Pugwash Meeting No. 239
Pugwash Conference: The Long Roads to Peace
29 September - 4 October 1998, Querétaro, Mexico
Statement of the Pugwash Council
THE 48th Annual Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs met in Jurica, Querétaro, Mexico from 29 September to 4 October 1998 under the title "The Long Roads to Peace" The Conference was attended by 108 Pugwashites from 42 countries, as well as by 27 members of Student/Young Pugwash groups. As always in these meetings, the participants took part as individuals, not as representatives of their governments or institutions.
Various other events took place on this occasion: the Pugwash Council met prior to the Conference in Tlatelolco, Mexico City, and after the Conference in Jurica; a Student/Young Pugwash meeting was convened in Metepec, Puebla, prior to the Conference, and an Executive Committee meeting was held in Jurica.
The Conference was opened with a welcoming address by Ana María Cetto, chair of Pugwash´s Executive Committee, a message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, and a response to the message by Pugwash President Sir Michael Atiyah. The Director-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor, gave a first plenary talk on Science in the service of peace, emphasizing the need for a Culture of Peace, focusing on the crucial role of science in the transition away from a culture of war, violence and domination, and towards the construction of peace based on a capacity to anticipate and prevent destructive conflicts.
The opening session continued with a plenary talk by the Secretary of the Environment of Mexico, Julia Carabias, discussing the relationship between local and global phenomena, showing that the environmental agenda has to be part of a larger agenda that considers social and economic matters as well. Former Secretary General of Pugwash, Martin Kaplan, then presented the obituaries of deceased Pugwashites. Finally, Secretary General George Rathjens addressed the Conference, discussing the impasse in nuclear disarmament and diverging views on how best to react to the recent nuclear events in South Asia.
Other plenary sessions discussed Conflict Negotiation and Mediation: Internal and International Dimensions (with Miguel Alvarez, Bengt Broms, Raul Benítez Manaut and Marie Muller); Sovereignty and Interdependence in the Caribbean Region (with Claude Heller, Orlando Fundora López and Tommie Sue Montgomery); and Nuclear Disarmament: Is this as good as it gets? (with Miguel Marín-Bosch). An extra session, introduced by Abdul Sattar, Pakistan, and Jasjit Singh, India, was convened to solicit reactions and views on the South Asian nuclear testing.
In his closing address, Pugwash President Sir Michael Atiyah reviewed the status of the processes towards control and elimination of the various weapons of mass destruction, and emphasized the need to better understand the causes of terrorism in order to know how to deal with this persistent problem –which is not just a military and security problem.
The Working Groups that met in parallel closed sessions focused on the following topics: (1) A nuclear-weapon-free world: Progress and prospects, (2) Non-nuclear threats to peace and security, (3) Building legitimate institutions for a new world order: Challenges for the 21st century, (4) Conflict resolution and the construction of peace, (5) From local to global: Environmental dimensions of peace, and (6) Public health and peace.
The following statement has been informed by the working-group and plenary-session discussions; but its formulation is the responsibility of the Pugwash Council alone, and it has not been reviewed by other Conference participants. The statement does not pretend to be an exhaustive account of the discussions that were held; rather, it presents conclusions and recommendations on which the Council agrees and which we believe important to communicate to a wider audience. Summaries of the discussions in the Working Groups have been prepared by the rapporteurs and will become part of the published Proceedings of the Conference, along with the texts of the speeches from the plenary sessions and the papers presented in the Working Groups.
The Council is deeply concerned about the current impasse in nuclear disarmament. We have therefore issued a special statement on this matter, including the implications of the South Asian nuclear testing as we see them, which is attached.
Nuclear Testing
THE nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan are a matter of grave concern to Pugwash. We have always opposed nuclear testing, regardless of when and where the tests were conducted and who carried them out. Our resentment is part and parcel of our opposition to the weapons themselves. The world would have been a more secure place without them. In South Asia, India and Pakistan have been at war with each other three times over the last 50 years (1948, 1965, 1971), and India and China once (1962), and there are a number of unresolved conflicts in the region. The introduction of nuclear weapons into such a conflict-ridden area is particularly worrisome.
This unfortunate development cannot be blamed on India and Pakistan alone. The other established nuclear weapon states are culpable, too, for having failed to fully exploit the opportunity presented by the end of the Cold War to sharply reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international affairs and to move towards a world free of nuclear arms. Given the tensions and political pressures at play in South Asia, it is not obvious that a stronger commitment to nuclear disarmament by the five nuclear powers would have stopped India and Pakistan from becoming nuclear weapon states. However, when after a period of reductions and adaptations following the end of the Cold War it becomes clear that they still plan to keep formidable nuclear forces for the foreseeable future, this clearly strengthens the hands of pro-nuclear-weapon factions in threshold countries everywhere. For those who have been willing to believe that a handful of countries could deploy nuclear weapons indefinitely without anybody else following suit, the testing in South Asia should make them think otherwise.
So far, however, there is nothing to suggest that such reconsiderations are taking place. The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China maintain that nuclear weapons are indispensable to their security. They intend to deploy hundreds and thousands of them for the indefinite future. With the exception of China, they retain the right to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Largely because of their intransigence, multilateral talks/negotiation on nuclear weapon issues are blocked. The latest preparatory meeting for the upcoming NPT Review Conference was a failure. In nuclear disarmament debates, they sometimes make the elimination of nuclear weapons conditional on achieving general and complete disarmament – a prescription for doing nothing.
For years, India and Pakistan have developed their nuclear capabilities without going into the open. Now that they have done so, and we are noting the possession of nuclear weapons by two more states, we must try and draw them into the international arms control regime. We urge India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT before the next Treaty review conference in 1999, and to participate in good faith in the upcoming negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).
Nuclear Disarmament
THE nuclear weapon sector comprises (1) weapons that are deployed on land- and sea-based missiles and bombers, or readily available at airfields for use by aircraft, and which may be for strategic or tactical use; (2) non-deployed weapons held in reserve; (3) weapons that have been withdrawn and that are slated for dismantlement; and (4) weapons-grade material in excess of military needs, much of it in the form of plutonium pits that are stored in the same shape that they had when in the weapons. Nuclear disarmament and arms control measures must address all four categories.
At the moment, the number of deployed strategic weapons in the United States is stalled at around 6000. No further reductions will be made until the Russian parliament ratifies START II. The number of deployed strategic warheads in Russia is likely to continue to decrease irrespective of the fate of START II. Russia plans to deploy less costly nuclear forces with total numbers that may drop below the projected START III level of 2000-2500. It can hardly afford to go for numerical parity with the United States any longer: instead, it will probably seek to restrict any disparity in the size of the arsenals to within acceptable bounds.
The new Prime Minister of Russia, and the new Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Duma, favour ratification of START II. If the US plans for a national missile defense system do not get in the way, there is, therefore, some prospect that the START process can be resurrected.
On September 29, 1991, President Bush announced that the United States would eliminate its entire world-wide inventory of ground-launched tactical nuclear weapons, and remove all nuclear weapons from surface ships and attack submarines. President Gorbatchov responded by announcing that the Soviet Union would withdraw all tactical nuclear weapons from other CIS states to central bases in Russia. This meant that all sub-strategic warheads except air-based ones were wiuthdrawn to storage or slated for elimination.
After these announcements were made, tactical nuclear weapons have not drawn much attention. There has been no follow up in terms of data exchanges and verification provisions. This should have been done: unilateral initiatives can be important tools of disarmament – certainly they were in 1991 – but they should be the first steps rather than the whole story. Today, the 1991 initiatives are in jeopardy as Russia is taking a renewed interest in tactical nuclear weapons in the face of deteriorating conventional forces and NATO expansion.
Given Russian concerns, the impetus for eliminating tactical nuclear weapons will have to come from the United States. We call on the United States and all NATO countries to seize the initiative and begin by withdrawing all the few remaining tactical nuclear weapons (bombs on aircraft) currently deployed in Europe. These are the only nuclear weapons now deployed by any nuclear country on the territory of any other country. We also call on Russia not to redeploy any tactical nuclear weapons and not to revert to military postures giving an increased role to tactical nuclear weapons.
There are compelling reasons, furthermore, to pursue nuclear disarmament also from the fissile material end. The closer towards zero one moves, the more sensitive the disarmament process becomes to the conditions in which fissile materials are kept. Fissile material is the bottleneck in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. At low levels of arms, large amounts of fissile materials provide the potential for breakout on a large scale. A nuclear weapon-free world will hardly be stable unless all fissile material has been placed under satisfactory international control. If this is not done, we would be left with a number of threshold states.
At the summit meeting between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in Moscow in May 1995, the two leaders signed a Joint Statement on the Transparency and Irreversibility of the Process of Reducing Nuclear Weapons. The statement calls for the conclusion of agreements for a regular exchange of information on aggregate stockpiles of nuclear weapons and fissile materials, for reciprocal monitoring at storage facilities of fissile material removed from nuclear weapons and declared to be "excess to national security requirements", and for other measures as necessary to enhance confidence in reciprocal declarations of fissile material stockpiles. Talks on these matters continued in a forum under the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, aiming at a new arms control regime covering the large US and Russian holdings of fissile material.
However, no formal agreement to set these measures in motion has been concluded. The talks fell victim to political changes in Russia and to the faltering relationship between Russia and the United States. This is a crucial failure, because START III and all progress beyond depends on greater transparency. It is crucial also because in Russia and other countries, the reported lack of effective accountancy and control of fissile materials leave very real risks of nuclear smuggling and theft. There is no way of knowing from the outside whether nuclear materials were illegally removed in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although the USA has since established joint programmes with the facilities they judged most vulnerable to nuclear theft, the international community can not be confident that material is not being stolen. Why do governments of European nations, and the government of the United States, spend so tiny a fraction of their defense expenditures on fissile material accountancy, management and disposition in Russia when these problems are at the source of the military threats that conceivably they might have to face?
Another nuclear threat, exacerbated by the faltering progress of disarmament, is that one or a few nuclear weapons might be acquired by a fanatical national leader or a sub-state group. Building a nuclear device, in particular one using highly-enriched uranium, is a relatively simple matter. Assuming there are those in the world who would use nuclear weapons, for whatever reason, then if fissile materials become easier to procure, as many believe has happened in recent years, the a priori probability of nuclear terrorism increases.
The governments in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are failing to take seriously the threat of nuclear terrorism. The United States, for example, has struck a deal to buy 500 tons of highly-enriched uranium from Russia (enough to construct at least 10,000 nuclear warheads) – potentially a highly significant action. Yet the deal has been undermined by entrusting it to a commercial firm concerned with financial, not security, considerations.
In the work towards nuclear disarmament, the involvement and support of groups such as the New Agenda Coalition and the Middle Power Initiative will be of critical importance. Through their efforts, and those of a wide variety of NGOs, public pressure can be brought to bear on national governments to live up to their commitments towards moving to a nuclear weapon-free world.
Non-Nuclear Threats to Peace and Security
TERRORISM is a world-wide phenomenon, due mainly to a variety of extremist groups. Their motives may be political, ethnic, religious or lunatic, and there is no simple solution to the very real dangers they represent. In general, they arise from deep social and political problems. Treating terrorism simply as a security issue is only a short-term solution, and retaliatory measures are unproductive since they can convert moderates into extremists.
Organized crime, including drug trafficking, has different roots from terrorism and operates in a different way, working to corrupt the social framework. Globalization of markets, advances in telecommunications technology, falling commodity prices, armed conflict, debt, and mass migration have all worked to enhance the wealth and power of international crime organizations in the past decade. As a result, criminal enterprises now have many resources previously held only by states, including financial wealth in excess of many national economies, sophisticated telecommunications equipment, and advanced armaments. At the same time, organized crime syndicates of differing backgrounds have recently begun to coordinate their operations through a "strategic alliance," which aims to expand the markets and protect the illegal activities of its members.
In the face of the growing power of such organizations, governmental and non-governmental organizations must explore and devise political and social institutions to make national governments more transparent. In addition, financial controls and anti-money laundering initiatives provide choke points for undermining organized crime. The loose banking laws of many states greatly facilitate and enable criminal networks. In some states, a long-term process of education in a culture of peace and legality seems necessary.
While sophisticated light weapons (man-portable infantry-style arms) are the principal tools of violence used in organized crime and terror, both these and more primitive non-explosive weapons are common to internal conflicts around the world. Much has been learned about small arms proliferation and use during the past decade, and several remedial policies are now becoming apparent and are beginning to be enacted. Thus far, attention has been focused on the illegal traffic in small arms, especially in relation to narcotics trafficking, with the most advanced effort to date being the negotiation and signing by members of the Organization of American States of a convention against the illicit manufacture and transfer of firearms, explosives and ammunition. While this initiative is highly appreciated by Pugwash, governments must move beyond a focus solely on illicit trafficking, in recognition of the many linkages between the legal and illegal trade in small arms. There are enormous stocks of light weapons held in private hands, often in excess of the numbers held in the arsenals of armed forces and police establishments. Left overs from the Cold War and massive transfers during internal wars have greatly aggravated the issue in the 1990s. Also, some countries’ domestic gun purchase and ownership laws are so permissive that they contribute directly to the black-market trade, and theft or capture of arms belonging to state security forces - usually legally supplied - is one of the most common sources of black-market arms supply. Transparency by national governments about their legal small arms trade is vital in order to reduce the proliferation, misuse and/or diversion of legally exported small arms.
Initiatives to limit arms on the demand side are proceeding, as well. Most promising has been an initiative by West African governments to enact a regional moratorium on small arms production and imports. This moratorium, expected to be launched at the end of October, is a model for other regions. Governments and non-governmental organizations should work to facilitate such sub-regional initiatives, realizing that a secure environment is a necessary precondition for socio-economic development and, in particular, for donor-driven development projects.
Another promising approach is to seek to diminish proliferation or misuse of small arms through greater respect for obligations under international humanitarian law—or the "laws of war." The International Committee of the Red Cross is currently engaged in several efforts in this regard. One initiative—the "SIrUS" project—seeks to define the phrase "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering": weapons which produce superflous injury and unnecessary suffering are currently prohibited under international humanitarian law. In another, the ICRC has been commissioned by the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent to examine the extent to which the availability of weapons is contributing to the proliferation and aggravation of violations of international humanitarian law. Both of these initiatives deserve the support of national governments and national Red Cross/Crescent organizations at the 1999 International Conference of the movement.
Finally, we urge governments and private sector enterprises to pursue technological approaches to curbing small arms trafficking, including in the areas of marking and tracing of weapons, ammunition controls, determination of which weapons might be singled out on grounds of international humanitarian law or their utility for terrorism, detection of hidden caches of weapons, and detection of ammunition and guns in container ships.
On the issue of anti-personnel landmines, the detection of currently deployed landmines remains highly unsatisfactory and requires basic and applied research to achieve the technological improvements needed. Some physicists are working on this problem but funds and additional scientific and technological groups should be mobilized to undertake the tasks to make available the tools necessary to mitigate the human suffering from these inhumane weapons. At the same time, governments must ensure, pending the elimination of anti-personnel landmines, that these weapons are not transferred or made available to non-state actors and non-military organizations.
Conflict Resolution and the Construction of Peace
GLOBALIZATION raises a number of critical issues, including: (1) the growing power and changing roles of multinational corporations; (2) greater inequalities within states, and (3) the future of the state itself. The trend in global inequalities was aggravated by colonialism and is being further exacerbated by globalization. This reality is likely to produce new conflicts, such as the one in Chiapas. At the same time, the evidence indicates that the basics we come to expect from government – democratic practices, human rights, anti-corruption, and contributions to development – are increasingly being attended to by a number of societal actors other than governments. This implies growing roles in the international arena for non-state actors, including in the area of conflict resolution.
The United Nations and other multi-lateral organizations must work as systematically as possible for conflict prevention. In comparison with peacekeeping operations, preventive action can be tremendously cost-effective. We recommend that the UN sets up an informal list of "countries in special situations", appointing a small group of experts to continuously follow developments in every country on the list under the guidance of high officials at UN Headquarters. Unfortunately, the United Nations has to be selective, putting priority to missions that have a certain chance of success, not to squander scarce resources. But when conflicts are ripe for third party involvement, the UN ought to be well prepared.
One such ripeness criterion is "a mutually hurting stalemate with a way out", in Central America sometimes referred to as a "dynamic equilibrium" with no real prospect for any of the parties to win. The "way out" may be a proposal that has been considered at an earlier stage, or something that a third party is asked to elaborate in close consultation with the parties to the conflict. In the cases of El Salvador and Guatemala, which were reviewed at this Conference, the breakthroughs seem to have come precisely at such a time of painfull stalemate, confirming a lesson that has also been learnt elsewhere.
The Balkans confront us with the fact that if we define national boundaries by ethnic identities, we will have 120-130 new states in the world. The solution is difficult but the challenge is obvious: how to create the conditions in which people of different ethnic backgrounds and/or religions can live together and be equally treated as citizens. The issue of Europe´s failure to act in the Balkans before the US decided to act is noted. The problem for Europe is not early warning but early action.
In the Middle East, the high hopes raised by the Oslo agreement of 1993 are dwindling quickly. Lack of progress in the peace process, mainly due to the reluctance of Israel´s present government to continue the process, and the inability of the United States to intervene and act as an honest broker, point to a pressing need that other actors like the United Nations and the European Union should be brought in to help the parties achieve a just and lasting peace.
Earlier this year, under the auspices of the United Nations, the Statute of the Permanent International Criminal Court was adopted. The jurisdiction of the Court covers serious crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We welcome the establishment of the Court, hoping that it will take the international legal order a step forward by punishing those who are guilty of serious breaches of international and humanitarian law, and that it will have a deterrent effect on those who consider such acts.
We ask governments that have been critical of the Statute so far to change their minds and adopt a positive attitude towards it. These governments should understand that it is a mistake to believe that they can save their countries from possible humiliation by not letting their nationals appear before the Court.
Environmental Dimensions of Peace
ENVIRONMENTAL problems are becoming increasingly global problems with serious implications for peace and security at the local, regional and world levels. Climate change is one of the most serious challenges that the world will face in the coming century. It also poses an intra and intergenerational moral problem.
The Protocol to the United Nations´ Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed upon in Kyoto during the Third Conference of the Parties in December 1997, while far from allowing the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, is however a positive step towards a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialized countries are committed to achieve a small but concrete emission abatement target. A new mechanism, called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was approved to involve developing countries in an effort to reduce the growth of future greenhouse gas emissions. Through this mechanism, the industrialized countries could finance specific projects aiming at advancing sustainable development in developing countries at the same time allowing emission reductions. However, there is the possibility that the Kyoto protocol will fail because the key industrialized countries are not showing the required political leadership. We deplore that the situation in the US is such that the Kyoto protocol cannot be sent for ratification to the Senate until an approach for the participation of the South in emissions reductions has been fully worked out.
The next meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in November 1998 could cancel the advances made in Kyoto. Rather than weakening the Kyoto commitments, it is urgent to strengthen them in order to pave the way for the far stronger commitments needed in the long term. Numerous cost-effective technological options exist both within the energy and forestry sectors which would allow substantial emission reductions beyond the Kyoto agreement
Another important issue is that of water supplies, the security of which is precarious for many countries. In South Africa, the scarcity of water is an ongoing problem so that much of the country´s water needs to be supplied from beyond its borders. All of the countries in the Middle East, with the exception of Turkey and Lebanon, are likewise short of water. Israel, for one, is looking at a wide variety of technological innovations to satisfy its water needs. Sri Lanka has a different problem, but is applying solutions that provide a model for other countries having adequate average rainfall that is spaced unpredictably throughout the year. In the end, security in water supply is necessary to have sustainable development as well as to reduce tensions and increase trust between nations.
More generally, there is ample evidence indicating that environmental issues and problems could be faced in such a way that increasing resource use efficiency together with technological innovation and changes in current consumption patterns are attained without compromising aspirations for socioeconomic development. Currently, the main challenge is for policy makers to come to grips with the need to make the far-reaching decisions that are required. The world needs to create the political and institutional conditions that will bring all countries towards life styles, consumption patterns, and technological choices that ensure a sustainable future for everyone.
The Health Effects of War and Poverty
TWO central problems in relation with health are: 1) health effects of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and 2) interactions of health problems and poverty.
There is a need to teach a new generation the extreme dangers which nuclear weapons pose for humanity and for all life on earth. Although the end of the Cold War has reduced the danger of a catastrophic east-west exchange, great danger still exists because of inadequately guarded fissile material. There have in fact been several incidents of smuggled weapons grade fissile material. Recent tests by India and Pakistan emphasize the continuing danger of nuclear weapons being used in a local war, and the danger of accidental nuclear war.
While in earlier epochs it may have been possible to confine the effects of war to combatants, in our own century the victims of war have increasingly been civilians, and especially children. Also, in spite of the convention of the Rights of the Child, children are forced to become soldiers, and are subjected not only to injury and death but also to severe psychological trauma. Adults are also affected psychologically by the extreme trauma and stress of war. The indirect health effects of war are also enormous; today, in spite of the end of the Cold War, the world spends roughly a thousand billion US dollars on armaments. The cost of this almost unimaginable sum in lost health benefits is huge.
An analysis of the causes of war from a biological point of view leads to the conclusion that the complete elimination of war is possible, as illustrated by regions of the world where war was once endemic but where it now would be unthinkable.
Regarding the interactions of health problems and poverty, in the countries of the South, the daily fight against infectious disease is a severe strain on development. In many large third-world cities, overcrowding, contaminated water, polluted air, dense population without sanitation, low status of women, high birth rates, rapidly increasing population, high unemployment levels, poverty, crime, ethnic conflicts, and resurgence of infectious disease are linked in a self-perpetuating loop of cause and effect. The task of health care systems is to break the vicious circle, and for this, care of children is vital. Children must be protected from abuse and exploitation, and child labor should be prohibited.
Every year three million children die of diarrheal diseases, 3.6 million children die of acute respiratory infections, and two million children die of other preventable diseases. Most of these deaths are in the developing countries. Approximately 270 million people suffer from malaria, and it causes between one and 2.5 million deaths each year, mostly among African children. Globally, an estimated 30.6 million people now carry the HIV virus, 21 million of these in sub-Saharan Africa. Roughly 1.8 billion people are infected with the tubercle bacillus, and three million die from the disease every year, 95 percent of the victims being in poor countries.
Primary health care encourages communities to take responsibility for their health and for their natural environment using simple, low-cost and sustainable techniques for keeping water clean, food free from contamination, and houses free from harmful insects and dirt. Many diseases associated with poverty are preventable by well-established measures, including immunization and sanitary engineering. However, important ground has recently been lost by some countries, an example being the resurgence of diphtheria in Russia, due to a lapse in immunization. Tuberculosis is also resurgent, often linked with AIDS. Another example of lost ground is the reduction of expenditures on clean water programs in some African countries.
The aggressive campaigns of tobacco companies have raised the number of smokers in the developing and East European countries, thus contributing markedly to increased mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer. Large pharmaceutical firms have been reluctant to sponsor research on tropical diseases because such research might not be sufficiently profitable. Developed countries have also maintained harsh policies towards third world debt, thus undermining ability of the poorer countries to finance their health programs. Finally, the developed countries have promoted expensive, high-tech solutions to third world health problems – strategies not appropriate to the epidemiological, social and economic characteristics of the regions. Examples such as the inappropriately expensive treatment of cardiovascular diseases, illustrate the fact that market forces cannot be relied upon to provide effective and efficient health care. Health care strategies should be evidence-based and planned in response to population needs. It is essential that health care and the benefits of advances in medicine should be made available to the largest numbers of people at affordable costs.
The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs would like to extend its deep appreciation to all those organizations and individuals who contributed to the support and success of the 48th Pugwash Conference. Principal among these is our hosts, the Pugwash Group of Mexico, chaired by Prof. Ana María Cetto. Within Mexico, we also had substantial support from the Ministry of External Relations, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Health of the Mexican government, and from the National University of Mexico. Additional support was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Christopher Reynolds Foundation, the Samuel Rubin Foundation, and the Arca Foundation.
