Office of the Historian

December 2024

Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation December 9-10, 2024

Minutes

Committee Members

  • James Goldgeier, Chair
  • Kristin Hoganson
  • Sharon Leon
  • Nancy McGovern
  • Timothy Naftali
  • Deborah Pearlstein
  • Elizabeth Saunders
  • Sarah Snyder

Office of the Historian

  • Carl Ashley
  • Margaret Ball
  • Forrest Barnum
  • Sara Berndt
  • Josh Botts
  • Tiffany Cabrera
  • Mandy Chalou
  • Elizabeth Charles
  • Kathryn David
  • Cynthia Doell
  • Thomas Faith
  • Stephanie Freeman
  • David Geyer
  • John Gleb
  • Renée Goings
  • Ben Greene
  • Michelle Guzman
  • Charles Hawley
  • Kerry Hite
  • Adam Howard
  • Richard Hulver
  • Alina Khachtourian
  • Virginia Kinniburgh
  • 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
  • Claudia Swain
  • Brooks Swett
  • Melissa Jane Taylor
  • Chris Tudda
  • Dean Weatherhead
  • Grace Wermenbol
  • Joseph Wicentowski
  • Alex Wieland
  • Tristan Williams
  • James Wilson
  • Louise Woodroofe

Bureau of Administration

  • Jeff Charlston
  • Timothy Kootz
  • Mallory Rogoff

National Archives and Records Administration

  • William Bosanko
  • William Fischer
  • David Langbart
  • Don McIlwain
  • Chris Naylor

Public

  • Over 50 members of the public

Open Session, December 9

Presentation on the Foreign Relations Series: A Resource for Policymakers, Governmental Transparency, and Public Diplomacy (see accompanying slides, 2.8 MB PDF)

John Powers, the Director of Declassification Coordination, Editing and Publishing, and Digital Initiatives, presented on the importance of the Foreign Relations series. The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) is a vital tool for both transparency and national security, with a history dating back over 160 years to Abraham Lincoln’s administration. It serves two primary purposes: as a transparency tool to keep Congress informed and enable meaningful oversight, and as a diplomatic tool to demonstrate U.S. resolve and prevent foreign support for adversaries.

Key points about FRUS:

•
Transparency Tool: Ensures government accountability and public participation in democracy.
•
Diplomatic Tool: Demonstrates U.S. resolve and prevents foreign support for adversaries.
•
Historical Value: Provides a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record.
•
Comprehensive Documentation: Includes records from multiple agencies and details inter-agency decision-making processes.

FRUS is considered the government’s premier program for transparency and declassification, and it is trusted due to its independent oversight by an outside committee. The federal statute requires FRUS to be thorough, accurate, and reliable, including all necessary records to document important national security decisions and significant diplomatic activity. Editing is guided by principles of historical objectivity and accuracy, with all deletions and excisions indicated.

Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan emphasized the importance of FRUS for informed decision-making, public diplomacy, and countering misinformation. Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum in 1961 highlighted the necessity of making facts available swiftly for intelligent decision-making. Nixon called FRUS an “indispensable history,” and Reagan stressed the importance of timely publication for accurate understanding of diplomacy.

FRUS supports national security by promoting informed decision-making, aiding understanding through historical context, improving scholarship, supporting public diplomacy, increasing understanding of U.S. policies, showcasing democratic tradition, and countering disinformation. Examples include briefings on past peace efforts for the Abraham Peace Accords and documentation of U.S. food programs that helped other nations deal with famine and hunger.

FRUS also corrects misbeliefs and provides truth, such as dispelling the myth that the U.S. was behind the 1967 coup in Greece. Publishing FRUS sooner can help dispel misinformation and correct long-standing myths and rumors. It also allows foreign citizens to learn about their own history, often unavailable or incomplete in their own nations.

Recent FRUS publications include volumes on North Africa, International Economic Development, National Security Policy, and Eastern Europe. The office plans to publish additional volumes on the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, focusing on national security policies and bilateral relations.

Efforts are underway to transform declassification processes using AI and machine learning to expedite publication and improve transparency. The goal is to enhance the quality and pace of declassification, benefiting scholars, policymakers, and diplomats. The office is committed to working with department and agency partners to change the culture and processes that have slowed declassification, aiming to see results starting next year.

Opening of the Meeting

Committee Chair James Goldgeier opened the session by asking for approval of the minutes from the September 2024 meeting. He noted that the Committee had read with great interest the notes on OH Digital History Advisor Joe Wicentowski’s September session on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and mentioned having the presenters do a separate recording of their sessions for those who missed them. He again asked for approval of the September minutes, which were unanimously approved by the present members. He then turned the floor over to Office of the Historian Director, Adam Howard.

Remarks from FSI Provost Dr. Cassandra Lewis

Howard introduced the inaugural Foreign Service Institute Provost and Deputy Director, Dr. Cassandra Lewis. Howard said, in this capacity, Lewis is leading FSI’s efforts to build a culture of learning and assessment within FSI and across the Department. Prior to joining FSI, Lewis was the Chancellor and Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs at the National Defense University (NDU) College of Information and Cyberspace (CIC). There, Lewis was instrumental in strategic planning and coordination of university initiatives. Howard invited her to offer comments to the Committee and meeting attendees.

Lewis thanked the Committee for inviting her to appear and stated how happy she is to be the first FSI Provost and that she hopes to strengthen U.S. diplomacy and training at FSI. She said she was fortunate to have already had a strong team in place that had created a framework for her to be able to hit the ground running. She will work with 130 academics with a variety of backgrounds, including curriculum review and planning. She noted that there are some similarities and differences with universities. She will be reframing and redefining the role of Provost to something different from an academic environment, because she will not be supervising these people directly. She will try to find a balance between academic rigor and scholarship with the mission of FSI and the Department. She also said that she will literally be creating a new office while at the same time asking how FSI can adhere to its core missions of teaching and training excellence, innovation, and still assure the American people that it can contribute to the strengthening of U.S. foreign policy. Lewis noted this will be a truly collaborative effort across all the offices and schools in FSI. Lewis said they are embarking on a rigorous needs assessment to see what the entire Department of State requires from FSI.

Lewis explained that this will be a systematic approach throughout FSI, which will be nimble, won’t box diplomats and employees in, and will allow them to develop their careers. Lewis stated history needs to be essential to what FSI teaches and that she wants to harness the power of history in the curriculum. She noted that using innovative technologies will be as important as how we teach. She will make investment in faculty development a high priority. She explained that FSI doesn’t do anything in a vacuum; it relies on centralizing all the expertise and sharing that expertise. Dr. Lewis then discussed various specifics about her vision with the Committee.

Remarks from the General Editor

Howard thanked Lewis for her presentation and welcomed new staff member John Gleb to OH. He then announced the publication of Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, Volume XXIV, North Africa, and acknowledged Tudda for compiling it and coordinating its declassification, Orphanides for doing the technical editing, Wicentowski, Ross, and Kinniburgh for getting it onto the OH website, and OH’s interagency partners at State, CIA, DOD, and NSC for reviewing the volume for declassification. He then introduced Rasmussen.

General Editor Kathleen Rasmussen announced the new Assistant General Editor, Daniel Rubin. She noted that OH personnel had been researching in the Bush 41 and 43 records at the National Declassification Center. At the NDC’s invitation, OH historians conducted a briefing of NDC’s staff about the major themes, players, and record collections of these two presidential administrations. She noted that OH historians had recently completed a trip to the Clinton Library where they conducted office-wide research and research for the Central Africa; Rwanda volume. Rasmussen thanked Kara Ellis and her colleagues for arranging the visit and noted that with the classified presidential records likely housed there for the foreseeable future, OH plans to conduct as much FRUS research in Little Rock to take advantage of the Clinton Library archivists’ deep knowledge of these records.

After announcing that the China 1989–1992 volume had been submitted for declassification, Rasmussen shared an overview of the recently published North Africa 81–88 volume. The volume, which was researched and compiled by Tudda, is divided into five chapters: North Africa Region, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Western Sahara. (U.S. relations with Libya and Chad are documented in a dedicated volume, while U.S. relations with Egypt are covered in volumes on the Arab-Israeli dispute and Lebanon, all of which are still under declassification review.)

Rasmussen highlighted the volume’s contents. The North Africa Region chapter documents the Reagan administration’s overall approach to the Maghreb region. Documentation on U.S. relations with Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia includes relations between each of these countries and Libya—including the June 1988 Summit among Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Mauritania, where leaders “pledged to form a committee charged with building a greater Arab Maghreb” (see Document 91)—and their implications for U.S. interests. Coverage includes documentation on Mauritania, including the December 1984 overthrow of Colonel Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidallah. The Western Sahara chapter includes documents reporting on the ongoing conflict and assessments of how the administration should approach the conflict within the larger context of its relations with Morocco and Algeria. The Algeria chapter focuses on the improvement of bilateral relations between the United States and Algeria during this period, reflected in documents recording high-level consultations and visits, including Algerian President Chadli Bendjedid’s state visit to the United States in April 1985. The Morocco chapter documents U.S.-Moroccan strategic cooperation, Moroccan economic difficulties, and U.S. concerns about Morocco’s relations with Libya, particularly in the wake of the 1984 Libyan/Moroccan “Treaty of Union.” Finally, the Tunisia chapter covers U.S. military and economic aid for Tunisia, and U.S. assessments of Tunisian political developments before and after the 1987 ouster of longtime president Habib Bourguiba. Rasmussen noted all three of the bilateral chapters include ample documentation speaking to the relation of each country to regional and multilateral issues such as the Libyan intervention in Chad, Western Sahara, the Middle East peace process, Lebanon, the Iran-Iraq War, and international terrorism. Rasmussen concluded that the volume offers a complex look at the Reagan administration’s policy towards a region in which the United States had a number of critical security interests.

Rasmussen offered many thanks and congratulations to the OH historians, past and present, who worked on this volume: Chris Tudda, who researched and compiled the volume; OH alums Myra Burton and Kristin Ahlberg, who reviewed it; Tudda, again, for coordinating the volume’s declassification under Ashley’s supervision; Orphanides and OH alum Stephanie Eckroth, who edited the volume under Chalou’s supervision; Orphanides, again, for coordinating the social media for the volume; Wicentowski, Ross, and Kinniburgh for making the volume Internet ready; and Powers, who oversaw the declassification, editing, and digital publication process.

Goldgeier noted the coordination between the publication of this volume and recent volumes to coincide with Committee meetings and hopes that will continue.

Snyder asked when the research began and inquired about the social media strategy to promote the volume. Tudda replied that he’d begun research in local repositories in 2015 and went to the Reagan Library in 2016. He noted that in a previous briefing to the Committee he had mentioned that the sheer volume of documentation necessitated a separate Libya; Chad compilation. Deputy Director Renée Goings noted that the publication of the volume was announced on X.

Hoganson asked if the new typesetting contract had been finalized; it had not been.

Remarks from the Director of Declassification, Publishing, and Digital Initiatives

Howard spoke for Powers, who was unavailable because he was receiving an award, and reiterated what Powers had said in his earlier open remarks about FRUS and U.S. National Security Policy.

Report from Shared Knowledge Services (A/SKS)

Howard introduced Agency Records Officer Mallory Rogoff, who gave an update about SKS’s (formerly the Office of Information, Programs, and Services) plans to transfer records to NARA. She said that any discussion of the 1980 records would have to be withheld until the afternoon closed session. She then mentioned NARA’s June 30, 2024, deadline for agencies to transfer physical/paper records and that the Department had applied for an extension because it still had 16,000 cubic feet of these records and the transfer mandate is unfunded. NARA did not grant the extension, but she said their answer is not final. They are scheduling a meeting with NARA personnel to see if an extension or waiver can be granted because digitizing these records will be costly.

NARA will not accept any of these records until the Department can transfer a portion of them digitally. The Department wants to cooperate with NARA and comply with the mandate, but it needs more time and money. She noted that any paper records stored at a Federal Records Center (FRC) prior to June 30, 2024, can be transferred to NARA and noted they had also transferred a lot of such records to an FRC in anticipation of the cut-off date. She said NARA understands State’s challenges and she will keep the Committee informed of the results.

Hoganson asked how much it would cost to digitize all 16,000 cubic feet of records. Rogoff replied that it would cost several million dollars. There would be “tons” of billable hours to cover the entire digitization process.

Leon noted that the Committee must understand the long-term cost of not digitizing all these records.

Naftali asked if there is an inventory of the 16,000 cubic feet so the Committee could potentially recommend the prioritization of digitizing the documents. If there are high-value documents or collections, they could potentially be done first with available funding while other collections could wait. Rogoff said that they could do an inventory, but she doesn’t know if it can be shared. Still, they could potentially prioritize the paper records.

Naftali asked if State had been able to make the case for the value of preserving what is still in paper.

Goldgeier adjourned the session at 11:52 a.m.

Closed Session

Report from Shared Knowledge Services (SKS)

After introductions, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kootz opened the session by identifying his three agenda items: 1) SKS reorganization; 2) public-private partnership options for microfilm digitization; and 3) the Central Foreign Policy Files.

On SKS reorganization, Kootz noted that it had been over 50 years since the last SKS reorganization. The new organizational chart consists of two managing directorates: privacy policy and knowledge management (including records management and the library); and information access (FOIA, congressional documents, and the Afghan War Commission).

Kristin Hoganson asked about the status of FOIA requests. Kootz replied that the new SKS office in Charleston, SC, is now in the information access directorate. They have picked up steam over the past year and closed over 20,000 FOIA requests. They have also received 25,000 requests this year, although bots likely submitted many of these. The new office has improved oversight and cross-collaboration across directorates. The office has proven that they can process numerous FOIA cases as well as hit key performance indicators (e.g., closing cases within a year). Kootz noted that clearing the backlog has remained an important goal as some cases go back 17 years. Kootz shared that the office priority is to reduce the wait time for FOIA requestors by clearing the oldest cases first.

On public-private partnership options for microfilm digitization, Kootz began by thanking the Committee for their ideas during the last meeting regarding this issue. SKS has two primary options to process the 3,200 Central Files microfilm reels: 1) form a partnership with a single organization that shares objectives, resources, etc. Essentially, this option would be a contract between the Department and a private organization to get the reels processed, and 2) SKS does the work themselves and finances the processing by accepting gifts and donations from many private organizations. This second option alleviates some problems with the first approach (e.g., classification and information security) and helps publicize the project. Both approaches would require written proposals and approval by the Under Secretary for Management.

Hoganson asked Kootz about the cost. Kootz answered that running documents through a scanner is very economical but processing them afterwards is expensive.

Goldgeier wondered what the incentives are for these private entities. Kootz replied that private entities could get the first private look at these records. Goldgeier recommended focusing on prospective donors interested in issues covered by the records.

Naftali observed that the new administration might be interested in using collaboration with private entities to gain efficiencies and while keeping involved with private “stakeholders with interest” such as the American Historical Association. Naftali relayed his concern that it will not get done otherwise, as stakeholders help shape public opinion.

Pearlstein asked why these records were so important. Naftali replied that these records are 10,000 cubic feet of non-digitalized material without an inventory list available to the public.

Report from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Chris Naylor, Executive for Research Services, National Archives and Records Administration, offered remarks on the process of accessioning records. Naylor focused on the ongoing process to transfer the 1980 Central Foreign Policy Files from the Department of State. He shared that lessons learned from prior transfers have informed the current program. Most notable, since 2009, transfers of the Central Foreign Policy File records include transfer of all elements of the files, encompassing different types and formats, at the same time. This reduces troublesome anomalies between the analog and electronic components of the files. Naylor explained that one of the main challenges has been the differences between the way the Department of State managed and preserved the 1979 and 1980 files. In November, Research Services and the National Declassification Center held a productive meeting with Department of State counterparts which helped to address some of these challenges and lay the groundwork for future solutions. An important improvement will be to ensure proper implementation of the records disposition schedule, e.g., only permanent records should be accessioned to the archives.

Furthermore, Research Services and the National Declassification Center are working with Department of State counterparts to ensure that proper classification markings are systematically apparent and that withdrawal sheets are inserted in all withdrawn files so that researchers can track files and submit a FOIA request, if desired. Another related goal is for the Department of State to complete the declassification review of the P-Reel Index for 1980 to make this component ready for transfer to the National Archives.

Kootz commented that Naylor had covered all aspects of the transfer very well. He added that technological improvements at SKS had streamlined the process over the last few years and would continue to provide benefits in the future, especially for the transfer of the 1981 Central Foreign Policy File. Kootz described his office’s vision as providing a usable product upon first delivery to the Archives and assessed the bottom line to be movement in a positive direction with strong executive support.

Naylor agreed with Kootz’s assessment and added that the goal was to create a repeatable process.

Pearlstein asked about the technological differences in the metadata and Kootz replied that there are remaining anomalies but that they are being addressed. Langbart noted that the electronic versions had two different classification markings that were creating errors within the National Archives database system. Kootz remarked that more technological solutions are needed.

Goldgeier asked if there are other agencies conducting similar processes that could provide insights. Naylor responded that the challenge for the National Archives is that it receives records from many agencies all with their own different systems.

Hoganson asked about a future timeline to create a successful repeatable process to conduct these types of records transfers. Kootz recommended that his team deliver an update in three to six months.

Hoganson asked what the timeline was for the process Naylor had outlined. Naylor noted the goal was to work through any remaining interagency issues in upcoming meetings. He suggested a clearer idea of a specific timeline would be possible for him to present at the March meeting.

Hoganson asked what the HAC should press for in terms of Capstone materials. Kootz observed they were working on the question of defining “persons in an acting capacity” with reference to Capstone records and making sure that such defined records were given permanent status and retained. He noted that no emails had been deleted while this subject was being worked on. He also noted that OH had started a research project about acting officials which could be helpful in moving forward and identifying relevant records. Hoganson asserted the importance to retaining records. Kootz mentioned that SKS retains all emails from all systems as records, so there are a significant number of records; they had all thus far been retained.

Leon brought up the previous transfer of the Central Foreign Policy file records to NARA in 2012, inquiring as to why it had taken so long for another tranche to be transferred. Kootz identified the fact that many of the documents from 1981 to 1994 are on microfilm as a major reason. He noted that after 1994 Central Foreign Policy file records were in more conventional digital formats that would be easier to deal with. David Langbart interjected to note that the issue was with P-reels. Kootz indicated SKS was working to “open the floodgates” to release documents from 1997 onwards since they were in more accessible formats.

Hoganson inquired as to the pros and cons to sending the Central Foreign Policy file material piecemeal as opposed to a complete set as had been done previously. Naylor stated there were reasons NARA and researchers found complete sets more useful. Langbart asked what kind of withdrawal notices were going to be placed on releases of post-1997 documents since researchers need to know what materials in each collection have not been declassified. Kootz praised recent AI tools for giving more insight into what has been exempted or referred, noting about 3 percent of cables had either of those statuses.

Goldgeier thanked Naylor and Kootz for their remarks, responses to questions, and their ongoing efforts and moved the HAC into a short break period.

Closed Session

The Committee was given a briefing from the NSC and then recessed into a short break.

Closed Session

Discussion of FRUS Volumes in Production

Morith presented on his current FRUS project, compiling, annotating, and revising the volume on the foreign economic policy of George H.W. Bush, 1989 to 1992. Morith discussed his research for the volume, document selection, and the importance of using telegram excerpts effectively in the footnotes. He highlighted the essence of a decision regarding an important decision of President Bush regarding trade.

December 10

Closed Session

The Committee met at 9:30 for a tour of the National Archives Headquarters.