FAS|Government Secrecy|Library|||Index|Search|加入FAS

罗恩·威登
Oregon

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3703

国际和国内政策制定的保密:
The Case for More Sunshine

United States Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Ron Wyden

October 2000

Foreword

没有人比纽约丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉（Daniel Patrick Moynihan）的高级参议员比纽约的高级参议员更重要的责任，尤其是在国家安全和外交政策领域的责任，尤其是政府领域的保密，尤其是在政府领域，没有人更加无所畏惧或持久的十字军。几十年来，他一直不懈地不懈地提出了该案，以提高国家和国际级别的政府的开放性和透明度。

Senator Moynihan eloquently exposed the costs of secrecy in United States foreign policy and national security in his 1998 scholarly book,Secrecy: The American Experience。在许多费用中，他估计，美国军方施加的保密极大地加剧了冷战及其许多影响，例如军备竞赛。关于苏联及其军事工业能力的更公开讨论会减少美国人对苏联的威胁。

莫伊尼汉参议员在政府开放的优雅论点似乎更加引人注目，因为经济和金融影响力似乎一旦仅保留了军事力量，就在地面上取得了平等的立场。正是这种转变向一个世界，在这个世界上，经济和金融机构和全球公司保持着如此震惊，这使我有动力寻求他对联邦机构和曼联国际组织的秘密实践进行联合调查的兴趣国家是成员。他的深刻洞察力和远见卓识，在这一合资企业中，我多次得到了很多奖励，为此，我深表感谢。我希望在未来的日子里，过道两边的国会议员将在政府中捡起公开的火炬，以至于莫伊尼汉参议员勇敢地携带了如此英勇的举动。

罗恩·威登
Oregon

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3703

国际和国内政策制定的保密:
The Case for More Sunshine

United States Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Ron Wyden

October 2000

Introduction

冷战是战争的时期和战争的谣言，没有停止，全球意识形态冲突以及原子世界末日的可能性。这个年龄已经过去了，重大冲突不再是迫在眉睫的可能性。在这个新时代，期望政府保密制度会发生相应的变化是有道理的。但是，在大多数情况下，在更大的政府中，人们并没有出现一种新的思考方式。实际上，自冷战结束以来，政府的秘密方面一直在发展，即使我们的武装部队大幅下降。

Secrecy is a form of government regulation. As theCommission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecyfound in 1997, "Excessive secrecy has significant consequences when policymakers are not fully informed, government is not held accountable for its actions, and the public cannot engage in informed debate."1

Secrecy also operates on an international level. As economic might becomes a greater currency of power in the post-Cold War era -- and thus becomes more central to national interests -- the decisions made by international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) gain greater influence over people's lives. Unfortunately, these decisions are too often made behind closed doors.

We believe it is time to take a fresh look at secrecy and determine whether such secrecy continues to serve the interests of our society. We also believe the burden of proof should be squarely placed on those who would keep the doors barred. Our study focuses mainly on areas other than foreign policy and national security. We begin with a look at important decisions in selected international organizations, such as the WTO and International Monetary Fund (IMF), that may affect the daily lives of Americans. We also consider important decisions in certain Federal government agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board.

国际组织的保密

Since their creation in the years immediately following World War II, as fora for exchanging ideas and enhancing mutual understanding, many international organizations have begun to transform themselves into standard-setting and regulatory bodies. Multilateral agencies are now actively considering the creation of global standards in areas from the safety of auto seat belts, tires and brakes to the lead content in mineral water, procedures for conducting drug trials to minimum levels of capital banks must hold in reserve to reduce the risk of global financial panic.

随着关税的减少，越来越强调消除贸易障碍。随着1995年WTO的创建，这种趋势一直在继续，该法规标准（包括表面上是为了保护健康，安全和环境而建立的标准）已成为WTO成员面临争议解决挑战的重要目标。

Organizations meet in secret only because their members want or allow them to do so. Official United States policy generally favors openness in such international fora, but we have failed miserably when it comes to persuading other nations to join us in pressing to open the doors in Geneva and around the world. The failure of our policy is painfully evident in last year's attempts to open up the notoriously secretive International Olympic Committee (IOC) -- an effort driven in large measure by our own full-blown international embarrassment in the scandal over the Salt Lake City Olympic bid.

世贸组织

世界贸易组织成立January 1, 1995, following the successful completion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. It replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was established in 1948 as a provisional organization. Located in Geneva, Switzerland, the WTO conducts at least 200 meetings of councils, committees and working parties each year, although the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that the actual number "may be much higher."2The 138 Member nations of the World Trade Organization make decisions on an ongoing basis that effect the lives of millions of Americans and billions of citizens around the world. These are decisions related to their employment, health, safety and well-being.

American taxpayers contributed an estimated $14 million of the WTO's $82 million budget in 1999.3Private citizens, however, have no independent access to the WTO's meetings. As described by CRS, "WTO meetings of councils, committees and working parties are government-to-government meetings. Each government develops its own policy position based on the effects it will have on its own domestic economy . . . It is also important to emphasize that discussions in some WTO committees and councils may require subject matter expertise. Governments may select representatives to the meetings who have the necessary expertise and experience to evaluate the options."4Unlike some other international organizations, however, decisions are made by member governments, not by the WTO bureaucracy.

WTO decisions are usually reached through consensus among the member countries. If a consensus is not possible, the WTO agreement allows for voting, with each country having one vote. A simple majority is the norm, but in some circumstances a three-quarters or two-thirds majority is required. Decisions are made through a Ministerial Conference, which is required by the Marrakesh agreement to meet at least once every two years, but the General Council does the day-to-day work. The Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contains no provisions requiring secrecy or confidentiality in meetings and the release of documents, but Article IV, Sections 2 and 6 gives the General Council and other committees the authority to decide their own rules and procedures, approved by the body to which they report.

在WTO的所有封闭会议中，争议解决理解（DSU）是primus inter pares。The WTO dispute settlement process has evolved over some 50 years from early GATT procedures; throughoutthis development, the GATT/WTO process has relied on the confidentiality of dispute settlement proceedings, and some governments even treat their submissions to WTO panels as confidential diplomatic communications. A WTO member who has been found to violate a WTO Agreement is expected to implement the dispute panel's recommendations within a reasonable period of time. If it does not and a compensation agreement is not reached between the disputing parties, the losing Member may be subject to WTO-authorized countermeasures (e.g., additional tariffs placed on its imports by the prevailing party to offset the economic damage) until the dispute is resolved. The DSU expressly states that consultations, panel deliberations and proceedings "shall be confidential." The DSU Working Procedures for panels state that they "shall meet in closed session."

在1999年审查了DSU四年的论文中，美国贸易代表（USTR）写道：“在DSU下，当事方可以公开自己的争议和解提交，但在许多情况下，当事方要求其提交的提交被视为将其视为将其视为将其视为机密文件。提交的保密性使公众怀疑争议解决过程并破坏对世贸组织的信心。如果仅在诉讼结束后才公开提交意见，并且利益相关者的投入是徒劳的。提交的意见不是公开的，秘书处在小组报告的描述性部分中详细描述了他们的官方记录。即使在小组报告中（有时是逐字记录），这些提交的内容仍然保密，小组报告可能要短得多，ReportsReports因此生产和翻译更快，更经济。”5

The same USTR DSU Review paper observed: "Disputes in the WTO now take place behind closed doors, even though hearings of national courts, and other international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice are open to the public. The lack of public access to dispute settlement hearings makes it more difficult to resolve disputes, due to suspicion of the non-transparent dispute process among private stakeholders. Public mistrust of the dispute settlement system undercuts public support for the WTO."6美国已提出开启其参与的每个小组会议，并向其他WTO成员挑战，以便观察者参加小组听证会。USTR呼吁在DSU中进行更改，要求面板和上诉的身体会议向观察​​者开放，除了涉及机密业务信息的会议的那些部分。

CRS回答有关应开放或关闭WTO会议的问题，CRS回答：“公开会议（大概对任何想参加的人来说）在大多数情况下似乎是实际或可行的……在某些情况下，在某些情况下，获得非政府组织（NGO）的意见可能会很有用，他们可能会增加另一种观点。此外，如果在某些会议上允许NGO观察者，它可能会减轻闭门会议通常造成的误解。”7

The challenge for the United States in this particular international regulatory body is to assure that trade barriers are lowered and the highest international standards are achieved without compromising public health, safety and other consumer protection. USTR currently tries to achieve these twin goals by soliciting public comment on a wide variety of issues at several different stages of WTO consideration. Accomplishment of these goals is surely made more difficult, however, by the lack of transparency and openness at the WTO.

International Monetary Fund

Another international organization with considerable clout is the International Monetary Fund. Created in 1946 as part of the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, the IMF'S charter is to promote international monetary cooperation, including exchange rate stability through such means as temporary loans. According to CRS, the IMF's three basic functions are: to make loans to help countries resolve exchange rate crises and stabilize their economies; to monitor national economic and exchange rate policies and reporting its findings to other members and (with the country's permission) to the public; and to serve as a forum for discussing and resolving international financial and monetary problems.8国际货币基金组织的主要力量是其批准或拒绝贷款的能力。

作为监控和报告职责的一部分，IMF员工准备了有关与成员国咨询的详细报告。CRS说：“近年来，国际货币基金组织一直在敦促各国公开释放这些文件。”9Beginning in 1998, the IMF began posting Public Information Notices (PINs) which contained the Executive Board's assessment of each country's economic situation, and had released 84 PINs through September 1999. Nineteen countries refused to authorize release of the Executive Board's evaluation.

The CRS observed: "Paradoxically, the IMF has little direct impact on the daily lives of U.S. citizens, yet its activities can affect Americans because of their impact on the world monetary system and world trade. The IMF has its most immediate impact on people when their governments seek to borrow money from the international agency... IMF loans to other countries can have an indirect impact on the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens if those countries are major trading partners or countries that play a major role themselves in the world financial system."10

The IMF Board of Governors meets formally once a year at the Joint IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings. This year's annual meetings were completed last month in Prague, Czech Republic, where demonstrations against globalization, similar to those against the WTO in Seattle took place. "That meeting is closed to the public," reports CRS, "though as a practical matter it is reportedly broadcast on closed circuit television and is visible to any person who enters the building where the meeting is held."11The IMF Executive Board met 131 times in 1998. CRS also wrote: "It has adopted rules closing its meetings to the public. They are also closed to members of the Executive Directors' staff, IMF staff and officials from member country governments who were not accorded specific authority to attend a particular session. The board does not publish transcripts or minutes of its meetings. Information about loans and most major policy decisions is made public through press releases, news briefs, or the release of documents approved at board meetings."12CRS汇编了IMF执行委员会在1998年考虑的文件数量的清单，以及后来向公众使用的文件数量。在138个执行董事会文件中，仅发布了24份政策框架文件；在233个特殊文件中，只有39封意向书。在286个员工备忘录中，只有144份被释放。13

TheNew York Times, which dubbed the IMF the "guardian of global financial stability," editorialized on November 22, 1999 that "The fund's policy prescriptions affect people around the world. It decides whether to bail out Ecuador or let its economy slide. It decides whether Korea should defend its currency in the face of a looming depression by doubling interest rates. It decides whether to crack down on insolvent Indonesian banks, throwing the economy into a tailspin, or to prop up possibly corrupt or bankrupt institutions."14

说:“这些决定约瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨(Joseph Stiglitz)佛rmer chief economist at the World Bank, "puts different groups-- workers, small shop owners, bankers or foreign investors -- at risk. Because economists can provide no clear answers, the managing director has leeway to decide which groups get bailed out first or not at all.[对于新董事总经理而言，在当前的选择过程中存在的问题是，如果董事总经理公开对更广泛的受众群体公开负责，那么基金做出的暂时压制亚洲经济的决定是否会以相同的方式做出。财务官员[emphasis added]."15"The fund's managing director is too important to be chosen in secret by a few self-selected European countries."16A number of observers questioned why none of the candidates for the top job at the Fund had come forward publicly to describe how they would deal with world financial challenges. "Unhappily," theNew York Times写道：“ IT（IT）正在秘密进行，公众几乎没有机会评估主要候选人或他们对基金未来的关键问题的看法。”17

自创建以来，国际货币基金组织在半个世纪以来就对几乎没有公众的审查开放。据报道，1947年，国际货币基金组织的第一任新闻官员走进董事总经理办公室，介绍了自己，并问他应该告诉新闻媒体。答复是：“你什么也没告诉媒体。”

像倡导开放的全球贸易体系的WTO一样，国际货币基金组织试图促进开放的资本市场。两个组织都要求他们规范的国家使他们的交易系统更加透明，或者他们的经济更加开放和负责。具有讽刺意味的是，两个组织都在很大程度上从闭门造车后面发出了此类需求。

国际奥林匹克委员会

国际奥林匹克委员会是另一个臭名昭著的封闭式门会的国际组织。国际奥委会的一般会议的纪要被保密了10年，执行委员会的会议记录已被禁运20年，这一政策是美国代表Anita Defrantz表示，受保护的成员免于看到他们的坦率公开展示。18

Prompted by reports of bribery, an independent U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) investigation was launched, headed by former Senator George Mitchell. On March 1, 1999, the Report of the Special Bid Oversight Commission found that Salt Lake City's top officials had engaged in an aggressive program of cash payments and gift-giving -- totaling more than $1 million -- to IOC members and their families. Nine IOC officials resigned or were expelled, and as many as 20 others were investigated. As a result of this bidding scandal, the USOC agreed to make public all its meetings, with the exception of its executive sessions. The Mitchell Commission also recommended, among other things, that the IOC make its financial statements available to the public.

However, IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch has resolutely resisted any institutional reforms, and improvements are slow in coming. A glance at its budget last year reveals that the IOC spent only $25 million for its anti-drugs program, but allotted $150 million for a public relations agency to polish its image.

自丑闻以来，在第106届国会上提出了几项法案。其中包括撤销国际奥委会的美国免税身份并将《外国腐败行为法》应用于组织的提议。（《外国腐败行为法》禁止在海外贿赂公职人员。）但是，米切尔委员会的全面实施建议将是国际奥运会委员会可以完全恢复其完整性和身材的最好的方式 - 也许是唯一的方法。

联邦机构的保密

保密通常是联邦机构决策中的规则，而不是例外。美国人过着生活的方式 - 从可以捕获的鲑鱼数量或汽车贷款的利率到消费者从破产法院的债权人到控制互联网域名的保护水平 - 所有这些以及更多这些继续继续如果没有决定在公众关闭会议中，会受到影响。保密可能是民主社会的特权 - 某些人会说，联邦政府中的许多人都会自由地行使一项特权。

Bankruptcy

1994年，国会成立了一个委员会，推荐方法来修改国家的破产法。但是在1997年8月，New York Times据报道，委员会可能通过举行秘密的电话会议会议在《阳光法》中违反了政府。电话会议的重点是关于该集团议程的备受争议的主题：改变个人可以保护债权人的要求的提议。19

Banks, credit card companies, and other businesses strongly opposed these changes and argued that these regulations were not tough enough on debtors. The upshot: These financial institutions could have sued the commission in Federal district court and prevailed because of the panel's violation of Federal open-meeting rules. This, consequently, would have needlessly raised the bar for consumers in bankruptcy court.

Environmental Law

In 1992, an environmental advisory group -- appointed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to draft recommendations for environmental sentencing guidelines -- was criticized and eventually taken to court for deliberating behind closed doors. Ironically, corporate representatives -- including the pro-business Washington Legal Foundation -- were the ones decrying the closed meetings as "cloak-and-dagger," and they accused the panel of imposing a "gag rule" on communications with outsiders.20

Nuclear Energy

最近,1999年8月案件涉及Tri-Valley Cares, a Livermore, Calif, watchdog group, and the Department of Energy (DoE). Tri-Valley Cares accused the DoE of lying about operations changes at the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory and the need for a site-wide environmental review. Claiming that the DoE planned to shift its nuclear weapons upgrade work from Los Alamos to Livermore, the watchdog group raised safety and environmental concerns because of the facility's proximity to the heavily populated San Francisco area. "This plan has gone forward in secret, and the public has been inappropriately excluded from any decision-making role... In a democracy, we should not have nor should we tolerate nuclear weapons projects being built, augmented and operated in the dark," said the executive director of Tri-Valley Cares.21

在1999年初，华盛顿州汉福德乐动冠军核保留地的重新启动反应堆（快速通量测试设施或FFTF）的问题以及决策过程本身变得有争议。从1983年到1992年，反应堆作为核燃料和组件的测试地点运行，但自1993年以来一直处于“待机”模式。汉福德看门狗集团，美国之心，认为重新启动反应堆是非法的，因为因为核能研究咨询委员会（NERAC）忽略了联邦对公开会议和公众评论的要求。

Internet Domain Names

1999年7月，商务部命令互联网公司为指定的姓名和数字（ICANN）（非营利性的管理机构，负责注册和监督互联网地址注册），以立即向公众开放其董事会会议，并在Internet上取消1美元的费用地址注册。22As Jeri Clausing wrote in theNew York Times：“他们（ICANN）是神秘的任命，他们在闭门造车后面相遇，并且有可疑的公共责任感。然而，互联网临时董事会的新监督机构的成员开始做出决定和制定政策全球网络。”23

ICANN自成立以来就举行了封闭的会议，但在1999年春季开始做出政策决定时，它受到了越来越多的批评。一项呼吁收取域名注册费的呼吁，这些资金将用于资助ICANN 570万美元的年度预算。批评者争辩说，董事会的权力过高，而忽略了建立透明，自下而上组织的任务。取而代之的是，董事会在自上而下的层次结构中以强大的国际公司和政府利益在幕后工作。商务部的信函说：“ ICANN应立即向公众开放董事会会议。透明度对于建立决策的信任至关重要。信任对于ICANN的最终成功至关重要。”

The evolution of ICANN is a good example of the positive effects of an open-door policy. The group responded positively to pressure from key members. By implementing internal reforms and throwing open the doors to its meetings, ICANN has gone a long way toward improving accountability and defusing its critics' concerns.

渔业

The way in which the United States and Canada apportion the annual harvest of sockeye, chinook and other salmon has long been bitterly disputed. Fishermen of both nations catch salmon born in each other's streams. But the Canadians argue they will not stop fishing U.S. stocks until Alaska slows down its harvest of British Columbia stock. Alaska, on the other hand, says it has good natural runs and should not have to cut back its harvest because of dams, habitat loss, or other conditions that it did not cause.

过去和美国为相当分配收成的努力经常以激烈的僵局结束。据报道，愤怒的表现通常是非常公开的The Oregonian, "as they have been in the past, the negotiations this week were conducted behind closed doors..."24Some observers believe a more open process, as is the case with the Northwest Power Planning Council -- the only forum in which (Northwest) fish issues are debated in public -- would provide greater accountability and incentive to reach agreement.

Federal Reserve Board

从罗伯特·赖克spect在自由端rum to Robert Novak on the conservative, policy analysts agree that to a great extent America's prosperity is driven by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The judgments Mr. Greenspan makes daily affect the number of jobs in America and the wages of those who hold them. The man widely viewed as the second most powerful person in Washington, D.C. conducts most of his business around a mahogany table behind closed doors. Alan Greenspan can throw markets into tumult with a few words.

The Fed's main role is managing the nation's money supply. Through its open market operations, the Fed buys and sells U.S. Treasury securities, which expands or tightens the money supply, and thereby lowers or raises the price of money from Wall Street to Main Street. The supply of money can affect GDP growth, employment and the rate of inflation. In a world of flexible exchange rates and highly mobile capital, it can be argued that the monetary policy adopted by the Fed is more important that the fiscal policy set by Congress and the Executive Branch in determining growth in GDP and employment.

The inherent conflict between the Fed's accountability to Congress and its independence or need to be insulated from political and private pressures has more often than not been resolved in favor of the latter. The洛杉矶时报1996年2月写道，美联储“继续进行关门的关键政策会议。它在几周后发布了摘要，但等待五年来披露了会议的完整会议，认为早期的披露将对其内部辩论产生令人震惊的影响。”25The Fed "plays such an enormous role out of the spotlight in the well-being of average American households that when it comes to running the economy, the Fed, which operates independent of even the President, now looms as important as the White House and Congress... Through its management of interestrates, the Fed can influence the price of everything that is bought on credit, from new factories to dishwashers."26The Feds' management of the money supply helps determine the costs of home loans, car loans, credit card rates and every other type of debt, but the Fed still waits five years to release redacted details of its closed door meetings on interest rate policy.

In an August 2, 1999 Barron's story, Robert Auerbach wrote: "In fact, rapid publication of FOMC data would reduce its potential value to the few who see it early. Markets work best with full and accurate information, rather than with rumors and leaks. Even more important is the need for prompt accountability by individual officials, whose actions can have widespread economic effects and thus a major impact on the lives of millions of Americans."27

阳光法政府

Much of the controversy surrounding Federal activities carried out behind closed doors has to do with the 24-year-old Government in Sunshine Act and the 28-year-old Federal Advisory Committee Act. These two laws require open business meetings of all collegially-headed Federal boards and commissions, including all committees appointed by the President.

The Government in Sunshine Act also requires, with few exceptions, open meetings among members of multi-member agencies and commissions (i.e., Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission) after at least seven days' advance public notice. A "meeting" is defined as the "deliberations of at least the number of agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business." The law does not, however, restrict the administrator of an agency from having a nonpublic meeting with senior staff at any time. Congress focused on multi-member agencies rather than departments headed by a single official, according to the法律时期，因此公众可以从具有不同政治哲学，经验和专业知识的人的集体审议中受益。28

Some critics of the Sunshine Act argue that it has actually worked at cross-purposes: It has impeded collegial deliberation and lowered the quality of decision-making, while failing to provide meaningful public access. The result, some say, is that real decision making devolves to staff, who are not subject to the Sunshine Act.

批评人士认为,错不在于law or process, but with the agency members themselves. They are, after all, public officials, and should therefore deliberate in the open. The Society of Professional Journalists' Freedom of Information Committee warned in 1995 that "the people who are covered by the law [should] change -- not change the law to accommodate the people who may be offended or intimidated by its contents."29

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank, is even more pointed. In his January 27, 1999 Oxford lecture "On Liberty, the Right to Know, and Public Disclosure," he asked "Given that the public has paid for the gathering of government information, who拥有信息？是政府官员的私人省，还是属于整个公众？我认为，公职人员收集的信息是公众所有的 - 就像政府使用的椅子和建筑物以及其他物理资产属于公众一样。”30Stiglitz went on to stress that compelling public interest arguments for openness in government tend to run up against the powerful, private incentives of government bureaucrats. "Secrecy provides some insulation against being accused of making a mistake... The second incentive that public officials have for pursuing secrecy is that secrecy provides the opportunity for special interests to have greater sway... Secrecy is the bedrock of [this] persistent form of corruption, which undermines confidence in democratic governments in so much of the world."31

Ironically, a 1995 review of the Government in Sunshine Act by a special committee of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) made recommendations for more secrecy. Its recommendations for modifying the Watergate-era law, to be carried out on a five- to seven-year trial basis, included allowing agency members to meet in private, provided that all votes were public and all meetings memorialized by a detailed summary -- to be made public no later than five days after the meeting. The ACUS believed this would improve transparency over the current system, where staff deliberate behind closed doors.

The ACUS report neglected to address the Sunshine Act's 10 exemptions to its open-meeting rule. Meetings may be closed under the Sunshine Act for one or more of the following reasons: "security classified, internal personnel matter, specific statutory protection, trade secret, personal privacy, law enforcement investigatory records, regulatory or supervisory information, financial speculation, premature disclosure," or "adjudication matter." Notices of closed meetings must be published in theFederal Register。

为了更好地了解这些豁免的使用，我们要求CRS检查封闭式会议样本Federal Register。In 1998, they found notice of 1,524 closed meetings, of which 1,292 (85 percent) cited the authority of the Sunshine Act as the basis for closing the meeting.32No specific statutory authority was cited for 12 percent of the closed meetings, and the remaining three percent were attributed to other statutory authority, including the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Trade Act of 1974.

The Federal Register contained notice of 122 closed meetings in June 1998. Sunshine Act exemptions based on trade secrets or personal privacy were cited 50 times (41 percent) and no statutory authority was given in 24 cases (20 percent). These 24 cases involved meetings of the Assassination Record Review Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation and other entities. CRS conducted fact-finding research on several of these closed meetings where no reason was given.

The examples provided thus far have not touched on national security or foreign policy -- two areas where the need for secrecy has traditionally been tolerated as necessary, if not imperative. According to a 1996 report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Federal government spends at least $5.6 billion a year to keep national security information classified. This enormous sum of money is even more startling when one considers that only 1 percent of this goes toward the declassification of obsolete documents. It also excludes the secret classification budget of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The sheer volume and level of classification (e.g., Limited Official Use, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc) have been the subjects of much scholarly debate. In a March 1999 address, Senator Moynihan noted that of the 6,610,154 secrets created in 1997, only approximately 1.4 percent were created pursuant to statutory authority. The rest were "pure creatures of bureaucracy," spawned by Executive Orders.33

在1974年在智利政变中，最近与两名美国人的失踪有关的文件解密，生动地加强了斯蒂格利兹先生的主张，即保密提供官僚，或者在这种情况下，在这种情况下，外交官，隔离的批评，反对公众批评。当时，美国官员在年轻男子的死亡中绝对否认了任何角色，后者成为1982年电影《失踪》的主题。1980年，根据《信息自由法》的要求，政府发布了对分类内部调查的大量审查结果。调查似乎使美国和智利政府承担了任何责任。现在，一些已编辑的材料已经公布，“其中一些文件首次明确表明，国务院几乎从一开始就结束了皮诺切特政府杀死了这些人……调查人员推测，没有美国情报的绿灯，智利人就不会这样做。”34

“随着现在大部分的涂黑部分恢复，国务院解密的文件说明了《信息自由法》中的豁免是如何被滥用的。这是一项旨在减少保密的法律。使用的允许政府以国家安全和行政特权为由扣留信息。”35But the National Security Archives dissented; preventing embarrassment is not an exemption clause. A senior State Department official told theNew York Times，“不应使用分类来防止政府机构或官员的尴尬，这将是当人们陷入骨头时扣留的主要原因。”36

National security and foreign policy are the motherload of controversy over classified materials, from the Nixon Administration's attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers to the Iran-Contra Affair. A proper balance must be struck between the public's right to know and protecting our national interest. Our system of secrecy has yet to achieve it.

结论和建议

The subject of government secrecy brims with paradox in a democratic society. The Framers of the United States Constitution met in secret for months at a time and did not publish the minutes of their meetings until decades later. Yet, they specifically rejected secrecy as a modus operandi for the government that they created. As James Madison argued in 1822, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both."37

Secrecy encroaches on the people's right to meaningful participation in the democratic process and renders public accountability problematic. If "knowledge itself is power," as Francis Bacon believed, then government secrecy facilitates the concentration of power and control in the hands of the few. And, as Stiglitz observed, "secrecy breeds more of itself."

美国外交政策和国家安全的保密费用已得到充分记录。38美国军方的保密大大加剧了the Cold War and its many effects, such as the arms race. We also may have been able to avoid some of McCarthyism's worst excesses if our government had been more open. In 1946, the Army Security Agency began deciphering some of the Soviet Union's diplomatic traffic sent between New York and Moscow. Code named "Venona," this operation proved that hundreds of Americans were working for Soviet intelligence. Although the Soviets learned of this break in their codes almost as soon as we began breaking them -- they had their own agents inside the facility where the codes were being cracked -- the Army and the FBI did not divulge the names of the Americans implicated, because they did not want the Soviets to know their codes had been broken. Ironically, when Senator Joseph McCarthy charged in 1950 that he had proof that droves of Communists were working for the Federal government, the Soviets had already shut down their spy networks because in 1946 the code was broken.

保密也有经济成本。经济学家通常认为，可靠，及时的信息可以使更好，更有效的资源分配。保密通过为特殊利益的影响提供掩护并为腐败和贿赂打开了大门而造成效率低下的效率。Stiglitz将市场上私人公司行使的纪律与公共组织中没有类似学科的纪律对比。但是，只有在有可能的公众话语（因此，全面责任）的情况下，后者才能实现。

Behind closed doors, there is no guarantee that the most basic of individual freedoms will be preserved. And as we enter the 21st Century, the great fear we have for our democracy is the enveloping culture of government secrecy and the corresponding distrust of government that follows.

In an open, democratic society, the ability to meet behind closed doors is not a right but a privilege. The privilege is usually -- though not always -- conferred with the understanding that those who meet there will be accountable for their actions. Without transparency, one must turn to accountability. Whether those who are given this privilege are in fact accountable, and whether they are actually held accountable are the weakest points in the system. Should transparency and openness be reinstated as the rule rather than the exception in Federal decision making, or can accountability be strengthened in a way that permits a limited number of doors to remain closed?

关于国际组织，前景对公众观察开放会议的乐趣要少得多，更不用说公众参与了。在全球范围内，在国内采取更积极的行动可以加强美国对开放性的倡导。例如，美国贸易代表很难为公众参与日内瓦而有可靠的争论，当时如此多的联邦机构会议（尤其是在经济领域）仍在国内关闭。美国应该以身作则。

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of active duty U.S. military personnel has declined from more than two million to 1.3 million, but the secret side of government just keeps growing. Secrecy is a form of regulation and can be stifling. In a new century we should get a hold on this and open up our government. Alfred Marshall, the great English economist, wrote more than a century ago: "Government is the most precious of human institutions, and no care can be too great to be spent enabling it to do its work in the best way."39我们添加的是，最好的方法不是在黑暗中。

What follows are several recommendations that would constitute a significant step toward pulling back the curtain of secrecy on some of the agencies and organizations we have discussed.

修改WTO，IMF和世界银行的程序规则，要求公开会议并及时发布会议会议记录。作为国际货币基金组织和世界银行以及世界上最大的贸易国的最大贡献者，在美国国家利益方面，有领导地提倡阳光，全球性决策。目标应该是将举证责任从那些倡导开放的人转移到那些将门锁定的人转移到那些锁定门的人。美国应在国际组织的宪章或管理规则中寻求变更，以便将开放的商务会议成为常态。公众参与或观察会议应成为规则，而不是例外。会议会议的会议会议而不是新闻社会应立即发出。对于国家安全，外交政策或贸易纠纷中专有业务信息的讨论，可以允许一些有限的例外，但是由于国家安全，外交政策或专有业务原因，这些例外应要求大多数成员投票以关闭会议。贸易谈判本身以及WTO小组成员的实际审议也将不受开放要求的豁免。

At the next meeting of the General Council, the United States delegation to the WTO should propose under Chapter II, Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council, that the agenda of the General Council and next Ministerial Conference include an item calling for a change in the rules of procedure to require open meetings. This would signal the United States' intent to propose the change again at the next Ministerial, which must be held before the close of 2001.

Specifically, the United States should propose amending Chapter X, Rule 32, of the Rules of Procedure for the Ministerial Conference, which reads "The meetings of the Ministerial Conference shall ordinarily be held in private. It may be decided that a particular meeting or meetings should be held in public," so that meetings would ordinarily be held in public. The proposal should extend to Rule 33, which allows the Chairperson to issue a communique to the press after a closed meeting, requiring that the minutes of the meeting be released promptly to the public. For the General Council, the United States delegation to the WTO should propose comparable amendments to Chapter X, Rule 37 (which reads: "The meetings of the General Council shall ordinarily be held in private. It may be decided that a particular meeting or meetings should be held in public.") and to Rule 38, which allows for the issuance of press communiques after private meetings.

For the International Financial Institutions, Section C-3 of the IMF's By-Laws, Rules and Regulations states that the meetings of the Executive Board "shall be held in executive session whenever the Managing Director or any Executive Director so desires." Article XII, Section 2(g) of the IMF Articles of Agreement specifies that the Board of Governors (consisting of one governor from each member country) and the Board of Executive Directors (22 members, including one each from the United States, France, Germany, Japan and the UK) "may adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to conduct the business of the Fund." Because the Governing Board has adopted rules closing its sessions and meetings of the IMF and Financial Committee to the public, the U.S. Executive Director would need to propose an item for the agenda of the IMF Board of Executive Directors and of the IMF Board of Governors seeking to amend Section C-3 of the By-Laws to require a special, super-majority vote in order to conduct meetings in executive session and seeking adoption of a rule, pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(g) requiring that IMF sessions and meetings be open to the public.

美国州长应根据《国际货币基金组织规则与法规》第6（c）条提出此类议程，该项目说：“任何州长都可以随时要求董事会在任何会议的任何会议议程上置于主题委员会。”国际货币基金组织协议章程的修订将需要由五分之三的成员批准，其中有85％的投票权（第XXVIII条（a））。美国世界银行执行董事将采取类似的步骤，以获取有关世界银行议程的提案。

While the United States seeks to move the burden of proof for closed international meetings squarely to the shoulders of those who want locked doors, proponents of openness should seek to harness technology in the service of democracy. Just as C-SPAN coverage of Congress has revolutionized Americans' view of the their legislative body, the way Americans and other peoples view multilateral agencies could be revolutionized through global broadcasts. Why not create a global C-SPAN to show the proceedings of international organizations?

A global C-SPAN could beam the deliberations of the WTO's SPS Committee on possible health threats of imported products into homes in Buenos Aires and Boston would not only better educate Argentines and Americans on the issue but enable them to hold their delegates more accountable. Observing the often dreary dialogue that dominates many international gatherings would also demystify much of what takes place there, encouraging the media to focus even greater public attention on the more controversial issues. Critics of globalization may actually be more surprised than horrified by what really goes on behind the closed doors of multilateral agencies. This, in fact, could contribute to more focused and productive meetings as constituencies around the world question the cost of supporting their delegates spending weeks in expensive European cities engaged in seemingly endless speechifying.

Shift the burden of proof for closed Federal agency meetings.在确定会议的性质,菲德尔al agencies should presume openness and place the burden of proof on those who would favor secrecy. Congress should review the Sunshine in Government Act with an eye toward strengthening the incentives for open meetings and paring down the number of exceptions officials may use to justify closing the doors. In particular, these agencies should presume media and public access to all Federal meetings that are now covered by the Sunshine in Government Act. At the same time, the United States should advocate comparable media accessibility for all meetings of international organizations in which the United States is a member.

Open the records of the Federal Open Market Committee.It is ironic that in a nation where investors demand transparency in financial markets, Wall Street firms must spend huge sums on "Fed watchers" because our most influential government financial institution lacks transparency and has steadfastly fought efforts to make it more so. How can the average American understand the Fed's policy decisions if they do not have timely access to the arguments that produced them? As an active daily participant itself in the credit markets, a call for full public access to FOMC meetings -- the most powerful body in the United States in monetary policy -- is not appropriate. This would force the Fed to reveal its own trading strategy in advance, enabling other traders to use the information and adjust their own portfolios accordingly while weakening the Feds' ability to control the money supply and interest rates.

但是，似乎并没有因其要求在会议后几个月将公开的FOMC审议的成绩单公开的要求而损害美联储的交易策略和有效性。为什么不应该告诉美国人以普通英语的FOMC会议上发生的事情以及州长希望完成的事情？这些信息 - 甚至延迟了几个月 - 在公共教育和问责制方面将是迈出的一步。它可以使FOMC对其决策的竞争权衡更加敏感，并且可以提高经济辩论的水平。例如，当美联储表示希望经济放慢脚步时，我们的猜测是，如果美国人民知道美联储知道的知识，美国人民将更好，更快地掌握信息。

自从柏林墙倒下以来的短时间内，标志着冷战的象征性末端，经济可能已经与军事实力一起建立了一个地方，这是21世纪不可忽视的力量。作为居住在资本主义首都的美国人，我们承担着责任呼唤经济正义的合唱。我们是否利用经济能力来改善许多人的生活，或丰富少数人的生活，将在很大程度上被这里研究的机构确定。敞开大门，更高的透明度和更大的公共责任制肯定会给我们带来更好的有利位置，以判断我们的成功。

END NOTES

1。 保护和减少政府保密的委员会报告, S. Doc. 105-2, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997, p. xxi

2。Arlene Wilson, "The World Trade Organization," Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, August 30, 1999, p. 5.

3。Arlene Wilson, "U.S. Contributions to the World Trade Organization," Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, October 28, 1999, p. 1.

4.Arlene Wilson, "The World Trade Organization: Closed Meetings," Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, October 4, 1999, p. 1.

5.Office of the United States Trade Representative, "Preliminary Views of the United States Regarding Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding," 1999, p. 3.

6.ID。, p. 4.

7.威尔逊，supranote 5, at p. 2.

8.Jonathan E. Sanford, "The International Monetary Fund," Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, October 12, 1999, p. 2.

9。ID。, p. 4.

10。ID。, pp. 5-6.

11。Jonathan E. Sanford, "United States Contributions to the IMF Budget," Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, October 20, 1999, p. 7.

12。ID。, pp. 7-8.

13。Sanford,supranote 16, at p. 8.

14。New York Times，“更开放的IMF”，社论，1999年11月22日，第1页。A30。

15。ID。

16。ID。

17。New York Times, "The Next Leader of the IMF," Editorial, February 28, 2000, p. A22.

18。Richard Sandomir, "Senate Panel Sees I.O.C. Dallying,"New York Times，1999年4月15日，第1页。D4。

19。Diana B. Henriques, "Bankruptcy Commission Faces An Inquiry,"New York Times, August 9, 1997, p. A36.

20.凯伦·多诺万（Karen Donovan），“环境小组因秘密会议而受到抨击，”国家法律杂志，1992年11月2日，第1页。19。

21。George Lobsenz, "Enviros Blast 'Secret' DoE Plan,"Energy Daily, August 23, 1999.

22。Jeri Clausing, "U.S. Moves to Tighten Reins on New Internet Regulator,"New York Times, July 10, 1999, p. C2.

23。杰里（Jeri）cllausing，“铸造网球太宽？”New York Times，1999年6月7日，第1页。C1。

24。Joan Laatz Jewett, "Negotiations on Salmon Catch End With no Agreement,"The Oregonian，1998年5月6日。

25.Jonathan Peterson, "Greenspan Wins High Praise for His Stewardship,"洛杉矶时报, February 23, 1996, p. A1.

26.ID。

27.Robert Auerbach, "Far From Full Disclosure: When It Comes to Data and Access to its Meetings, the Fed can be Two-Faced,"Barron's, August 2, 1999.

28.Randolph J. May, "Taming the Sunshine Act,"法律时期，1996年2月5日，第1页。24。

29。Marcia Coyle, "Agencies Ask for Less Sunshine,"法律时期，1995年9月25日，第1页。A12。

30.Joseph Stiglitz, 1999 Oxford University Amnesty International Lecture, Oxford University, January 27, 1999 (transcript available atwww.worldbank.org）。

31。ID。

32。Harold Relyea, "1998 Sunshine Act: Meeting Closure Notices," Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, September 2, 1999, pp. 2-5.

33。光荣的丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉（Daniel Patrick Moynihan），"The Science of Secrecy," delivered at a Public Colloquium on Secrecy In Science: Exploring University, Industry, and Government Relationships, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 29, 1999, p. 5.

34.Diana Jean Schemo, "U.S. Victims of Chile's Coup: The Uncensored File,"New York Times, February 13, 2000.

35。ID。

36。ID。

37.尊敬的詹姆斯·麦迪逊,字母。巴里,August 4, 1822, inThe Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt, vol. 9, p. 103

38.光荣的丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉（Daniel Patrick Moynihan），Secrecy, the American Experience。

39。Alfred Marshall,行业和贸易。1919。Principles of Economics。1890年。



FAS|Government Secrecy|Library|||Index|Search|加入FAS