Soros Foundations Network 2003 Annual

Building Open Societies SOROS FOUNDATIONS NETWORK 2003 REPORT The Open Society Institute, a private operating and grantmaking foundation, aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. On a local level, OSI implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, OSI works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses. OSI was created in 1993 by investor and philanthropist George Soros to support his foundations in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Those foundations were established, starting in 1984, to help countries make the transition from communism. OSI has expanded the activities of the Soros foundations network to other areas of the world where the transition to democracy is of particular concern. The Soros foundations network encompasses more than 60 countries, including the United States. www.soros.org Building Open Societies SOROS FOUNDA TIONS NETWORK 2003 REPORT OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019 USA www.soros.org Building Open Societies: Soros Foundations Network 2003 Report Copyright © 2004 by the Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019 USA All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. CONTENTS PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 6 America’s Waning Influence as an Open Society REGIONS 14 Middle East 16 20 Iraq: photographed by Lynsey Addario Central Eurasia 24 27 Central Eurasia Project 28 Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation–Armenia 29 Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation–Azerbaijan 30 Open Society Georgia Foundation 31 Soros Foundation–Kazakhstan 32 Soros Foundation–Kyrgyzstan 35 Mongolian Foundation for Open Society 36 Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation–Tajikistan 38 Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation–Turkey 38 Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation–Uzbekistan South Eastern Europe 40 43 Open Society Foundation for Albania 44 Open Society Fund–Bosnia and Herzegovina 45 Open Society Institute–Croatia 46 Freedom of Movement Train: photographed by Hélène Caux 48 Kosova Foundation for Open Society 49 Foundation Open Society Institute–Macedonia 50 Soros Foundation–Moldova 51 Foundation Open Society Institute–Representative Office Montenegro 52 Fund for an Open Society–Serbia Central and Eastern Europe 54 57 Open Society Institute–Sofia (Bulgaria) 59 Open Society Fund–Prague (Czech Republic) 60 Open Estonia Foundation 61 Soros Foundation–Hungary 62 Soros Foundation–Latvia 63 Open Society Fund–Lithuania 66 Stefan Batory Foundation (Poland) 67 Open Society Foundation–Romania 68 Open Society Foundation–Bratislava (Slovakia) Russia and Ukraine 70 73 Open Society Institute–Russia 74 International Renaissance Foundation (Ukraine) Southeast Asia 76 79 Burma Project/Southeast Asia Initiative 80 AIDS in Asia: photographed by John Stanmeyer 3 » CONTENTS » CONTENTS » CONTENTS Africa 84 87 Open Society Foundation for South Africa 88 Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa 89 Open Society Initiative for West Africa Latin America and the Caribbean 92 95 Latin America Program 96 Bound to El Norte: photographed by Don Bartletti 99 Fundación Soros–Guatemala 100 Fondation Connaissance et Liberté (Haiti) 2003 Foundation Expenditures 102 INITIATIVES 108 Law, Justice, and Human Rights 110 113 Open Society Justice Initiative 114 Network Women’s Program 116 Roma Programs 118 Barriers: photographed by Heidi Levine, Clive Shirley, and Natalie Behring-Chisholm Public Health 122 125 Network Public Health Programs Education 130 133 Network Children and Youth Programs 135 Education Support Program 136 English Language Program 138 International Higher Education Support Program 138 Network Scholarship Programs 140 Central European University Information and Media 142 145 Information Program 146 Network Media Program 147 Project Syndicate 148 Community Radio: photographed by Les Stone 152 Open Society Archives 153 Central European University Press Other Initiatives 155 Arts and Culture Network Program 156 East East Program: Partnership Beyond Borders 157 Economic and Business Development Program 158 EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program 159 International Policy Fellowships 160 International Soros Science Education Program 161 Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative 2003 Program Expenditures 163 4 SOROS FOUNDATIONS NETWORK 2003 REPORT » CONTENTS » CONTENTS » CONTENTS U.S. PROGRAMS 164 166 Flexibility in Uncertain Times: Meeting the Challenges of an Open Society 168 Justice 173 Fellowships 175 OSI–Baltimore 176 Youth in Prison: photographed by Steve Liss 179 Youth Initiatives 180 Strategic Opportunities Fund 181 OSI–Washington, D.C. 182 Medicine as a Profession 182 Project on Death in America 183 Program on Reproductive Health and Rights 184 Governance and Public Policy 2003 U.S. Programs Expenditures 185 OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 186 188 Open Society Institute (New York) 188 Open Society Institute–Budapest 188 Open Society Institute–Brussels 189 Open Society Foundation–London 189 Open Society Institute–Paris 189 Open Society Institute–Washington, D.C. 189 Chairman’s and Presidential Grants 190 OSI Ombudsman 190 Application Information 191 2003 Expenditures 193 Partnerships DIRECTORY 196 CONTENTS 5 PRESIDENT’S MES 6 MESSAGE GE » PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE » PRESIDENT’S MESSA America’s Waning Influence as an Open Society GE » PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE » PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE » wo decades have now passed since the establish- Tment of the first Soros foundation outside the United States, the Soros Foundation–Hungary. During most of that period, the foundations network’s identity as an American-based institution was a substantial help in furthering our mission of establishing open societies in what had been closed or repressive societies. The United States was seen as a model open society by most persons in the countries of the former Soviet empire where our work was concentrated. The fact that many of the ideas, programs, and institutions we promoted had developed in the United States, and were particularly associated with the United States, was an advantage. The situation in which we find ourselves today is more complex. The Open Society Institute now operates in many parts of the world where an American identity was never as advantageous as it was in the former Soviet bloc region. More importantly, two factors have arisen since September 11, 2001, that make an American identity a disadvantage in some parts of the world where we are attempting to develop more open societies. One is greatly heightened anti-Americanism. The other is the perception that the United States is itself less of an open society, and more ready to abandon some principles of an open society, than American leaders routinely proclaim. Anti-Americanism takes a number of forms. To begin with, there is a long-standing resentment against the United States for insisting that its actions may not be constrained by international agreements or international institutions. In the human rights field, the United States took 26 years to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and no less than 40 years to approve the Genocide Convention of 1948. In both cases ratification was subject to so many reservations, declarations, and exceptions as to largely—but not entirely—negate the legal effect of ratification. The Bush administration, however, has gone much further in express- ing hostility to international agreements than previous administrations. The administration’s attitude is exemplified by its campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ninety-two other governments, most of them democracies with which the United States normally aligns itself, 9 » PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE » PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE » have ratified the treaty establishing the Court and gence the United States relied upon was faulty, or bound themselves to its authority. Not only has the that American officials grossly distorted the findings United States refused to do so, it has championed presented to them, or some combination of the two, legislation, adopted by the Congress, that threatens never produced any apology or concession of error the use of U.S. military force to liberate any by the Bush administration to those it had targeted American held for trial by the Court. The legislation with unwarranted scorn. Another noteworthy is widely known as the “Hague Invasion Act.” example of American antagonism to multilateral In addition, the United States has required approaches to solving critical issues is the adminis- many countries to sign agreements banning the tration’s abrupt withdrawal from the Kyoto agree- transfer of Americans to the custody of the Court. ment on global warming. And the list goes on. Many of the governments signing these agreements are not party to the treaty establishing the Court. Preemptive war Since the ICC lacks jurisdiction over crimes In September 2002, the Bush administration issued committed on their territory, the agreements are a new national security strategy for the United meaningless except as expressions of antagonism States, asserting its right to engage in preemptive to the Court. war at its sole discretion. To many in other parts of The Bush administration also has pressured the world, this assertion and its quick implementa- governments dependent on the United States not tion, in March 2003, in the war on

Load more