<<

. 38
( 53 .)



>>


10. Ampa Santimetaneedol and Sirikul Bunnag, “Sumalee Limpa-Ovart:
Teaching Schools a Lesson,” Bangkok Post, March 1, 1999; Julian Gearing,
“The Whistleblowers,” Asiaweek.com, March 31, 2000; Asiaweek, “Mak-
ing Thai History,” May 4, 2000; Nakorn Serirak, “Right To Know Has Its
Headaches,” Bangkok Post, December 12, 2001.
11. Lawrence Repeta, Local Government Disclosure Systems in Japan (Seattle,
WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 1999). A discussion of the early
history of the Japanese movement is also provided in Lawrence Repeta,
The Birth of the Freedom of Information Act in Japan: Kanagawa 1982,
Working Paper 03“01 (Boston, MA: MIT Japan Program, 2003).
12. David Boling, “Access to Government-Held Information in Japan,” Stan-
ford Journal of International Law 34, no. 1 (1998): 1“38, 4.
13. Lawrence Repeta and David Schultz, Japanese Government Information:
New Rules for Access (Washington, DC: freedominfo.org, July 5, 2002
[Accessed November 10, 2004]), available from http://www.freedominfo.
org/analysis/japan1/.
14. The Daily Yomiuri, “Slush Fund Partly Revealed,” November 19, 2003.
15. Asahi News Service, “Ministry To Come Clean on Hepatitis,” February 21,
2004.
16. The Ugandan Parliament approved the Access to Information Bill in
April 2005.
17. Article 41(1), Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
18. The Monitor, “Court Orders Gov™t To Produce Bujagali Power Agreement,”
Africa News, July 13, 2002.
19. International Rivers Network, “World Bank Dam in Uganda Overpriced
by $280 Million,” AllAfrica News Service, November 22, 2002.
20. The project had also been dogged with allegations of corruption, and
a World Bank Inspection Panel criticized the procedures by which the
Bank agreed to provide support for the project, as well as the terms of
the agreement. The government™s ¬rst response to the High Court™s ruling
had been to reverse itself and claim that no agreement existed; however,
this claim was undermined when Greenwatch provided the court with a
leaked copy of the document.
21. Vicente Fox, Fox Contigo: Transcript (Mexico: Presidencia de la Re-
publica, October 18, 2003 [Accessed February 28, 2005]), available
from http:origin.presidencia.gob.mx/?P=16&Orden=Leer&Tipo=DI&Art
=6609.
22. The National Society Party (PSN) led by Gustavo Riojas Santana, which
received over $30 million in funding over the preceding four years, was
¬ned $13 million in May 2003 and another $5 million in December 2003.
The party no longer exists.
23. FOIA Advocates Network, Mexico: Court Rules in Favour of Access
to Political Party Data (Yerevan, Armenia: FOI Advocates Net-
work, July 15, 2004 [Accessed November 15, 2004]), available from
http://www.foiadvocates.net/news/150704.htm.
24. Ginger Thompson, “Mexico Opens Files Related to ™71 Killings,” New York
Times, February 13, 2005, 8.


240
Notes to Pages 7“11


25. freedominfo.org, Freedom of Information Makes News around the World,
2004 (Washington, DC: freedominfo.org, September 28, 2004 [Accessed
November 20, 2004]), available from http://freedominfo.org/survey/
rtk2004.htm.
26. Department for Constitutional Affairs, News Release: Falconer Hails New
Freedom of Information Era (London: Department of Constitutional
Affairs, 2005).
27. David Hencke and Rob Evans, “Royal Farms Get £1m from Taxpayers,”
The Guardian, March 23, 2005, 1.
28. Matthew Tempest, “Treasury Papers Reveal Cost of Black Wednesday,”
Guardian Unlimited, February 9, 2005, Web: http://politics.guardian.
co.uk/foi/story/0,9061,1409254,1409200.html.
29. Rob Evans and David Leigh, “Papers Show Government Authorised Arms
Bribes,” The Guardian, February 18, 2005, 10.
30. People™s Daily Online, “Transparency Widespread, China Opening Wider,”
June 28, 2003.
31. The Economist, “The Right To Know,” October 25, 2003. See also Jamie
Horsley, Shanghai Advances the Cause of Open Government Information
in China (Washington, DC: freedominfo.org, April 20, 2004 [Accessed
November 15, 2004]), available from http://www.freedominfo.org/news/
shanghai/.
32. Murray Tanner, “China Rethinks Unrest,” Washington Quarterly 27, no. 3
(2004): 137“156, 138.
33. Jamie Horsley, “Guangzhou™s Pioneering Foray into Open Government,”
China Business Review 30, no. 4 (2003): 40“43.
34. Horsley, Shanghai Advances the Cause of Open Government Information
in China; Alexis Grant, “Freeman, Open-Government Guru, Taking His
Trade, Expertise to China,” Gannett News Service, August 9, 2003.
35. Fang Yu, “Shanghai Citizens for the First Time Sue the Government
for Non-Disclosure of Public Information,” Economic Observer, July 5,
2004.
36. China Daily, “Shanghai Government Information Is Now Open to the
Public,” November 1, 2004, Web: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/
doc/2004“20112001/content 387559.htm.
37. This description of developments in pre-revolutionary France relies on
Robin J. Ives, “Political Publicity and Political Economy in Eighteenth-
Century France,” French History 17, no. 1 (2003): 1“18.
38. Jean Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth, trans. M. J. Tooley (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1955), Book III. Secrets should not be revealed, Tacitus
wrote, because “the condition of holding empire is that an account cannot
be balanced unless it be rendered to one person.” Cornelius Tacitus and
Michael Grant, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Rev. ed. (Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin Books, 1973), Book I.
39. Robert Filmer, Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings (1680).
40. Elaine Scarry, “Resolving to Resist,” Boston Review 29, no. 1 (2003).
41. Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright
Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 233“234.


241
Notes to Pages 12“15


42. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval
(Boston: Houghton Mif¬‚in, 1957), 284; Morton Horwitz, The Transforma-
tion of American Law, 1870“1960 (New York: Oxford University Press,
1992), 219“220.
43. Richard Polenberg, Reorganizing Roosevelt™s Government (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1966); William Edward Leuchtenburg,
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932“1940, 1st ed. (New York:
Harper & Row, 1963), 279.
44. Federal Trade Commission v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470 (1952).
45. Gordon Hewart, The New Despotism (London: Benn, 1929).
46. On the politics surrounding the adoption of the APA, see Horwitz, The
Transformation of American Law, 1870“1960, 230“233; David H. Rosen-
bloom, Building a Legislative-Centered Public Administration (Tuscaloosa,
AL: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 2“22. A contemporary review
of the law is provided by Foster Sherwood, “The Federal Administrative
Procedure Act,” American Political Science Review 41, no. 2 (1947): 271“
281.
47. United States Department of Justice, Attorney General™s Manual on the
Administrative Procedure Act (Washington, DC: United States Department
of Justice, 1947), 25.
48. Harold L. Cross, The People™s Right To Know (New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1953). A history of the early FOI movement is provided by
George Kennedy, “Advocates of Openness: The Freedom of Information
Movement” (PhD dissertation, University of Missouri, 1978).
49. For a description of one of the early press battles over Cold War secrecy,
see Kathleen Endres, “National Security Benchmark: Truman, Executive
Order 10290, and the Press,” Journalism Quarterly 67, no. 4 (1990): 1071“
1077.
50. Sam Archibald, “The Early Years of the Freedom of Information Move-
ment, 1955 to 1974,” PS: Political Science and Politics 26, no. 4 (1993):
726“731. Archibald was Staff Director of the Special Subcommittee on
Government Information from 1955 to 1966. The Committee was chaired
by Representative John Moss, a California Democrat who was the leading
proponent of a new FOIA.
51. David Vogel, “The Public-Interest Movement and the American Reform
Tradition,” Political Science Quarterly 95, no. 4 (1981): 607“627.
52. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870“1960, 232.
53. Ralph Nader, “Freedom from Information,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Lib-
erties Law Review 5, no. 1 (1970): 1“15; Justin Martin, Nader: Crusader,
Spoiler, Icon (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002), 167“170.
54. Based on data provided in David Banisar, Freedom of Information
and Access to Government Records around the World (Washington, DC:
freedominfo.org, May, 2004 [Accessed May 31, 2004]), available from
http://www.freedominfo.org/survey.htm.
55. Anthony Giddens, The Third Way and Its Critics (Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press, 2000), 61“62.



242
Notes to Pages 17“29


56. Sol Picciotto, “Liberalization and Globalization: The Forum and the
Hearth in the Era of Cosmopolitan Post-Industrial Capitalism,” Law and
Contemporary Problems 63, no. 4 (2000): 157“178.
57. Thomas Blanton, “The World™s Right To Know,” Foreign Policy,
July/August, 2002, 50“58.
58. Alan Murray, “Who Wins in the New Economy?” Wall Street Journal, June
27, 2000, B1.
59. Government of Canada, Speech from the Throne to Open the Second Ses-
sion of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament of Canada (Ottawa: Privy Council
Of¬ce, 1999).
60. G8, Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society (Okinawa, Japan:
2000).
61. Peter Lyman and Hal Varian, How Much Information? 2003 (Berkeley,
CA: University of California at Berkeley, 2003).
62. Walter Rugaber, “Consumers Press Drive To Tap Big Reservoir of Federal
Data,” New York Times, September 2, 1969, 24.
63. David Shenk, Data Smog (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 31; David
Shenk, The End of Patience (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1999), 29“30.
64. Hugh Heclo, “Downteching: The Coming Heresy,” The Observer: Columbia
University Journal for General Studies 6, no. 7 (1994): 7. See also Eli
M. Noam, Visions of the Media Age: Taming the Information Monster,
paper presented at the Third Annual Colloquium, Alfred Herrhausen Soci-
ety for International Dialogue (New York: Columbia Business School,
1995); Todd Gitlin, Media Unlimited (New York: Metropolitan Books,
2001).
65. Blanton, “The World™s Right To Know.”
66. Charles Anderson, Pragmatic Liberalism (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1990).


2. Secrecy and security
1. On the Stasi archives generally, see Jens Gieseke, The GDR State Security:
Shield and Sword of the Party (Berlin: Federal Comissioner for the Records
of the State Security Service, 2002); Anna Funder, Stasiland (London:
Granta Books, 2003), 56. A concise history of the ¬nal days of the German
Democratic Republic is provided by William F. Buckley, The Fall of the
Berlin Wall (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004). I visited the Stasi
File Authority in May 2004, and am grateful to Mr. Bert Rosenthal and
his colleagues for their assistance.
2. The process of reconstituting the torn documents was halted in October
2004 because of its growing cost.
3. Denis Staunton, “Old Stasi Files Still Hold the Power to Destroy,” The
Observer, March 27, 1994, 21.
4. Luke Harding, “Court Orders Release of Stasi Files on Kohl™s Political
Life,” The Guardian, June 24, 2004, 14.



243
Notes to Pages 29“32


5. Pilar Wolfsteller, “Pro¬le: Joachim Gauck,” German Life, March, 1996, 12.
6. The 1994 law provided victims of the former secret police with access
to their ¬les, but did not allow disclosure of the identity of infor-
mants. The 2003 law provided a limited right of access to informa-
tion about informants as well. I am grateful to Ivan Szekely for an
explanation of Hungarian legal developments. This paragraph also
draws on an excellent summary of access legislation: Banisar, Free-
dom of Information and Access to Government Records around the
World.
7. In addition to Banisar, see Mirel Bran, “Romania: Dossier 666,” Le Monde,
October 8, 2002. Slovakia™s Institute for National Memory began to make
secret police ¬les available in late 2004, and in 2005 Romania™s Securitate
began transferring its archives to an independent body, the National Col-
lege for the Study of the Securitate Archives, as a ¬rst step toward public
disclosure of archival records.
8. Neil Kritz, ed., Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon
with Former Regimes, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: United States Institute of
Peace Press, 1995), Vol. III, 736.
9. Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield,
1st ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1999).
10. These arguments are laid out more generally by Ruti G. Teitel, Transitional
Justice (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 69“117.
´
11. National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons, Nunca Mas
(Buenos Aires: National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons,
1984).
12. The Brazilian title was Brasil: Nunca Mais. The translated version of the
report was published as Archdiocese of Sao Paulo, Torture in Brazil: A
¨
Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1986).
13. National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission).
See Priscilla Hayner, “Fifteen Truth Commissions,” Human Rights Quar-
terly 16, no. 4 (1994): 597“655.
14. John Dinges, The Condor Years (New York: New Press, 2004), 233“241.
15. Larry Rohter, “A Torture Report Compels Chile to Reassess Its Past,” New
York Times, November 28, 2004, 14.
16. Other countries that established post-transition commissions included
Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Paraguay. See Hayner, “Fifteen Truth
Commissions.”
17. Kate Doyle, “Forgetting Is Not Justice: Mexico Bares Its Secret Past,”
World Policy Journal 20, no. 2 (2003): 61“72, 71.
18. Truth commissions have also been established in Chad, Sierra Leone, and
Rwanda.
19. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Final Report (Pretoria, South
Africa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 1998), Vol. 1, Ch. 8,
Benita de Giorgi, “The Open Democracy Bill,” Politeia 18, no. 2 (1999):
http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/politeia/182/con18299.html.
20. See Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Final
Report. The destruction of records in the last years of apartheid is also


244
Notes to Pages 32“34


discussed in Verne Harris, “ ˜They Should Have Destroyed More™: The
Destruction of Public Records by the South African State in the Final

<<

. 38
( 53 .)



>>