Right to Know: Freedom of Information

Secrecy and Freedom of Information. International Conference 2004

“Secrecy and Freedom of Information” International Conference,18 March, 2004

Secrecy and Freedom of Information in Mongolia; National peculiarities

Sergey Radchenko
CEP CA & Visiting Fellow, National University of Mongolia

Ladies and Gentlemen!
Thank you for inviting us to speak here today. I am particularly grateful to Globe International, which has committed tremendous efforts towards advancing the cause of freedom of information in Mongolia. I would also like to say thanks to the Asia Foundation and the Mongolian Foundation for Open Society for helping make this very important event possible.

“Mash nuuts” (top secret) – that’s the answer I got from some Mongolian officials, when I requested access to historical documents for a scholarly undertaking. Others would give me blank look, as if faced with unheard of task. Many would tell me to come tomorrow (because they have lost keys to the room with the documents) or say they did not have what I asked for. For over six months I had countless meetings with government authorities and archivists – persuading, arguing, appealing to democratic principles and quoting from Marx and Lenin – to gain access to documents on Mongolian history. To no avail: Mongolian history is classified, sensitive, officials' eyes only.

The documents I was looking for related to Mongolia’s recent history, from the 1940s, 1950s and 60s. It may stupefy a historian that, for instance, conversations between Stalin and Choibalsan (though they were openly printed in the newspapers in the early 1990s) are still considered state secret, and their release could lead to 8 years’ jail term, but for some officials this is more than natural.

Mongolian Foreign Ministry Archive contains an impressive collection of documents on the MPR’s foreign policy – a true treasure trove for historians! Access to the archive is utterly impossible, bogged down by unbelievable red tape, fear and trembling of the archivists and by claims of secrecy for documents decades old! MPRP historical archives, though handed over to the government, are accountable to party officials who are not happy, to say the least, about the eventuality of scholarly access to the Politburo transcripts from the 1940s and 50s. Everything is secret in the Ministry of Defense archive, and one should not even mention aloud the State Security Archive. Recently I requested to see the original of Tsedenbal's diary, openly published in the early 1990s. And would you believe this, the diary is strictly secret, I was told by the head of the party archives, because someone might get upset if I publish a work based on Tsedenbal's diary. I am glad at least that Chinggis Khan's chronicles escaped the embrace of the party archive, because if they hadn’t, we would still know next to nothing about Chinggis Khan.

This overriding concern with secrecy and draconian measures, taken by the Mongolian government to keep history away from the public are not unprecedented; indeed, many governments have placed insurmountable restrictions on the freedom of information. At the same time, many democratic states provide open access to historical materials. Under Freedom of Information Act, the United States government is bound to release previously classified records to the public, unless there is an overriding impetus not to do so (an exception very rarely used). Over the years, American government released files upon files of documents from the White House, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, providing historians with valuable opportunities for research. Indeed, for many US historians the main difficulty in research in not the dearth of information, but the wealth of it. The same may be said about England, where, under a strict 30 year rule, formerly secret information is released to the public, no questions asked. What a contrast with Mongolia, where scholars still have to produce "invitation letters", signed by highest authorities to look even at the most mundane archival documents! In most cases, letters alone are not enough.

On the other hand, Western standards of access to information may be far too demanding for Mongolia, which only recently emerged from autocratic rule. But so have Eastern European states. In Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania (to name but a few) documents up to 1990 are fully open to the public. The first document on Mongolia's recent history, available to the international scholarly community, was a conversation between Yu. Tsedenbal and Zhou Enlai from 1962, found in the German archives. The Mongolian archivists to whom I showed this document (available on the Internet since 1990s) were dumbfounded to see me in possession of a document still considered "top secret" in their archives! [show Foreign Ministry letter. Mention the problems with Mongolia's laws: contradiction, broad definition of "national security" - anything is national security!] Even the Russian government, for all of its obsession with secrecy, declassified considerable amount of documentation from the Cold War period (some relating to Mongolia), though ostensibly the Russians would have more to hide from the international community of scholars than the Mongolian government. One should note in passing the well known truth - such closeness and secrecy breeds corruption.

Closeness and secrecy hide fear. Researchers are kept at arm's length's distance because of fear on the part of archivists to land in jail for releasing treasured "state secrets". The examples of Tod-gates and Baatar-gates are difficult to ignore. Have you seen the Soviet-era poster: "ne boltai u telefona, boltun nahodka dlya shpiona". (Don't chatter on the phone, a chatterer's is a find for a spy". There is no need to put up such posters in Ulaanbaatar, because for bureaucrats any foreign (and often local) researcher is already a spy by default. Is this the right attitude for the new democratic Mongolia? I don't think so.

During a recent International Conference on New and Restored Democracies, Mongolian government signed the Ulaanbaatar Declaration, pledging support for "an open and transparent society [which] encourages the free creation, pursuit and flow of information". Delegates from new and restored democracies departed Mongolia convinced that the country was well on the way to openness and transparency. Behind the faзade of openness, however, there are hard facts - what openness are we to talk about when even the documents from the 1940s and 1950s are still classified, "top secret", off the limits to rare researchers!

Nongovernmental Organizations, interested in monitoring freedom of information, have often neglected Mongolia. Transparency International, in a recent report, discussed issues of public access to information in East Asia, including Japan, China and South Korea, but it hardly mentioned Mongolia. But the Mongolian government might not be able to benefit from such neglect in the future.

Overall, it seems bizarre that the government would hang on to historical documents at the cost of jeopardizing today's reputation as an open government. This is a peculiar logic, difficult to crack for academically minded historians. I hope the Mongolian government will not pass the opportunity to show that it has truly committed itself to openness and transparency, and that it

The United States Freedom if Information Act; Experience of the National Security Archive

Malcolm Byrne,
Deputy Director and Director of Research, National Security Archive

Thank you very much. Thank you also to our hosts Mongolian Foundation Open Society, Open Society Forum, Globe Intrenational, Foreign Ministry and others who have made are presence here possible, its pleasure to be here. I want to try tand keep this very short, which is difficult to do it, difiicult for me to explain what I do and what my organization is in very short time, but I particular want to try give more time as well to several of my colleagues who are here and who will have other perspectives. So, let me just very quicly discribe the National Security Archive, which is the a group I work for. It is non profit, non governmental organization based Goerge Wachington University. I repeated is not governmental organization much as me sound that way. The group was founded 1985, preciasily to press for greater access to information on the part of United State government, on behalf US public. The US as you know has had Freedom of Information Act in effect since 1966, almost 20 years before we came to it existance, but it was variely used to maximum benefit and capacity before groups of people journalists, public interest organizations, scholars and so on, focused on how to use the law as officiantly and fully as possible. The organization that I work for was created preciciasly to do that. I was lestining to Cergey discusses his problems here in Mongolia, when says things like, he is told that materials are top secret you can not see them, keys are lost or come back tomorrow. It is almost identical to the things that we still here today in United States. My colleagues and I used Freedom of Information Act are constantly been rebaft and turned away. It has shown again and again that was required is in organization is a force that will press against these refuse also and try guarantee the right the law gives us to obtain the documents we have requisted. Let me just very quikly discribe the Freedom of Information Act, I know that all of you probably know all basics, but it was first put in effect 1966, it was stregnhened 1974. It has majoristy to allow anybody not just American citizen, but anybody to requist documents to be declasified by any entity or office of the Federal Government United States. There was state level versions of the law. It has 9 exemptions that allow government officials to deny documents to requisters legally for reasons of national security, personnel privacy, buseness interests and 6 other categories. They are actually quite broad. The law is obvouisly crucial. It is great law in principle, but our experiences near by Cergey here in Mongola show that having is not enough. You need strong implementation. Again that central what the national security archive exist for, must try to press for better implementation of the law. Strong implementation requeres several things. It requeres strong legal structure, it requires strong independent court system. Under the Freedom of Information Act, if you are denied documents you are allow to appeal that denial by going back to the agency and making an argument that they revirse that decision and release more material to you. If that process does not give you satisfaction than you have right to go to court and to sue that agency. Part of reason why we do that appear to have conflict of interest. So do not expect any government funding.

Another aspect of legal structure that is required is a strong legislative branch, Concress in our case, which not only formulated in past of freedom of information act, but regularly monitors the Federal Governments implementation of the act. That is ongoing sometimes very contentios process.

In addition to legal structures you need sociatal structures. You need entiteis in society in large, who share interest in pressing government in for greater access. Journalists and journalism community is the most obvious example. But another example is having a strong NGO community andI know Mongolia does have NGO community. As I understant that community having some success in getting international support for their operations, which is very possitive sign.

In addition, in you’re the benefets of opennees. It is not a requirement that all materials be kept secret. As you well know, as you hearing today, as you all know yourselves within government there is natural tendency toward secrecy. Particularly, in say an Intelligence Agence that is problem we can front daily in United States.

But, if you don`t have a basic sence of public interest in openness, public demand for less secrecy. If you don`t have beyond that a willingness inside of the government, among government officials to produce these documents, then the best laws on the books will have no effect what so ever.

I would add to that, just one small note that is commitment to fund this process. I know funding is the issue in many other contries including Mongolia. The funding of Freedom of Information Act in United States is only order of pennies per citizen. If you balance against that the cost of maintaining secrecy in United States, there is simple no comparison. It is only order of billions of billions of dollors that is required to maintain documents and secure facilities to hire official who clasify documents and who maintain their clasification. Those costs as I say there are no comparison to the trivial cost of maintaining those official, whose job it is to declasify documents and response to Freedom of Information Act requiest .

And our specific figures there are avialable on many websites, our website just to on subject is www.nsarchive.org. But there are many others and you find liks several of them on our website.

I`m going to cut this very short. I just want to conclude by saying that obviously the road to having a successful and useful access environment, I can put that way, in countries very long one process is all entertain you need basic level of democratic governance and openness to creat environment nessecairy for an effective Freedom of Information law. And an effective law interim supports that environment in a kind of open government. Freedom of Information process can and does work. As I as guess as millions of pages have been released in United States and dispite fears of complaints within parts of government, which we hear every day. I would defy any one to identify any actual deminution of the security of the United States. As a result of the release of any document whether is Pentigon papers, whether is materials about the Intellingens budget of the CIA, there has been no lestining security of United States.

Final point FOI legislation is far for weakening society, actually strengthens society. For reason that I`m sure all of you aware of strenghtens it mainly by establishing creater accountibility of government, which inspires confidence in government, which promotes stability in the long round for greater democracy.

Openness is international trend dispite I`m sorry to say a backward movement in my own country for the last several years, which is demonstrable. In international community the trend is opposed much more healthy direction and I hope this meeting will help to Mongolia moving that direction also.
Thank you.

Politics of Secrecy and Declassification

Jim Hershberg,
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs, George Washington University

Thank you very much.
It is great pleasure to be here and I applied the initiative of the Foreign Ministry the hostile this important meeting and the work the organizations to stage it. I’m also devoted to here in Mongolia for the first time, so I want to say the outside that some of my very frank comments reflect the views of non-expert of Mongolia and outsider who is simply arriving and giving his initial impressions. But it is the view of some who has been engaged along with my colleagues for the last decade and more in work on international history of Cold War.

I have worked extensively in both Western and Eastern archives and so I’m going to say reflect that experience. Fistful, I want to make some very basic comments about the philosophy underline Freedom of Information Act in United States in general question of openness and declassification in democratic countries. Because of I realize that the process taking place in Mongolia is very new and very rushed and so in avoidably there is experience of learning and taking the experience of other countries and combining them special Mongolian circumstances.
Nevertheless, I think some of philosophical issues are relevant. Probably, the most important factor reliance around this questions of what Malcolm Byrne my colleague called importance of culture of openness. This very basic fundamental idea is connected to very meaning of the word democracy. I know Mongolia has made great progress towards becoming a democracy and certainly desires to be consider a democracy in this new world after the Cold War. But a fundamental principle of democracy is reflected in language of American Declaration of Independence begins with veer the people United States. The idea is that sovereignty rests with the people of a country, not with the government. And the Government of the democracy is dependent on the consent of the governed and also more concretely on the money of the governed. All of these nice ministries, buildings and activities and trips and of course documents will not exists without the tax money collected from the citizenry of Mongolia.

What this means more fundamentally is that government is considered public property and so are the documents that government produces. And in too many countries that are emerging from dictatorships whether from communist or right wing forms military dictatorships there is philosophy that if government wants open some materials as a gift to the people that we are going to give to public some limited privileges to see some secret government materials. When in reality in a democratic country it is the public that gives the government the gift a temporary period of secrecy to conducted business but that automatically this material belong to the public. And government should be held accountable by the public for its actions. What this means fundamentally is that burden of proving for keeping any materials secret, should rest on the government. To prove that must keep materials in secret for limited period of time, not that burden of prove should rest public to try to struggle against to government to open some materials. The reality of course is that always dialectic between government and bureaucratic imposes for secrecy and public’s desire to know. And the cases of Cold War history, for historians desire to know. Unfortunately, again after very frank my reaction, my initial reaction to reading translation of some of the basic laws that have been considered is very much online my colleague Sergey Radchenko report in term of his disappointment in gaining access.

Most particularly, I have to refer to the translation I received of the Mongolian law dated January in 2004 on approval of the list of the state secrets. And first three categories there are references to the concepts of doctrines of national security and foreign policy of Mongolia, information of documents of the State Great Hural and meetings of the national Security Council, Government Cabinet and documents describing official policy and opinion of Mongolian in cooperation with other countries and materials provided with other countries and period to be declassified for all of these categories listed as always. I would also add categories 5 documents related official trip of top of high ranking officials, subjects minutes of meeting of discussions the period to be declassify is indefinite, but apparently it lists 60 years. I would just say with for confidence as a historian of the Cold war and historian of international relations that these provisions alone will make this entire law seem observed, in the eyes of international historians. Because these exemptions from openness are written so broadly that it could make impossible any study of Mongolian foreign policy, Mongolians relation with rest of the world, Mongolian perceptions of the rest of the world and clearly there is need for reform and need for considering what can be safely released.

I want to make couple of the comments simply to take account of experience of the United States. Not because US system is ideal, but because it reflects some principles common to all of the democratic countries in terms of handling secret information. One point I want to emphasis along with Malcolm Byrne is that it is very much of interest of the Government to be more open in this area, because the more the government willing to open historical documents, more credibility it will have in keeping some documents secret because, government that simple keeps large category secret will be opposed, criticized that not taken seriously, but government that is willing to openness as much as possible about history, but then says that some materials need to be kept secret for legitimate reason of national security those arguments are more likely to be believed.

And I just want to take in account of the American experience here Malcolm Byrne mentioned correctly that we constantly struggle with bureaucrats of the United States to push some documents to be open. But that is in context millions of pages of documents on foreign policy, military policy, government activities that would be in these three categories that are opened is matter of course every year. For example I have written a book on the American Construction of Vietnam bomb in World War II and American nuclear policy, during the Cold War. And just for teen to release documents from 1940`s, 1950`s, 1960`s and even the 1970 and 80`s on American nuclear policy, military strategy, nuclear planning, the activities of military units it is absolutely teen to release conversation with foreign diplomats, records of trips to foreign countries that are more than ten, twenty years old and that there for any kind of blanked categorizations of that can not survive. I just want to give couple of brief stories that probably not familiarly to you about the American experience of that declassification of Freedom of Information of that reflect these priorities. This is a volume of serious of books published by the United States, State Department called “ Foreign relations of the United States”. There are hundreds of them published. There are published 25 and 30 years after the events. And every volume can contains 5002 thousand of pages of declassified documents ranging from national Security Council minutes, CIA reports, minutes correspondence with foreign leaders. And every volume mentions that serious was began 1920`s and includes comments by the US secretary of State, 1926, Francalla, which he gives the general guideline for opening materials and including materials.

Most important is that he says that law and policy or embarrassment in terms of relations with foreign countries is not in excuse to keep material secret. And this philosophy is maintained to the present. In fact when one of these volumes was published in 1980`s, it cause major controversy in United States because dealt with United States relation with the Iran in 1950`s. And every American scholar knows that 1953 the Unites State’s Central Intelligence Agency work with British Intelligence to over throw the government of Iran and install the Shah in power. Volume of documents 1953 –1954 US relation with Iran did not have any mention of the role of the CAI. This was example of excessive secrecy.

However, there were no checks and balance in the system that there were several people who resigned and protested from State Department historians office, they wrote article in near times in others American’s newspapers and this led them to Congress passing new law making it even more tidily restricted in which categories of documents could be kept secret. And in fact this led automatically to the CAI after the end of the Cold War beginning to open up thousand of pages documents on the CIA activities.

One another example again that is familiar to international historians but may be is not familiar to Mongolians. How many of you ever heard that is called “Pentagon papers”?. Can ask how many Mongolians ever heard the “Pentagon papers”?. In late 1960`s during the Vietnam war United States Department of Defense known as the Pentagon prepared secret study of how the United State became so involved in Vietnam. The entire study was secret, it had more than 12000 pages of secret documents. One of them people who had copy of the secret study became a critic of the war and he gave a copy of these documents to American newspapers and began to published in New-York Times. Every single word that was published was about top secret. The US government was trying to stop newspapers from publishing these materials and even receive the Court order to prevent newspaper from publishing them. Although, of course since copies were been made they were just giving them other newspapers and so many different newspapers published different articles from these documents. Each one on new court order was in force to try to stop them. Automatically this reached to United State’s Supreme Court. And Supreme Court ruled unanimously that government did not have the right to stop these newspapers from publishing these thousand of pages of secret documents, because government can not prove concretely how these secret information would objectively damage US current and future national security interest.

This example is fundamental to the cases of Sergey Radchenko mentioned to you how could opening records of the conversations from 1940`s 1950`s and 1960`s with governments don’t even exists any longer such as the Soviet Union and including documents that already have been published possibly damage Mongolian national security. It all comes down as Malcolm Byrne said to the philosophy. The nicest words can be included in laws and statements about democracy and freedom of information. But of the philosophy of openness and of trying to achieve of the maximum of openness consisted with national security does not exist, then the law will be empty. The Constitution of the Soviet Union contained many provisions for freedom and human rights. But we all know how well those fulfilled in practice. And so, I think this conference and this discussions is wonderful step in that direction we look forward working with you in the years ahead to exchange ideas and information on this topic.
Thank you very much.

Declassification and archival practices in Eastern Europe

Vojtech Mastny,
Project Coordinator, Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Thank you very much.
Let me start again by expressing my thanks to the organizers of this meeting to let me opportunity to present particular prospective that would be relevant to our deliberations here.

I should mention briefly the project that I’m heading and then share with you some experience that I have had as a historian and as coordinator of the project. Experience from Eastern Europe that I believe might be particularly relevant for the audience here. The project is about 5 years old now and its goals of the Cold War International History Project about which you will hear more from my colleague Christian Ostermann, who is the next speaker. In 1998 an opportunity came to address a particularly the military aspect of the Cold War, which was that time was one of the less researched aspects. So we concentrated in this project on the two alliances NATO and Warsaw Pact. In doing so we tried to bring European scholars, Western European and Eastern European scholars as partners in the societies in this project. The National Security Archive about you heard from Malcolm Byrne is one of the two major responses of the Ph.P; the other one is an Institute of for Security Study in Switzerland. Then I recent to the speakers here, I had impression that Mongolia today with regard to secrecy and access the archives is about were other countries of former Soviet block had been perhaps 12 or 15 years ago. And I would like to see as a result of meeting here, it wouldn’t take then 12 years, but may be 5 years. We will see Mongolia to be in the same situation as countries like Poland, Check Republican, and Hungary today.

Let me look at the practices in the archives in these countries, how they were involved since end of the Cold War. I see we can see great different between these three countries as I mentioned. And remaining once these three countries have been Poland, Check Republican, Hungary, which were also the first countries of the former Soviet Union block joined NATO. And have been also ahead in joining other international organizations that integrate them with the west particularly European Union. There were also have been three countries were the break between the former communist regimes and the democratic governments that succeeded them have been made the purist of the put it differently continently with the previous communist regime in the other countries. Have been characteristic that also affected availability of the archives and freedom of information. Then I started as a historian work in archives of Eastern Europe following end of the cold war and my colleagues that in the latter on, when try to get access to the particularly the military archives. Many of the problems that have been mentioned here occurred in Eastern Europe as well. We have been hearing about the need of the government to preserve secrecy. We have been even hearing references to agreements that have been concluded following in the end of the cold war among the former communist countries Warsaw Pact, which provided for indefinite closure of old the files related to the Warsaw Pact. No access to be granted without for agreement of old member States. Meantime some of the members disappeared such as Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. There have been affords, there have been attempts to store, present this agreement valid and to use as it justification to bar access to the documents of the alliance, not in that instance it would be bar access to all the documents are available because all of them were related to the Warsaw Pact and all of them consequently classified as secret, top secret or top secret of special significance. What help in this case and I referring particular to the case of Czechoslovakia was the prospect for that country of becoming member of NATO. I remember favor an argument I had visited to director of the archive telling him “How can you justify keeping secrets of the alliance that you done before to the alliance you are going to become member of now. And indeed it was very difficult to justify. It was particular difficult with the prospect that some journalist what get hold of information publicized. They by making that much more difficult for the country to become member of NATO. The arguments worked, access was granted and eventually this country as well as other two became members of NATO.

So, I mentioned here to point out how important freedom of information, access to the archives is for these countries to be accepted as members of democratic community of States. In case of countries of Eastern Europe this means expectance, first NATO and the later to the European Union. In case of Mongolia it means expectance to other international organizations as well and indeed of expectance in to the international democratic community of this country. I’m sure wants to be active a recognized member. I would like to conclude by mentioning the situation in Eastern Europe today particularly the countries that have been late in behind in granting access to archives such as the countries Bulgaria Romania, particularly Albania. Some attempts have been made in these countries to use the classification rules of NATO to make access in to archives more difficult than it have been before. This attempts have been resisted they have been resisted by the citizens of this country, they have resisted also by international scholars.

I should mention here that have been also we made project Ph.P, have been instrumental in prepared an appeal to the European Parliament concerning access to the archives. There has been movement particularly among Western European historians to establish certain common rules that would be binding for all members of the European Union present and future. The goal is to have 30-year rule for established, but beyond that also have provisions in laws of the deferent countries that would prevent abuse of those exemptions that we have heard from previous speakers. And also of the abuse of the argument of the documents should not be made available, because they are not yet organized. Something that we have heard very often not only in countries former Soviet block, but also western countries including United State. When I heard what Jim Hershberg mentioned here before me, siting from the proposed law here, the sweeping exemptions from the law, exceptions to declassification. I was indeed uphold that it could be seriously considered. This item would be clear example of how exceptions are abused. And I very hope that those who oppose this approach and eventually those have been drafting the law, will take a similar position as a colleagues are taking in Europe and oppose the abuse of exceptions to the law and eventually create a law, which would allow Mongolia to go to the same way as other former countries of the Soviet Union block have been going to the advantage and to the advantage of the of other countries in the democratic community of, which they became now the part. So I very much hope that when we need again to review the results of this meeting to be able to say that we have reached there other countries, particular countries of Eastern Europe are today.
Thank you very much.

Christian Ostermann
Director, Cold War International History Project

Thank you very much.
Very honor to please to be here today. Also thanks to Mongolia Foundation Open Society, Open Society Forum, Asian Foundation, Globe International as well as the Foreign Ministry for including as in this meeting.

Much has been said by my colleagues already, so I will try to be a brief limit my remarks, mostly to the activities Cold War International History Project, the project that I direct in the Wilson Center. Cold War International History Project and I distributed some fliers, some of you have these and don’t have enough for everybody, but please to provided additional information if you interested to see me after the session.

Cold War International History Project is an international network of scholars, archivists, journalists, openness activists several thousands of scholars around the world. They make this project happen, make it produce, make it love. Its head-quartered at Woodrow Wilson Center at the Washington D.C.. The Woodrow Wilson Center some of you may know, is an official in United State more real to President the Woodrow Wilson Center. It is institute more advanced studies and humanities. Its main activities are invites scholars from around the world come in study and research and write at the Wilson Center, provides as fellowships, grants to scholars and some of your scholars might be interest in this. Also organizes meetings on international affairs and it has few research programs and the Cold War project is one of such program. Project was founded and established in 1991, led by initiative perhaps leading cold war historian of our time John .., and active more than decade now in following areas. Let me just briefly mention three and four lines of activities. As aware background to explain that the point the mission of the project. Some of my colleagues mentioned Malcolm Byrne, specifically Jim Hershberg as well, much of cold war history until late 1980 and 1990 was written based on largely Western archival materials.

Particular US and British sources regularly available American and British archives, despite some of the problems of access and secrecy that we talked in this morning. Also Id like to underline millions of pages of documents that you can look to explain, to try to understand and analyze the decisions by US policy makers, their perspectives, their perceptions and their actions. In many ways there was ver excused and very one-sided perspective of the cold war. If you want to one hand clapping. So, the point of the Cold War International History project was to explore once in 1980 communist regimes in Eastern Europe were collapsing, archives were opening up, specially once in Soviet Union disintegrated, to try to include perspectives from these archives, from these countries in to the international history of the cold war. To fact this project has collected, translated and published documents from these archives, from the former communist world archives for more than decade. Publication is the cold war International History project bulletin. A bulletin of the declassified translated documents from archives around the world particular the former east block. It might be very interesting some you at least browse through the pages of this bulletin and it gives some of you a sense of what is available in terms of high-level documentation from other archives including Eastern European archives as my colleague Vojtech Mastny mentioned. We distribute this bulletin to every body who is interested at now charge, so if you have particular interest in this area again please see me after the session and I will happy to send you copies of the Cold War project’s bulletin. We are I should also mention planning a special issue of the bulletin, which will focus on some the materials that we hope it will become available from the Mongolian archives. There are vastly more documents accessible and available now even in former of East block countries than we can print and disseminate through the bulletin and other print publications. So I would like to also point you to our Web site. Web site address is: www.cwihp.ci.edu. On that web site will find what we call our virtual archive, which is really database of thousands of documents from archives from the former communist world.

Translated and accessible to anybody push at the button. You can be also fully researchable, you can type any name and any terms to obtain documents on this subject if they are available. Beside from publishing, disseminating sources, and of course the national security archives history project have been engaged this project as well. We have organized number of landmark conferences on Cold War International History. I want to mention the conferences, because they are important and facilitating these new debates inter actions between western scholars, scholars from former communist world countries. Conferences provide an opportunity to share finding, to share documents and they have to certain extent tool for us to create an opportunity for governments in transition, legitimate opportunity to declassify documents. So, from users perspective of archives access in many ways. This is only perspective I can offer here. Id like to suggest, perhaps encourage, some cases certainly in Russia in the early 1990`s, conferences were many ways in the account part of freedom of information act requested, created on legitimate opportunity for archives to present copies of documents to scholar community that obviously substitute for archival access laws, freedom of information laws, but can be start.

Another more resent occasion was when National security archive and others organized, conference was organized in Cuba, Cuban misled crises. Cuba does not have regular access, and it does not have freedom of information act. But for this conference exchange for holding conference there bringing American documents to Cuba, the Cuban government actually released internal documentation have create declassification stamp such as thing was not known until this conference held as recently in October 2002. Finally we also, Cold War International History, also sponsors a small fellowship program for younger scholars to allow them to come Washington, United States to do research archive, familiarize themselves with archival practices, advantages and problems in the United State and the activities of the Cold War International History Project.

NGO`s and scholars do not just individually struggle with archives, with authorities, but present if possibly united front certainly share information on access opportunities. And this is really we are try to provide at the Cold War International History Project. Clearing House for access to archives with particular reference to the cold war period. We do promote access to archives on all sides of the cold war, and together with the National security archives we often used the varies stages of declassification and access, and varies countries for our scholar purposes. There are materials available in the Russian archives for example, or in the Eastern European archives for the 1970`s and 80`s, high level materials that yet available in United States. And we have encouraged and argued with US archival and other authorities to release documents. It is makes no sense of the Russian version of a conversation between US official and Russian official is available in Moscow to hold back the US version. But same to open we try to show what is available in US archives to impress archival authorities and former communist world countries to show what is already publicly available in term of archival record to encourage further release. In fact countries who do not release records from the risk of having the history been written based on documents of other countries, with giving problems of access in Mongolia or other countries. There is danger that the history of Mongolia as well as in the cold war Mongolian foreign policy, might be written on the form accessible documents from Eastern Europe or Russia and certain degree of China. Let me also just outline that it has been our experience of the past decade that there is really range of archival access in openness in terms of Cold War related materials. You have as my colleague Vojtech Mastny mentioned in Eastern Europe the one-side spectrum fairly open archives.

By the way do you know what is most open archive in the world? Any guesses? The archives former East German, German Democratic Republic, the United German government made decision that for the nation come to terms with its divided past German government with open up all of the files of the former German communist party from 1945 through the 1989, you can look all of the records in the party archives. As well as fairly liberal access to the files to East German Government and Intelligence service Fran…... will talk briefly about that.

So, that is the one side spectrum. The other side of spectrum countries where there is no access, regular access to archives. I mention Cuba, Vietnam even China. There is no regular access, though, certain things have been moving there lightly. The Russian archives somewhere in the middle. In the golden years, the early 1990`s there was fairly open access to the Russian archives, but since then that access became more difficult. So, I would just leave you with the question then where on the spectrum do the Mongolian authorities see their archives fall in? Where on the spectrum of openness will Mongolia come down? I very much hope it will be on the side of openness.
Thank you.

Bernd Schaefer
Research Fellow, German Historical Institute Washington D.C.,

Thank you very much Mr. chairman and thank the organizers for this great event and thank you everybody coming here and listening to us. I will be very brief, because you had so much patience all this morning.

I want to give you some more details on the archives of the former Eastern Germany. German Democratic Republic, which is most of you know, you of course you has been very close alien friend of Mongolian Peoples Republic as we was called then between 1949-1989. Christian Ostermann has already mentioned that East German archives are may be was the most open up of all the Warsaw Pact countries archives.

This is true and you might say that just to the fact, these archives were basically funded by the West German government. There is special a history of the openness to East German archives and I think it should be mentioned to you. Because the winds you had in 1990, when the government changed after some demonstration and hunger strikes and other events in your capital in 1990. Similar winds happened in all Europe, particularly in East Germany in late 1990. The openness we have today to East German archives is basically legacy of the East German revolution. It was not the west came over, well, we are unified country, now we have to have deferent archival laws. It was rather deferent that the majority of the east German said we had made revolution, we had made change government, now we want to have access to what this government had done in the past and what our history has been between 49-89. That is very important to say. The current situation of the East German archives is like that as Christian Ostermann already said that they are basically open from 1949 through 1990 with some exemptions that has to be said of the Ministry of Foreign Relation of former ….are which has 30 years through all these files are currently available early up to 1974. Most important about east German example is that you have access to all the deferent kinds of records of the different kinds of organizations, government agencies, mass organizations and state organizations. If you want to study, for instances, Mongolian foreign policy you can not just go Mongolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also you have to see International Relations Department’s Central Committee, you have to see the meetings of the secretary of the Central Committee, you need meeting of the Politburo all the files of the general secretary.

In the East German as example, all those files are accessible now. There are accessible in very open manner, so if can have access to those files you actually can figure out how it actually happened of the foreign policy of this country. There is another special thing, which has to be mentioned in some more details of East Germany, access to Intelligence files of the Intelligence Agency. There came a Law into effect in January 1992, which grants access to all the files of the former secret police between 1950-1989. Two former victims of secret police activities, about 10 % of eastern population had personnel files established by the secret policy. In currently these files open to people, if they apply. You might say that there is very risky thing and we had same discussion in Germany also 1990 and people expected that people find out actually what was secret policy did with us, actually what me be my friend, my neighbor in terms of spied me, this will create lot of unrest, may even on rancour and violence in society. Nothing of this was happened in Eastern Germany. People have really displayed and normal amount of material in dealing with those issues. Its of course very painful if you find out what happened, but the end is very healthy. This was very healthy process, it is painful and not nice, but I think once you have done it, once you get over with it, you really can look forward to the future at the past. This was actually most of major achievement of the East Germany that is poison, which was in the archives particularly in the Intelligence archives had a chance to come out and lose its mystery. The Law in Germany has established so called Commissioner for the Intelligence files has quite extensive provisions for keeping the privacy of people. I think we had so far very liberate system of making those files accessible and make them accessible in no way, which does not interfere into real private matters. Because private matter should be sealed.

Let me finally conclude with some following what I said before, what you can learn from almost complete access to files and I think that East German cases showing that when you know that old system worked, when you actually know you past, only then you really get you hands free for the future. You cannot leave this issue for future generations, because your current generation, which is currently shaping the present and the future of your country or other countries which had similar experiences. Best way in my mind to over the come burdens of the past with all its greatly in effects, is to grant this access, to confront this ugly past actually able you and able society to move forward. Declassification of records and access to archives, I think it is one of the major components for achieving this I think it is healthy, and good for every society, which deals with the dinner proper way.

Thank you.