WikiLeaks and the disappearance of memory
Writing in the December 4th Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz laments how WikiLeaks will cause top decision-makers to refrain from taking contemporaneous notes, with disastrous consequences for historical analysis. Shultz explains:
In the wake of this affair, the amount of candid written material related to the daily conduct of American foreign policy will surely diminish. We will lose our capacity to learn from our experiences, whether positive or negative. Historical memory will slowly be eradicated.
[…]
There is now a widespread, conscious reluctance in our society, whether in business or politics, to create records—and a disposition to destroy them when they exist. What I worry about is our ability to portray history accurately if such records are not at hand and leaders try to rely on their own memory, which is often flawed. A living history requires tools of remembrance. So much of what we do today depends upon our understanding of the past. If we lose that past, we are also going to lose one of the important handles on the future.
Shultz explains how his notes from his time in office, along with near-verbatim transcripts of his conversations with foreign leaders, were invaluable for the writing of his memoirs and for understanding years later the details and context of events in the past.
It is surely true that top leaders in business and government are more reluctant to keep notes and records. But the causes of this reluctance are the process of legal discovery and potential legal liability, reasons that pre-date Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Secretaries of State and their staffs can easily keep their personal diaries and meeting transcripts from internet hackers — they simply need to keep these records in hand-written or typed form while scrupulously avoiding any digital forms of storage. Naturally such records will be bulky, unwieldy, and impossible to electronically search. But they won’t ever be on the Internet.
However, no record is immune to legal discovery, as Shultz’s colleague former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (himself a successful attorney) was reminded. In 1991 Weinberger was indicted by the Iran-Contra grand jury for perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly concealing the existence of his diary, in the form of hand-written note cards. It did not matter that Weinberger opposed President Reagan’s Iran-Contra policy; his notes, possibly embarrassing to the administration, were important evidence sought by the special prosecutor.
The lesson for today’s policymakers is to never maintain a diary. Keep a document shredder next to your desk and make it your best friend. And avoid email, just like Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Future historians will deplore these practices. They can get in line to blame the lawyers.
