1987 Report of the Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation

The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation met in Washington on January 7 and 8, 1988. Originally planned for the fall, the meeting was postponed in hopes that the Department of State would, by Jan­uary, be ready to respond to a request, presented in June 1987, for changes in procedure that would enable the com­mittee to play a more effective role regarding declassification. The next regular meeting will take place, as usual, in the fall.

The committee considered various topics but had to postpone others,  in­cluding the merits of microfiche publi­cat10n and the possible publication of intelligence reports not included in ear­lier FRUS volumes. The most important matters, to which this report will be confined, were the implementation of President Reagan’s so-called “1960 by 1990” order of November 1985, broad­er questions about the future of the Foreign Relations series, and the perenni­al problems of declassification.

Last year we expressed concern that President Reagan’s directive that all FRUS volumes covering the years down to 1960 be published by 1990 might not be fulfilled; this year we are even more deeply concerned. The schedule estab­lished in 1986 to fulfill the President’s order called for publication of nine FRUS volumes in 1987. In fact, al­ though nine (including a two-part publi­cation delayed from 1986) were actually published in 1987, five volumes planned for publication did not appear; two of them are still held up at the declassification stage. The short-fall ex­perienced in 1987 is certain to be com­pounded in 1988, when, according  to the schedule laid down in 1986, thirteen volumes are to appear. We cannot but conclude that the President’s objective will not be achieved.

For this, the Historical Office, which has proceeded with efficiency and dis­ patch, cannot be blamed. We continue to be very favorably impressed by the diligence, energy, and creativity of the historian, William Z. Slany, and his staff. It has compiled most of the volumes covering the 1958-1960 triennium  and is well along with the remainder. Nor do publication costs excuse the short-fall; imaginative strategies developed by the historian have at least temporarily re­duced problems in this area. The ac­complishments of the Historical Office, in short, are exemplary.

The critical problem is slowness in the declassification process. Thirteen vol­umes cleared by the State Department’s Classification/Declassification Center, after consultation with appropriate agencies in the Department and else­ where, await final clearance by the Na­tional Security Council. Declassifiers at the NSC have been diverted this year by demands for materials relating to the Iran/Contra affair. However, we are not sanguine that, when these  demands end, NSC declassifiers can complete their task, which involves approximately thirty volumes, in time to meet the 1990 deadline. Nor has the CDC kept to the schedule laid down in 1986. Much of the tardiness can be explained by severe budgetary reductions CDC has experi­enced, and we believe that at least a restoration of CDC’s previous level of support is imperative. However, CDC’s record this year and in previous years suggests that, even when funds for re­ viewers are available, it proceeds at a pace much slower than that foreseen when the present program was estab­lished. Perhaps equally important, CDC does not arrange its schedule so that the volumes most likely to create difficulties are reviewed first.

In sum, we fear that the President’s “1960 by 1990” goal will not be met, certainly not unless major efforts are made to put the program on track. Indeed, it is not impossible that publica­tion of FRUS volumes will soon fall farther behind. We urge the Depart­ment to give serious thought to ways to expedite NSC clearance and CDC proc­essing.

To look ahead, the prospects for the series after 1990, when volumes for the 1960s should begin to appear, look grim. Here too declassification prob­lems figure as a major obstacle. In addi­tion, neither the Kennedy nor the John­ son Library has sufficient archival per­sonnel to keep up with the needs of the Historical Office. Already, work on the Department’s valuable series on Viet­nam, running ahead of FRUS coverage, has had to be suspended, and volumes on other topics face a serious threat.

At various times during our meeting, questions leading toward a fundamental one-the future of the FRUS series­ arose. For many years, FRUS has been a publication of record, providing docu­ments necessary to an understanding of the history of our foreign policy. The expanded American role in the world has made this aim more difficult to achieve, as have the involvement of agencies other than the Department of State and the ever-growing volume of records. To these latter factors, which continue to increase in importance, have recently been added budgetary constraints, constraints which seem cer­tain not to ease. Although increasing use of microfiche publication may ease the pressure, FRUS will almost certainly include a smaller proportion of the available records than it has in the past. Change is certain; how it is to be managed is not. For at least the next few years this will be a major concern of the committee. We do not yet know all of the questions to ask, although some are emerging. What principles should guide the Historical Office? What is the mini­mum number of volumes necessary to do justice to the record? How helpful can microfiche be? If the size of the series is reduced, should compilers pre­ sent reasonably complete documenta­tion on important issues (provide a rounded story) and scant others? Should they omit nothing, at least to the extent of directing scholars to appropri­ate sources (provide a geography of the archives)? What might be an appropri­ate compromise?

We must advise the historian on such questions. We have asked him to pre­ pare a paper for us, laying out the problems in detail, and we expect this matter to be a major item on our agenda next fall. Meanwhile, we have agreed to advise him, as a committee, on his over­ all planning for volumes covering the Kennedy years, and  we  are  working with him to establish a system whereby specialists in the academic community might give counsel on plans for individ­ual volumes and, after the volumes have been completed and declassified,  pro­ vide an assessment of them.

In our report last year, we discussed at some length the problems we con­ front concerning declassification, in particular the deletions required by the Classification/Declassification Center. In sum, the committee has long felt that it does not receive enough information to enable it to assure the associations it represents that FRUS publishes as faith­ful a record as is possible, given legiti­mate security concerns. Our efforts to establish a sustained dialogue with the Department have so far met with limit­ed success; nor has the Department, where we understand the matter is un­der consideration, developed its own position.

At our meeting this year, Dwight R. Ambach, Acting Director of the Office of Systematic Review, and several of his colleagues from CDC discussed  with us FRUS volumes recently cleared. No sim­ilarly detailed discussion has previously been held. Although the volumes dis­ cussed were, in the words of one of the CDC representatives, “not problem volumes,” we had a very helpful discussion; the committee learned a great deal about the general criteria used by CDC. We trust that this method of mutual education and reassurance can be fur­ther developed, and, since our meeting, we have submitted specific proposals to the Department. Many deletions, in­cluding most of the substantial ones, involve matters of judgment, and we have no desire to second-guess CDC in individual cases. We do insist that we must receive enough information to meet our responsibilities.

Present during the meeting were Robert Dallek, representing the Ameri­can Historical Association; Deborah Larson, representing the American Po­litical Science Association; John Law­rence Hargrove, representing the American Society of International Law; Bradford Perkins, representing the Or­ganization of American Historians; and Warren L. Cohen and Michael H. Hunt, representing the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. The Committee re-elected Bradford Perkins as chair.