The number of historians, archivists, community activists and academics of all stripes, interests and backgrounds to sign the petition aimed at saving key documents preserved by the Historical Archives of Hungarian State Security has risen to 842, as of 2:30PM, on Tuesday, February 22, 2011. Many thanks in particular to Heather Morrison of the Habsburg list, who agreed to forward my message to all subscribers, as well as to Kenneth MacWilliams, who sent this on to former classmates and colleagues at the Harvard Law School, Harvard Business School and Oxford. Thanks also goes to ActiveHistory.ca, which published an article on this petition last Friday, and to all who have helped to circulate this. Please let me know who you are, and I would be happy to list you on this website and in our upcoming booklet.
This past weekend, while communicating with János Kenedi, I mentioned that we could reasonably expect to gather 500 signatures. Just three days later we are barely shy of 1,000–double the goal set just a few days ago. I have also heard that the Embassy of the Republic of Hungary in Ottawa has received many of your e-mails expressing concern over the fate of Hungary’s state security archives. Many thanks to all of you who took the effort to write! If you did not ‘CC’ or ‘BCC’ me on this message, I would ask that you forward a copy, if at all possible, as well as any response that you might have received. As our goal is to ensure the survival of essential archival documents in Hungary, I am also trying to ensure that I properly document this campaign, including all letters of concern and protest sent to the embassy.
As always, I appreciate the comments posted on the petition and I am including a selection of these below:
Professor Geoffrey Hosking (University College London):
“As a historian of the Soviet Union, I can testify to the importance of preserving the archives of any regime, but perhaps especially of ‘evil’ ones. They are the only guarantee that we can attempt to fully understand the way they worked, and thereby do our best to prevent their ever appearing again.”
Guy Rowlands:
”I am a French historian of the 17th and 18th centuries. Even in their wildest moments the leaders of the revolutionary Terror did not countenance the systematic destruction of the archives of the “immoral” old regime of monarchical France. Nor, at the Bourbon restoration, did the restored monarchy contemplate the destruction of all revolutionary archives. The plans by the Hungarian government are some of the most extreme I have ever encountered, and will deprive a huge number of living Hungarians of the chance of ever understanding what crimes were committed in their name, and what they actually were living under. I write this, for what it is worth, as a visceral anti-communist and friend of the centre-right establishments of the newly-freed eastern European states. I urge the Budapest government to change course.”
David Sittler:
“Documents cannot be immoral themselves. They are an important proof or at least trace of past crimes against humanity not only for hungarians but of course firstly for their people and future generations. Destroying these documents means collaborating with past perpetrators and criminals and is an immoral act therefore itself. This absurd act won’t help Hungarians to come to peace with their past.”
Dr. S. Phillips:
“One must not erase the past, because one considers it immoral. By that reasoning, all documents relating to The Holocaust/Shoah should be destroyed too. I would have thought that those who consider the late Hungarian Secret police’s records to be immoral would want to keep these documents to remember what happened and and avoid future repetition.”
Emeritus Professor Richard Rathbone:
“Civilization demands the preservation of all available records irrespective of whether these present us with a congenial picture. All polities and societies have elements of their pasts which embarrass those of us who inhabit the present. The best way of preventing the re-emergence of what the Hungarian deems to be “immoral” is to ensure that we know everything we can about that past.”
Professor Tom Scott:
“Under no circumstances should the Hungarian state be allowed to destroy these archives. Are the Hungarian authorities not aware of the extraordinary step taken by the German government to make Stasi files available to all concerned? This is the model which should be followed.”
Kimberley Cosgrove:
“No matter how ‘immoral’ the contents of government documents may be perceived as being, they are nonetheless a part of that nation’s history, and it is vital for future generations to have access to their past in order to fully understand their own culture and learn lessons for the future. To destroy them would not only deny the heritage of the people, but also deny future generations the opportunity to learn from mistakes made and avoid making them again.”
John H Y Briggs:
“This concerns me particularly as a British Council visitor to Hungary as long ago as 1975, when I lectured in Budapest, Szeged and Debrecen, returning to the last named university a little later I think for the 40th anniversary of the establishment of their English Department. More recently my visits to Hungary have been through the agency of the Reformed Church in association with my responsibilities in the World Council of Churches. The loss of this archive as it now exists would be a serious undermining of free investigation of issues of critical international importance.”
Jill Stephenson:
“I am driven to ask whether this proposal is a matter of ignorant vandalism or whether someone is trying to destroy evidence that incriminates him/her. Being ‘immoral’ has nothing to do with it. In fact, it is precisely the documentation of ‘immoral’ regimes that should be available to historians in order to enable them to create an accurate record of important events. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS LAW.”
Dr. Rowena E Archer:
“This is an extraordinarily short sighted view and for the true history, and ultimately stability, of the country, the roots of its development, however unpalatable these may be for any one group at any one time need to be preserved. It is a natural human instinct to preserve the record of the past, not to destroy it. In recent disasters in England it has been striking how families fleeing flood or fire have reached first for the photographs or other records of their lives – not their transient and replaceable possessions.”
Professor David Blackbourn
“I urge the Government of Hungary to abide by the norms of scholarship and archival preservation and not to engage in actions that would destroy an irreplaceable heritage. Preserving documents from earlier times does not signify approval of their contents; it is simply what all responsible societies and governments do.”
Christopher Adam | christopheradam@sympatico.ca .
As a historian, I was astounded to hear of these proposals. The Communist government that ruled Hungary prior to 1989 was hateful, but two wrongs do not make a right: as with all other historical archives, the papers concerned should at all costs be preserved for future scholars. The conservation of the heritage of the past – the foundation of the future – is one of the basic duties of all civilised regimes, and I therefore urge the Hungarian government not to sanction an action that has no place in the norms of western democracy.
The petition seems premature and, to be frank, slightly hysterical to me. I believe we can all agree that a silly interview with a moderately important politician does not automatically mean that the ideas he happened to express there (that are in this case clearly absurd) will actually take force. After all, there are many serious experts in Hungary who know much more about archival questions than Rétvári.
Has anyone contacted the relevant institution at least (that is the Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok Történeti Levéltára, see http://www.abtl.hu/index_h_start.html)? What do they have to say about the plans and your petition?
Thanks for your comments. János Kenedi–of the disbanded Kenedi Committee, which included Mária Palasik of ÁBTL–wrote the introduction to this petition, and you will see his words on this website within the next 24 hours, as well as in this Friday’s issue of Élet és Irodalom, which is covering the story. The government has, in fact, already taken concrete action on secret police files by disbanding a commission that was supposed to report on the encrypted material in May 2011. Rétvári did not only speak about his government’s plans to allow for the removal and destruction of archival documents on one occasion, but also at length on ATV’s most popular evening show, “Egyenes Beszéd,” after his words and the disbanding of the Kennedi Committee caused a stir. Keep in mind that Rétvári took this issue quite a lot further by actually naming November 2011 as the date by which time the proposed legislation would be enacted. This isn’t just a one-off silly interview–a clear deadline has been set and absolutely no one in government came out and said explicitly or implicitly that ÁBTL’s material will remain preserved and accessible to researchers. Maybe this petition and the piece in ÉS will convince the government that it is time to “clarify” their position.
As Canada’s secret destruction of World War I internment archives in 1954 clearly shows, the time to act is now, and not once the damage has been done.
When you say that “Maybe this petition and the piece in ÉS will convince the government that it is time to <> their position” I can only support your cause. This is indeed needed.
What I am not sure about is whether we are dealing with “unclarity” of the governmental position or a very disagreeable decision that has already been taken and is supposed to take force later this year.
Your petition seems to suggest the latter. In my opinion, only this latter situation could justify the tone and wording of the petition as well as the campaign to raise awareness and collect signatures in the manner you do.
Do not get me wrong, I would be fully on your side in case such an indefensible and indeed absurd decision would be taken. I am just not convinced by the evidence you have already presented (and what I have additionally found on the matter). But I am ready to be convinced if you present more of it and more substantial proofs than Rétvári’s terrible interview. (And I sourly miss some more Hungarian reactions from relevant cornerts, not only the government – I guess you do too.)
I read the relevant pieces in the new issue of ÉS (they are online as of today, that is why I am reacting only now), but I only found your explanation in it and some words of János Kenedi which, I must say, did not really clarify the current situation to me. Rather, they seem to be some general reflections on democracy. (The only point in his piece that struck me was that “the weakness of Hungarian political culture” played “an especially important role” in the outbreak of the Second World War too. To put it mildly, this is an unjustified exaggeration.)
I agree that such a petition might have been premature had Rétvári simply made a few poorly-worded statements during an interview. But what troubles me is the fact that his words still appear on the Government of Hungary’s website and until I hear otherwise, this suggests to me that the interview (however disastrous we and many others feel that it was) represents official government policy. If the government has no intention to follow through with any of this, then why don’t they issue a statement to that effect, clarifying what you can read below, on their site:
“Az új törvényi szabályozás értelmében a megfigyeltek nemcsak betekintést nyernek majd ezekbe a dokumentumokba, hanem haza is vihetik a jelentéseket. Az állam a nem jogállami eszközökkel készített aktákról nem gondoskodik, az emberek saját maguk dönthetik el, hogy elteszik, unokáiknak megmutatják, vagy nyilvánosságra hozzák, esetleg megsemmisítik azokat.”
Source:
http://www.kormany.hu/hu/kozigazgatasi-es-igazsagugyi-miniszterium/parlamenti-allamtitkarsag/hirek/megszunik-a-kenedi-bizottsag
These words were published on December 20th, 2010, and are still present on an official government website. The tone and language used very much suggests that this forms official government policy and intent. I would be happy to hear Mr. Rétvári provide clarification and perhaps today’s article in the Economist will convince him to do precisely that:
http://www4.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/02/hungarys_secret-police_archives
errata:
1. <> (the word somehow got eliminated)
2. cornerts should be read corners.
OK, so the word “clarify” got eliminated a second time too – maybe it works out this time.
I think you are in many ways right, the content of this official website is already scandalous enough.
In my view, one of the biggest problems in Hungary has been the lack of public concern for the Kenedi committee and these files in general. That is why my intuitive guess is that Fidesz attaches no great political significance to the story right now (it has been twenty-one years without conclusion and most people lost interest longer ago…).
But that is also why I still hope that this announcement is rather due to incompetence and negligence – and not to serious committment to push through an indefensible agenda this year .
In any case, let’s hope for the best outcome!
I hope you won’t take my intervention as an intrusion. Actually, the government issued an official resolution, 1283/2010, published in the Magyar Közlöny December 15, 2010. (http://kozlony.magyarorszag.hu/pdf/8059) , signed by the prime minister and requesting the Minsitry of Administration and Justice to prepare legislation concerning restoring the archival documents to the persons concerned. Scientific reserach is not mentioned as being taken into consideration in the legislation.
Rétvári gave a bit more elaborated explanation in his interviews than the short official resolution, but it was hardly his personal opinion. Moreover, as he could have answered questions like “what would happend to the material not claimed by anyone?” (will be dumped according to the rules applied to normal documentation) and he explicitely claimed the State Security Sevices will take over the burden of storing the documentation it is not illegitimate to think the move was well prepared, details were set out previously. I tend to agree with Cristopher Adam, as long as the resolution is not amended or revoked, or the government does not deny it officially one should conclude the documentation won’t be kept for research purposes.
in an article published in Népszabadság today (http://nol.hu/lap/kult/20110310-a_botrany_mar_amerikaig_er ), there is a highly intereting passage, which can be translated as:
“According to our sources, Árpád Tyekvicska, head of the Association of Hungarian Archivitst (MLE) stated in his answer: as long as it is not clear to us what the lawmakers want, nor whether they will enter into a dialogue with us, we request the leaders of the International Council on Archives (ICA) wait with issuing a statement. Making a statement right now would only be used as means in an internal (i.e. Hungarian) political fight and could only have negative consequences. As far as we know, Tyekvicska asked for patience until April and recommends that ICA directly contacts the Minister of Public Administration and Justice, Tibor Navracsics. ”
I am not saying that Tyekvicska’s position is justified (I am not entirely sure), but I think it is important to be aware that this is his position concerning the current situation.
here is the original:
> “A Magyar Levéltárosok Egyesületét (MLE) vezető Tyekvicska Árpád
> tudomásunk szerint válaszában közölte: amíg nem derül ki számukra
> egyértelm*en, hogy mit akar a jogalkotó, illetve, hogy hajlandó-e
> velünk párbeszédbe bocsátkozni, azt kéri az ICA vezetését*l, várjon a
> nyilatkozattal, mondván, az a jelenlegi helyzetben csupán a magyar
> belpolitikai csatározások eszközévé válna, és csak rontana a helyzeten.
> Úgy tudjuk, Tyekvicska áprilisig kért türelmet a nemzetközi
> szervezett*l, és azt javasolja, hogy az ICA közvetlenül is próbáljon meg
> tájékozódni Navracsics Tibor közigazgatási és igazságügyi miniszternél.”
Thanks for pointing out this article in Népszabadság. I think that Árpád Tyekvicska would do well to recount how he advocated for the preservation of the state security files and explain how his approach of waiting, delaying and probably appeasing has helped move the government’s position in a more amenable direction over the past three months. It is a bit remarkable, is it not, that Tyekvicska has been utterly silent on this issue up until now, yet three months have passed since the state secretary made this announcement. I should also add that the ministry confirmed its plans to allow for the removal of these files, as indicated in the magyar Közlöny, in a letter sent to Pablo Gorondi of the Associated Press. And they did so in no uncertain terms.
I’ve heard rumors from archivists that the Association of Archivist was threatened already last summer not to protest any move of the government as it is quite easy to pass legislation making their life impossible. Not to speak of their position as public servants whom can be fired without any justification in a moment. It is a rumor and even if it would be true I wouldn’t condemn their caution, but I really can’t take it as a sign of the government’s possible retreat. Not to speak of the absurdity that they still haven’t contacted the Association of Archivists. Furthermore, there is no sign any political organization would have the intention to make this issue an object of political fight, therefore it can refer to a fear that Fidesz will blame archivists being handy tools of leftist and foreign conspirators, just as it happened with the opponents of the media law.
Otherwise there was an interesting passage in the article, it referred to an unnamed important historian whom the government contacted on this issue. It was not someone from the Association of Archivists and as Mária Schmidt recently criticized the idea it is improbable the government would have approached her. I wouldn’t call such conspiratory moves promising, and it seems justified to ask why the government is so intent to keep secrecy and rejects transparency?
While I do not doubt the possibility of such threats and the legitimacy of such personal worries, I consider it to be an eminent part of professional ethics to speak out against such plans if these plans were indeed serious. As I tried to explain earlier, what makes me wonder about the whole issue is that the current proposal (taking home your documents) is not only detrimental to our interests as researchers, but cannot be executed due to there not being any single person to whom the reports could be assigned.
This is why I still hope that what we have to do with is ignorance and negligence of major proportions and not a serious commitment to execute a plan which is both unacceptable and unworkable. But as I said, I HOPE I am right – I hope that the current government simply has not given enough thought to this matter yet.
In terms of the political nature of some of the claims in the file under
http://www.rev.hu/rev/images/content/rendezvenyek/christopher.pdf and especially its pages 38-9 , let me just say, for sake of clarity, that obstructions of the first and second Kenedi Committee have not started in April 2010, even if they clearly took on new forms since then. In my perception, Christopher Adam takes over the current narrative of Kenedi which does not mention the kind of problems faced prior to 2010 – and there were many serious ones. Second, the claim that the original Kenedi Committee founded back in 2007 was non-partisan is arguably true, but its members were nominated by two parties – MSzP and SzDSz. (Most people who are aware of who is whom could easily tell which experts were nominated by which of the two parties who were at the time in coalition with each other.)
Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that the Kenedi Committee was therefore a partisan organ, I am just saying that its mandate and composition was closely related to the political constellations of the times.
In my view, we would do better service to truth and the cause if we did not simply stay silent on these two points – especially since they are rather well known.