jonathan Fanton in early July. For more information on the Newsmakers series, contact Mitch at mfn@fdncenter.org.