100 Seconds to Midnight

On January 20, 2022, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest point to midnight since its creation in 1947. The Clock, which serves as “a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies in other domains,” was moved forward in part due to brewing tensions in Ukraine. Russia’s subsequent invasion on February 24 quickly escalated into brinkmanship as Putin put the country’s nuclear weapons on high alert and made thinly veiled threats to deploy its arsenal.

The invasion of a sovereign nation on European soil coupled with the threat of nuclear war has snapped the world out of its post-Cold War complacency, bringing issues of global security to the forefront of public consciousness. While politicians struggle to respond to the unfolding emergency, and ordinary people worry about the future, those in the third sector are undoubtedly asking themselves questions about the role of philanthropy in preventing conflict, specifically: What have philanthropic institutions been doing to avert nuclear war? Who is funding peace and security efforts?

The Current State of Foundation Funding

Despite the period of relative stability ushered in by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War did not eliminate the threat of global conflict or nuclear war. Since then, there have been hundreds of incidents of illegal activity surrounding radioactive materials, as well as more nuclear false alarms than most people are aware of. Add to that the fact that more than 13,000 nuclear weapons are still in existence, and the world looks like a much less secure place.

However, private funders have done little to minimize these threats to humanity’s very existence. The most recent Peace and Security Funding Index (2020) paints a dismal picture of the current state of philanthropy in this area. According to the report, less than 1% of total funding awarded by the largest 100 U.S. foundations in 2018 was dedicated to promoting peace and security, amounting to just $377 million out of the total of $33 billion awarded that year.

This dearth of grant dollars is due largely to foundations’ misgivings about allocating funds to such efforts. Grantmakers are often reluctant to fund peace and security work because it is a long-term undertaking spanning decades rather than years and it is not easy to attribute a foundation’s awards to the prevention of war. In other words, in a sector that is obsessed with quantifying results, the impossibility of crafting measurable outcomes for conflict prevention efforts may explain the lack of support for this area. In addition, funding peace work, much of which relates to legislation or policy, can veer into the murky waters of politics, something which most funders prefer to avoid.

Top Funders of Peace and Security

So, who are the top peace and security funders, and what exactly have they been supporting?

According to the Index, the number one backer of peace and security efforts is the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which allocated $47.3 million to this cause in 2018, followed by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which awarded $40.7 million.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York provides support in this area through its International Peace and Security program. This program is far-reaching, having supported 111 organizations in 2021 alone. It seeks to “build a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous world through independent analysis and action addressing critical global challenges.” Funding is focused on promoting nuclear security, addressing the geopolitical causes of global instability, building peace in Africa, understanding trends shaping the Middle East, and building ties between academics and policy makers on issues relating to peace and security.

The MacArthur Foundation’s peace and security funding is funneled through its Nuclear Challenges program. Scheduled to sunset in 2023, this program currently focuses on “encouraging a diverse pipeline of talent in the nuclear field, challenging nuclear deterrence theory, providing leadership around the intersection of nuclear and climate issues, and supporting key organizations in the nuclear field.”

Coming in third with $38.6 million in funding was the Foundation to Promote Open Society, part of the Open Society Foundations, followed by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Ford Foundation, at $17.7 and $16.7 million, respectively.

With a mission to “build vibrant and inclusive democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens”, the Open Society Foundations currently work in areas related to peace and security through programs such as Democratic Practice, Human Rights Movements and Institutions, Information and Digital Rights, and Justice Reform and Rule of Law. The Foundations, which have supported democracy efforts in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans since the 1990’s, spoke out in support of Ukraine at the outset of the Russia invasion.

Number four on the list, the Hewlett Foundation, funds peace and security-related issues through its Cyber Initiative. This program seeks to develop multidisciplinary solutions to cyber-related challenges and improve policy in this area. Recently, grants were made to support the CyberPeace Institute’s work to promote digital rights and reduce cyber attack-related harms, and the Atlantic Council’s Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge, to encourage students to develop policies addressing a theoretical cyber disaster.

Finally, the Ford Foundation funds peace and security efforts through its International Cooperation and Global Governance program, which is currently focused on “achieving a just and inclusive global order” by promoting social justice and combatting inequality within global systems. “By fostering dialogue and strategic alliances among civil society, international non-governmental organizations, governments and intergovernmental organizations, [the Foundation aims] to promote democratic values, justice, and inclusivity as core principles in changing global governance systems.”

Issue-Specific Funders

While most of the larger funders, with their gargantuan endowments and multiple program areas, dedicate just a portion of their budgets to peace and security efforts, some smaller funders are focused almost exclusively in this area.

One such grantmaker is the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law, which seeks to build understanding of issues related to rule of law and security in fragile and conflict-affected areas. Through its Knowledge Management Fund, the Platform supports research, events, and other initiatives that improve the quality of knowledge in the security and rule of law field.

The Ploughshares Fund is another issue-specific grantmaker, with a primary focus on preventing nuclear war. The Fund is dedicated to “funding organizations and people who promote the elimination of nuclear weapons, prevent the emergence of new nuclear states, and build regional peace.” In addition to awarding grants in these areas, the Fund publishes in-depth reports on nuclear-related topics and hosts a podcast, Press the Button, exploring issues of the day, including the current situation in Ukraine.

Two additional funders apply specific lenses to the topic of peace and security. The Maypole Fund takes a feminist perspective on these issues, providing small grants to “imaginative, non-violent activities by feminist anti-militarist women—whether individual women or women only groups—to proactively challenge patriarchy.” The Fund’s core issue areas include anti-militarism, disarmament, and actions against the arms trade and nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Fellowship of Reconciliation approaches the topic from a religious viewpoint by carrying out its mission “to grow and resource the community of Christians committed to nonviolence; challenge militarism; embody peace and reconciliation.” The Fellowship supports grassroots initiatives through its International Peacemakers’ Fund.

While all of these funders are making important contributions to the field of peace and security, overall funding in this area still represents just a drop in the bucket of global grantmaking. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there have been calls to increase philanthropic support in this area, the argument being that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, especially when it comes to investments in peace versus war.” (The Peace and Security Funders Group is one organization working to catalyze support in this area.)

However, others might question whether such funding would have prevented the situation in Ukraine from unfolding, as the decision to invade was largely in the hands of one individual. Scholars of international relations dedicate substantial thought to understanding how the personality types of individual leaders affect foreign policy decisions, and this field of inquiry will likely gain even more traction in the years to come, as political scientists try to make sense of the history that is unfolding at this very moment.

While the time has passed to prevent the conflict from occurring, it is never too late for foundations to take a stand against these hostile actions. It is also in the power of both foundations and individuals to financially support humanitarian aid to the Ukranian people, who have seen their lives completely upended by recent events.