December 2023
Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation December 11-12, 2023
Minutes
Committee Members
- James Goldgeier, Chairman
- Kristin Hoganson
- Sharon Leon
- Nancy McGovern
- Timothy Naftali
- Deborah Pearlstein
- Kori Schake
- Sarah Snyder
Office of the Historian
- Kristin Ahlberg
- Carl Ashley
- Margaret Ball
- Forrest Barnum
- Sara Berndt
- Josh Botts
- Tiffany Cabrera
- Mandy Chalou
- Elizabeth Charles
- Kathryn David
- Cynthia Doell
- Lynette Evans-Tiernan
- Thomas Faith
- David Geyer
- Renée Goings
- Michelle Guzman
- Charles Hawley
- Kerry Hite
- Adam Howard
- Alina Khachtourian
- Virginia Kinniburgh
- Roland McKay
- Michael McCoyer
- Brad Morith
- Christopher Morrison
- David Nickles
- Nicole Orphanides
- Paul Pitman
- Alexander Poster
- John Powers
- Kathleen Rasmussen
- Matthew Regan
- Amanda Ross
- Seth Rotramel
- Daniel Rubin
- Ashley Schofield
- Nathaniel Smith
- Douglas Sun
- Melissa Jane Taylor
- Chris Tudda
- Dean Weatherhead
- Joseph Wicentowski
- Alex Wieland
- James Wilson
- Louise Woodroofe
Bureau of Administration
- Jeff Charlston
- Corynne Gerow
- Timothy Kootz
- Thomas Opstal
National Archives and Records Administration
- Cathleen Brennan
- Elizabeth Fidler
- William Fischer
- David Langbart
- Don McIlwain
Public
- Over 50 members of the public
Open Session, December 11
Presentation on Foreign Relations Volume
Committee Chair James Goldgeier opened the meeting by noting that William Inboden had rotated off the Committee since the previous meeting. Goldgeier noted that Inboden would be missed and welcomed his replacement Kori Schake, an At Large member. Goldgeier turned to OH Director Adam Howard who invited General Editor Kathy Rasmussen to introduce James Wilson, who was giving a presentation about how historians working on Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) volumes capture debates among top National Security Council (NSC) members. Rasmussen noted that Wilson had obtained his PhD from the University of Virginia in 2011 and joined OH that same year. He has compiled ten FRUS volumes since joining the office and his second book, on Paul Nitze, is scheduled for release next year.
Wilson opened by posing the question: How does FRUS capture NSC debates? His presentation, he stated, would cover how FRUS had captured these debates in the past and how it would likely do so going forward in response to record changes. Wilson outlined the institutional history of the NSC, noting that it initially had a small staff and largely outsourced functions to other foreign policy bureaucracies. This began to change when McGeorge Bundy assumed the office of National Security Advisor in 1961 and fully changed when Henry Kissinger made the position indispensable while occupying it. Wilson argued that every current occupant wanted to replicate the “Scowcroft model” of being an orderly, pragmatic, and effective honest broker. Wilson then moved to FRUS, observing that FRUS covered major policy decisions in the NSC through records of Interagency Policy Committees (IPC), Deputies Committee (DC), and Principals Committee (PC) meetings. During the Reagan administration, the President attended National Security Council (NSC) and National Security Planning Group (NSPG) meetings. Wilson argued that a significant change occurred in the written record of these meetings following the Reagan administration. During the Reagan administration, staffers like Robert Linhard produced detailed minutes of these meetings, but from the H.W. Bush administration onward there was a trend toward less detailed Summaries of Conclusion (SoCs) being the primary record. Wilson suggested that readouts from participants who then go back to their agencies and talk or write real time records and NSC staffers writing each other about the meetings would be very important for compilers going forward. Wilson stated that semi-formal “Gang of 8 meetings” were being covered by using Bob Gates’s notes.
Wilson explained how FRUS compilers could still capture key policy debates during the H.W. Bush administration despite the less fulsome National Security Council (NSC) documentation. He cited Bob Gates’s handwritten notes from the Core Group, readouts from participants who reported back to their agencies about the meetings, and NSC staffers who wrote to each other (sometimes very informally) about what happened during the meetings.
During the Clinton administration the trend toward sparser NSC documentation continued. Wilson noted that the NSC and Deputies Committee meeting readouts became less about lines of debate and more about broadcasting points of consensus and tasking agencies to do things. Summaries of conclusions had been created in earlier administrations, along with minutes of the meetings, but by the Clinton years summaries of conclusions became the new normal.
Wilson noted that policy documentation with more granularity is still available for these meetings but can require more time and effort to locate. Memoranda for the record produced in the CIA are a valuable resource.
Wilson also described possible reasons for the decline of minutes in the NSC recordkeeping during the 2000s. With a long list of recipients on the distribution list the risk of disclosure through leaks increased. This was especially the case with the dawn of the internet era. If there was a contentious discussion there might not be interest in distributing the minutes widely.
Wilson concluded his presentation by reiterating the challenges and rewards of reconstructing what happened in the meetings of the NSC Principles and Deputies. There are a number of solutions that FRUS compilers are already utilizing. Examples from the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations include Ken Dam’s notes, Charlie Hill’s notes, personal diaries of the presidents, and the many agency readouts available from OSD, JCS, and CIA records, among others.
Wilson finished his presentation at approximately 10:30 a.m. and the question and answer session followed.
Goldgeier asked if Iran-Contra was the reason why policymakers took less detailed notes in high- level meetings post-Reagan. Wilson said he hadn’t found any documentation regarding that theory. David Langbart stated that Iran-Contra was definitely a factor because of the FOIA requests that followed and policymakers were more cautious typing up summaries of meetings because of FOIA.
Pearlstein inquired about what possible solutions might exist for FRUS regarding sparse notetaking. Wilson said that FRUS compilers would have to rely on other documentation regarding meetings, such as commentary in memoranda for the record or notes between policymakers. Wilson stated these conversations could be referenced in the source note.
Hoganson asked if Wilson thought policymakers suffered from taking less detailed notes because it impaired their ability to remember specifics later on. Wilson replied that when there was press coverage of a major foreign policy discussion, such as the Reykjavik Summit, policymakers were more diligent in accounting in detail what occurred, because they knew the event would be discussed in the media.
Wilson added that Dennis Ross would sometimes type up very detailed correspondence to James Baker since Baker had a tendency to forget what happened in a meeting until he saw a written record which would jog his memory.
Naftali asked whether the personality of the president reflected the manner in which records were kept, citing the friendship between Bush and Scowcroft. Wilson agreed and stated Bush understood that Scowcroft was cautious and likely responded with caution in turn. Wilson said it was also important to consider friendships outside the White House as Bush considered many foreign leaders friends.
Pitman relayed an online question that asked if historians had a duty to editorialize and provide context or if it was best if they just reported what happened. Wilson replied that the FRUS series does its best to report a thorough, accurate, and reliable account of what took place, but added that each historian was different and what they considered reporting differed, in regard to document selection, annotation, and editorial notes. He stated that people who wrote history based on FRUS could then make arguments based on the documents.
Pitman relayed another online question that asked if presidents tended to use the NSC to make decisions or if they decided on issues later on, often with a smaller audience of people. Wilson replied that there is always some ambiguity regarding decision making. Wilson pointed to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is very well documented, but stated that there were conversations between JFK and RFK that never were recorded. Wilson stated he believed George H.W. Bush probably made many of his decisions in informal settings, and he also mentioned that Strobe Talbott had important unrecorded meetings with Bill Clinton.
Goldgeier agreed with Wilson regarding Talbott and asked how well FRUS could access personal materials and collections. Wilson stated such materials are often unclassified, but sometimes can be illuminating. Wilson added that FRUS has worked well over the years at obtaining access to private collections.
Rasmussen agreed with Wilson and clarified that editorial notes in FRUS are not places to editorialize, but instead places to provide written summaries of related documents. Rasmussen thanked Wilson for his presentation and warm applause followed.
Remarks from FSI Director Joan Polaschik
Goldgeier asked the Committee to approve the Minutes of the September 2023 meeting. Leon motioned to approve them, the Committee unanimously approved the minutes.
Howard introduced FSI Director Polaschik to the Committee, provided a very brief bio, and thanked her for being a great supporter of OH, stating that he was happy that she was able to brief the Committee in person.
Polaschik thanked Howard and Goldgeier and said she was happy to appear in person to talk to the Committee. She sent FSI Deputy Director Smith-Wilson’s regards. She noted all the work being done by OH and said the team is “awesome.” She then thanked Inboden for his 5 years of service on the Committee and how she appreciated his tenure. She then acknowledged the newest At Large member of the Committee, Schake, and noted her years of government service in foreign policy at State, DoD, and the NSC.
She then provided some “broad brush updates” from FSI: the opening of the new building in October at which Secretary Blinken spoke about the two years of the Department’s modernization agenda. She noted that FSI is front and center at these modernization efforts and OH is a key part of FSI’s learning products, which include educating the U.S. public, Department, and interagency colleagues. She said she has seen an exponential increase in how Department colleagues have understood how important OH is for the entire agency and how they have reached out to OH. She considers this dynamic a key part of FSI’s ongoing attempts to foster “a culture of learning.”
Polaschik said it was a great idea to bring OH into FSI five years ago and whoever made that decision should be congratulated. She mentioned Secretary Blinken’s six critical missions and particularly emphasized DEIA, which she noted is a key part of the Biden administration’s agenda. She noted that they offer 14 classes on DEIA and emerging technology, and have been exploring new approaches to delivering these classes, in particular virtually. She reiterated the importance of continuing the culture of learning, which she said has always been prioritized at the Department. In October they rolled out FSI’s first-ever framework of learning. This includes a recommendation that all employees take 40+ hours of learning above the mandatory training. These opportunities for learning and individual learning plans will be emphasized going forward. FSI will encourage all employees to take the 16-course core curriculum, in particular the training on negotiations.
Polaschik said that Congress had mandated the creation of a new position at FSI: a Provost who would have a 2nd Deputy Director/Senior Executive Service ranking. She has begun to recruit for this position with both internal and external advertising and hopes to hire someone soon. Congress also mandated the creation of a Board of Visitors (similar to an Advisory Committee) of outside experts from the national security, mission critical, and adult education fields to advise FSI on continuing its educational mission. They have begun recruiting members and she hopes the Board will be filled and have its first meeting in the first half of 2024.
Polaschik then announced the publication of Foreign Relations, 81–88, vol. X, Eastern Europe. Polaschik said that she and Smith-Wilson had read the Committee’s Annual Report and acknowledged the backlog in the publication of historical covert actions and the Committee’s request to revitalize the High Level Panel (HLP) process. She noted that John Powers has begun meeting with interagency partners to do this and that he will discuss his efforts in more detail in the closed session. She also noted the Committee’s request that OH be given the resources to modernize all phases of the FRUS process and that FSI had responded that much of these new processes have been implemented, citing the support FSI has given to e-records and the digitization initiatives. She said Renée Goings would brief the Committee on those efforts in the closed session. She then asked if anyone had any questions.
Hoganson asked about filling OH’s open positions. Polaschik replied that FSI, like the Department and the rest of the federal government, was waiting for the final budget approval. She considers OH a priority so she hopes to fill all positions but can’t promise anything.
Goldgeier thanked Polaschik for the support she has provided OH and asked if she could provide the impetus behind Congress being interested in FSI and mandating the changes.
Polaschik believes that it occurred because in 2019 Congress had asked the Department in general about learning opportunities as an institution. She noted there is bipartisan support for training initiatives and professional development.
Remarks from the Executive Secretary
Howard thanked Polaschik for coming and her support for OH. He then welcomed Schake to the Committee, and acknowledged Sara Berndt’s promotion to Policy Studies Team Lead.
Howard then read the following: “The Office of the Historian wants to express its immense gratitude to Will Inboden for his five years of service on the Department's Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation (HAC). In particular, we very much appreciated his work to improve the interagency declassification of the Foreign Relations of the United States series, especially his efforts serving as a bridge between the HAC and its Central Intelligence Agency counterpart committee, the Congress, and Department principals. We wholeheartedly thank him for his many efforts on behalf of the Office of the Historian and the Foreign Relations series.”
Howard acknowledged Mircea Munteanu’s departure from OH and thanked him for ten years in the Office. He then thanked everyone in OH and the interagency process for their part(s) in the publication of Foreign Relations 81–88, vol. X, Eastern Europe. He mentioned his outreach to students, historical associations, and world affairs groups to educate them about all the things OH does. He then turned it over to Rasmussen.
Remarks from the General Editor
Rasmussen thanked Munteanu for his years at OH, including his energy, optimism, his willingness to ask difficult questions, and his constant quest to ensure transparency with government documents. She then noted that on the research front, six historians recently completed their research in DoD records for the first time since the pandemic began. She acknowledged the members of J.D. Smith’s team at DoD, and especially Andrew Brightbill, for facilitating the research and for providing the documents quickly.
Rasmussen noted that two Foreign Relations volumes had been submitted to Editing and Declassification since the September meeting: Foundations of Foreign Policy, 89–92, researched and compiled by Ahlberg, and National Security Policy, 89–92, researched and compiled by Wilson. She also noted the publication of Foreign Relations 81–88, vol. X, Eastern Europe, researched and compiled by Melissa Jane Taylor, and summarized the contents of the volume. She noted that documentation on Poland will be published separately in two volumes covering the Carter and Reagan administrations: 1977–1981 and 1982–1988, and that the events in Poland, including the imposition of martial law, influenced and reinforced the Reagan administration’s policy toward Eastern Europe as a whole. She also noted that the documents in the country chapters cover trade, political relations, and the effect of Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika initiatives influenced bilateral relations between the U.S. and Eastern Europe. She also thanked Taylor, Ahlberg, Ashley, Tudda, Weatherhead, Regan, Ross, and Wicentowski for their roles, and particularly noted that the last three used new publishing platform technology to release the volume. She then turned it over to Powers.
Remarks from the Director of the Declassification Coordination, Publishing, and Digital Initiatives Division
John Powers noted he is starting his fourth month in the office and at the Department of State. He is leading a new directorate—the Declassification Coordination, Editing and Publishing, and Digital Initiatives division. He has had the opportunity to sit and talk with the staff, learning about the work they each perform. He noted that the staff is talented, dedicated, experienced, creative, and hard-working.
From his work as a member of the NSC staff and at the National Archives, he sees the value this Office provides: in publishing the history of U.S. foreign policy decisions and actions, support of Government transparency—a key tenet of our democracy; but this work also supports national security. He noted too often this point is missed. It supports informed decision making; it supports current policy objectives; and it showcases U.S. democracy for the world.
Powers has also visited and met with interagency partners—to introduce himself; to emphasize the importance and necessity of their work in the publication process; to talk about modernization; and to ask for their ideas on improvements. These meetings have all been productive. He said he is appreciative of the good work agency partners perform on the Office’s behalf. They are all engaged, and their work aligns with the Office’s—to complete publication of FRUS volumes.
Powers said that he is looking forward to our work together—with the HAC, with his amazing team, within the Office, with agency partners and with stakeholders—in reforming and modernizing our processes. As Polaschik noted, he started discussions with our agency partners on piloting new processes. The teams are going to start small, test to see what works, and build off of it.
Powers closed by thanking his team for their work:
o From technical editing to digital publishing to declassification, the team members all played essential roles in the publication of the Eastern Europe volume.
o Their importance will only grow in the upcoming publication work for 2024.
o In addition to FRUS, the division will continue to support publications and special projects for the Historical Studies Division, in service to real-time diplomacy and in support of current national security objectives.
o They will also support historians working on course material for the Foreign Service Institute, helping develop the Department’s Foreign Service Officers and civil servants.
o The division will also continue their rock star work on the Office of the Historian website and will continue to improve the accessibility of our digital content. He then asked for questions.
Hoganson asked for more information about the backlog in FRUS production in general. She asked why eight Reagan volumes are not in the declassification process. Rasmussen replied she expects two of the eight should be submitted to Editing/Declassification over the next two months; the other six by 2025. Reasons for the delay including staffing issues; others, including her own volume, have just been delayed. Each volumes has its own issues. She will provide more specific information in the closed session. Powers said he wants to capture all of the declassification and editing processes and he too will provide more information in the closed session.
Goldgeier congratulated Howard on his educational initiative, especially his desire to talk to local world affairs councils, since many of them are made up of retired FSOs. Howard asked the Committee and anyone online to give him suggestions on to whom he should speak about the work of OH.
Powers then acknowledged Wicentowski’s, Ross’s, and Kinniburgh’s work on the OH website. Goldgeier closed the open session at 11:50 a.m. and said he was happy that 50 people attended the session virtually.
Closed Session, December 11
Report from the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS)
Goldgeier welcomed Timothy Kootz, Director, A/GIS/IPS, to provide updates on the Department’s records program. Kootz began his remarks explaining he would focus on two recommendations from the HAC.
Kootz explained that one recommendation addressed reviewing declassification policies. Currently, there is a process occurring to reform and revise Executive Order (EO) 13526. An NSC memorandum has been issued to direct this process. In response, there are around 36 reform initiatives being discussed in sub-groups to bring to the NSC. In these discussions, those working on these initiatives are weighing what is in the public’s interest. The reforms will focus on classification and declassification, recognizing that over-classification is an issue and that classification categories are vague. In response, Goldgeier asked when this new EO will be released. Kootz responded that the target is at the end of the current administration.
Pearlstein asked why the process would take so long. 1) Kootz responded that the NSC policy formulation process takes time because there are lots of committees looking at these issues and that each decision requires many layers of approval. Pearlstein then asked about the aspect of the recommendation that suggested trying to connect legislation and regulations on declassification timelines to public interest. Kootz responded that an analysis of this issue has been done which suggested tying reforms to public interest.
Naftali asked if Kootz could share specific recommendations from some of the agencies. 2) Kootz responded that he would have to check with the NSC, but he hopes that he would be able to share more information at the March meeting.
Hoganson asked whether other agencies have an office like OH that is pushing for more declassification. Kootz responded that he was unsure about other agencies but that OH in particular has been very involved in the EO reform process. Goldgeier added that some of the efforts to reform the EO have been covered by the press.
Langbart then asked if targeted declassification campaigns have been raised as an option. Kootz responded that these proposals do exist.
Goldgeier noted that it is an enormous ask to educate people on how to classify things. Kootz agreed and said this is especially true because the rules are overly vague. Kootz continued and said that incentives exist for over-classification. Because of this, dealing with over-classification starts at the front-end. What is needed is to not have a document be given an overly high classification from the start.
Fischer read a prepared statement asking for people to direct questions to the NSC about the ongoing reform process.
Schake asked what Congress has been up to with regards to legislation on declassification?
Kootz responded that there are five different draft legislation initiatives on declassification, which cover reforms to the classification process as well as Presidential authority on classification.
Hoganson asked if there is a way to examine the specifics of the process of classification. Powers added that the challenge with EO 13526 is that it is old and focused on paper records. The new EO they are working on focuses on born digital documents and digital process.
Kootz then moved on to discuss another recommendation from the HAC, specifically the recommendation for increased staffing and systems for automatic declassification. Kootz and the HAC discussed various staffing solutions and processes for handling the increased number of records.
Report from the National Declassification Center
Fischer provided updates on the review of P and N reels.
Fischer continued to discuss the presidential records consolidation, noting that OH historians would likely not have access to the H.W. Bush material for 2 to 6 months, though the NDC could possibly accommodate historians if the need was urgent.
Naftali asked about the existence of unprocessed, classified material, and how such material will be processed at the NDC. Fischer responded that the NDC was creating folder title lists, a process that began with Obama records.
Pearlstein asked about the number of staff at the NDC dedicated solely to creating finding aids for the new presidential material, and how many archivists would be needed to carry out this task. Fischer noted that the NDC had significantly expanded its staff to accommodate the new material, but these interviews were ongoing.
Hoganson asked about whether the knowledge of the Presidential Library archivists will be lost since the NDC archivists are not as familiar with the material. Fischer clarified that the NDC is not an archival unit and that the goal is to push the material back to the Libraries as quickly as possible. The folder title lists are for the purpose of declassification, not for future researchers.
Fischer provided an update on the transfer of material, noting that under the current CR there is no funding for the transfer of Clinton, Nixon, and Reagan material. It is unclear whether there will be funding in FY24 even if a budget is passed in early 2024.
Goldgeier asked if the NDC had received any applications from archivists at the Presidential Libraries and Fischer responded that there had been very little interest. Goldgeier asked Rasmussen whether the transfer hiccups were affecting OH. Rasmussen responded that the initial transfer plans had put a hold on research, which then spilled into pandemic-related delays. The office facilitated a surge in research in early 2023 in anticipation of the move. If the Clinton material is significantly delayed, the office will reach out to see if researching can once again commence in Little Rock.