Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation Meeting, November 1984

The twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomat­ic Documentation met in Washington on November 9, 1984. Committee members present included John Gaddis, Carol S. Gruber, and Warren F. Kuehl, representing the American Historical Association; Ole R. Holsti and Deborah W. Larson, for the American Political Science Association, and John L. Hargrove, for the American Society of International Law.

At the opening session, nearly 40 persons attended, including 27 members of the staff of the Historical Office. John McCarthy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Public Affairs, reported on constructive thought within the State Department in re­sponse to reports of the Advisory Committee over the past few years and especially that of 1983.

Committee members decided to depart from the tradition of electing a person serv­ing the last year of an appointment because that individual cannot be present to follow up on the previous report. They thus elected a newcomer, Warren F. Kuehl.

William Slany, the Historian, then offered an oral commentary in which he referred extensively to a Status Report prepared in response to a request by Congress for infor­mation regarding delays in the Foreign Rela­tions series and steps needed to accelerate publication. That document, submitted in August, proved to be useful in the ensuing discussions.

Mr. Slany noted that the series faces prob­lems necessitating reassessments without vio­lating the essential mandate to produce the most important documents and serve as a guide to unpublished diplomatic records.

The problems identified include:

1. The increasingly staggering accumula­tion of documents that must be proc­essed by the Historical Office (HO) staff;
2. Sensitive foreign government informa­tion even in US documents;
3. Other-agency documents over which the HO lacks access despite an Inter­agency Access Agreement;
4. Continuing delays in the declassifica­tion process, largely attributable to clearance procedures outside of the State
5. Delays of up to two years in the publica­tion process even after volumes are cleared;
6. The size and number of published books in relation to costs;
7. Growing concern over the status of electronic records, including durability and accessibility;
8. Staff allocation of time for preparing the regular series, special ones such as the Vietnam War, current documents volumes, and policy studies for the State Department.

While some of the above have been ad­dressed by previous Committees, it is the combined weight that requires consideration. Mr. Slany noted the helpfulness of previous reports, especially that of 1983, and reaf­firmed the dependence of the Historical Of­fice upon the scholarly community for advice and support.

The status report by John P. Glennon on the Foreign Relations series, as of August, showed the following stages of work.

Since November 1983, the Office has re­leased five volumes:

1952-54 IV. American Republics (January 1984)
1952-54 I. General: Political and Eco­nomic Matters. 2 parts (April 1984)
1952-54 XV. Korea. 2 parts (June 1984)
1952-54 XII. Part 1, East Asia and the Pacific (September 1984)
1952-54 II. National Security Affairs, 2 parts (November 1984)

The status of the following volumes listed last year as in “the final declassification stage at NSC” are as follows:

1951 IV. Europe. (Expected release in August 1985)
1952-54 XIV. China and Japan (Set for release in January or February 1985)
1955-57 Vietnam (Projected for mid-1985)

Volumes in the final declassification stage and ready for NSC review:

1952-54 VII. Central Europe
1955-57 China
1952-54 IX. Near East
1955-57 IX. Western European Security and Integration
1955-57 XXI. South Asia
1952-54 VI. Western Europe
1955-57 VIII. Austrian State Treaty; Geneva Summit Conference; Geneva Foreign Ministers Conference

Volumes not cleared but under final discussion and negotiation:

1952-54 VIII. Eastern Europe
1952-54 X. Iran
1952-54 XII. Part 2, East Asia

Volumes for the 1955-57 series have been prepared and most have been  approved by the Department of State and the Classifi­cation/Declassification Center, but nearly all require some clearance from the National Security Council (NSC) or the Department of Defense.

The 1958-60 series is in process with approximately one-half of the volumes com­piled.

Extensive discussion ensued regarding the problems identified, and the Committee’s formal recommendations follow.

The Committee wishes to begin by com­mending the Historian and the staff for the excellent Report to Congress with its review of conditions. The Committee recommends that this report be made available so scholars and others can read it. The Committee, while sympathetic and supportive of almost all fea­tures of the Report, felt compelled not to endorse the concept that the Foreign Relations series shall accept a thirty-year line. Consid­erable concern was expressed by committee members that even a thirty-year line would see continuing erosion and that it was impor­tant to record the concern of the scholarly community that lines drawn be followed. It is vital to continue to address the reasons for delays in the declassification process and to hasten the publication of volumes once they have been cleared.

The Committee recognizes that implemen­tation of the report, even to maintain a thirty-year position, will require additional resources for the Historical Office and other agencies involved in the declassification proc­ess. It therefore welcomed indications of renewed effort within the Department of State to support the series fully, and the Committee cannot emphasize strongly enough its hope that this will materialize. Implementation here can help alleviate prob­lems identified under items 1 and 8. It also urges the Historian to pursue more vigorous­ly previous recommendations of Advisory Committees regarding the possibility of us­ing microform supplements to adjust to the increasing volume of data that cannot be met by the printed volumes alone. The Committee further commends a proposed reorgani­zation plan of the Historical Office as anoth­er step toward improved efficiency.

Discussions which indicated that the char­ter creating the Advisory Committee is sub­ject to review provided additional opportuni­ty to respond to items 1, 4, and 8. The Committee first recommends that the Advis­ory Committee be expanded to include rep­resentatives named by the Society for His­torians of American Foreign Relations. This will provide the Historical Office with addi­tional persons who can provide substantive advice. Second, it endorses the suggestion of the Historian for the creation of an editorial board and for consultants. It has requested the Historian to prepare a written statement, based on suggestions raised during discus­sions, on how these working bodies or indi­viduals would be nominated and chosen, on their size and number, and on how they could be utilized.

Furthermore, the Committee recommends that any editorial board should function as a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee and that persons selected should be active users of the Foreign Relations series. The role of the consultants can be left flexible. It is evident that the scholarly integrity of the series should not be sacrificed by printing volumes with important classified documents omitted because they have not yet been cleared. Yet, waiting until particular items have been cleared has delayed publication and will continue to do so. The use of consul­tant-specialists can be useful to Historical Office staff members in evaluating these tradeoff decisions, and it can also provide assurance to scholars that volumes even if published without certain documents are not compromised. The Advisory Committee re­affirmed its belief that where significant items have been omitted from printed vol­umes the editors must alert readers that the documentation is not complete.

Discussion regarding items 2, 3, and 4 on the problem of declassification and the re­sulting delays require continuing attention. The Committee welcomes and  commends the Secretary of State’s response to the 1983 report that requested additional resources for the Historical Office and the CDC to implement his recommendation for faster processing. The Committee was pleased  to hear reports, especially from John Burke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Classification/Declassification, of interagency ef­forts to work with the Historical Office in clearing items for the series. The Committee recognizes, however, that more effort will be necessary in the form of interagency cooper­ation. It urges the Department of State to request the president to acknowledge and reaffirm the policy enunciated in President Nixon’s directive, Executive Order 11652, and issue clear guidelines to agencies regard­ing its implementation.

Items 5 and 6 regarding publication prob­lems, especially delays after the contents of volumes have been prepared and cleared, need to be addressed more vigorously. The Committee reaffirmed the recommendations of 1982 that the Historian seek a waiver of GPO printing requirements and explore publication by a private or university house. Questions raised about dissemination also require attention. The Committee thus asked the Historian to study and report on the feasibility of larger press runs, better sales promotion, a possible distribution through a university press consortium, and subscrip­tion rates for individuals. It also suggests checking whether the USIA cannot be uti­lized to place complete sets or available vol­umes in overseas university and research libraries.

Disturbing reports—item 7—about the sta­tus of computer-stored records since 1974 require more information before any prob­lems are addressed. The Historian is thus requested to prepare a report for the Adviso­ry Committee on the situation as well as what studies are under way to correct conditions. The Committee identified other concerns but did not have sufficient time to explore them. These included the status of foreign originated documents, the possibility of put­ting documents on-line in a databank, and proposed legislation that could affect the freedom of information process. The Com­mittee also feels uncertain about making rec­ommendations regarding the Vietnam series, particularly regarding preliminary interim volumes versus a full compendium. It does strongly recommend that the Historical Of­fice initiate the consultant process and seek the judgment of respected scholars on that subject.

The Committee was pleased at reports that the Department of State is seriously considerw ing suggestions for internships in the Histori­cal Office. Committee members also decided that they would inform their scholarly con­stituency of proposed congressional bills re­garding freedom of information and the impact these may have on scholars. It is evident that considerable effort has been made to respond to concerns expressed by Advisory Committees over the past few years. Morale of the staff of the Historical Office seems high, and all comments reveal a spirit of high professionalism in the desire to produce a full and definitive record in the face of obstacles. The evident support and verbal expressions regarding the importance of the Foreign Relations series by officers of the Department of State is encouraging. The Historical Office has achieved an apparently good working relationship with some of the agencies involved in the declassification process. Nevertheless, as this report indicates, serious and major problems need to be ad­dressed.

John L. Gaddis, Ohio University
Carol S. Gruber, William Paterson College
John Lawrence Hargrove, American Society of International Law
Ole R. Holsti, Duke University
Warren F. Kuehl, University of Akron, Chair
Deborah W. Larson, Columbia University