There will be plenty of discussion about whether the 2004 Orange Revolution constituted a real revolution. But indisputable is the fact that the country is changed because of those distant events.
The success of some reforms is evidence of how much could have been changed in the country, but was not. Our rotten education system changed for the better, for instance. I also took part in a smaller, but very important change. I helped the nation understand its history better – and I fear that is being taken away from us now by the first actions of President Viktor Yanukovych and the person he named to head the State Security Service of Ukraine, Valery Khoroskhovsky.
Working in the archives of the State Security Service, or SBU, was a cold shower for me. It turned out that nothing changed in this nation, not in 2004, and not since 1991 independence.
Continual and categorical refusals for requests to access historic documents showed that this agency operated as a unit of the Soviet-era KGB. In 2006, I indignantly wrote that that the SBU – the successor to the Soviet spy agency – continues to guard secrets of a non-existent state.
Surprisingly, my proposals for how the archives should work ended up on the desk of Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who in 2005 became the new chief of the secret service. I was even offered a job to take my words into action. At the end of 2007, I accepted a job, eventually becoming director of the archives.
I learned staff members were often governed by the “we-have-always-done-it-this-way” principle, rather than relying on any law. They saw their role as preserving information, often by limiting access to it. The idea that “our secrets that we have zealously kept for decades” will become commonly known was a shot for many state workers.
“Declassified memory” exhibition at the Institute of International Relations in Kyiv based on unique documents from the newly opened State Security Service archives was one of the events held in 2009 throughout Ukraine. (UkrInform)
I changed the mission. We began operating on the principle of providing the easiest possible access to the archives. The need for this policy reversal was clear: The nation had many blank spots in its history that needed to be filled in. And, more personally, everyone had the right to find out the truth about themselves or their relatives.
Soon, the nation started talking about the SBU archives and many problematic issues of our collective past emerged in the new light. Thousands of inquiries descended on the archive by those wishing to find out the fate of their relatives, victims of Soviet repression. The staff started making its own discoveries of truth.
The discoveries were also emotional and very personal: A teary-eyed woman, searching fruitlessly for 60 years, finally discovered the fate of her father in the archives. Now she will finally be able to bring her grandchildren to the newly discovered burial place.
Not everyone was happy with these revelations. Power-mad historians and ardent critics resisted this newfound openness with our history. Some of them would have their reputations sullied by being branded as “special historian of the SBU.” Nevertheless, the change continued.
Today, the SBU archive is not just the usual depository and reading hall, it’s also a research center and a discussion forum that hosts public hearings on a variety of hot historical issues. Its electronic archive spreads to all regional centers. The SBU archives also represent the very first museum on the territory of a former KGB prison, spurring international research.
I have heard so many times that this is not the SBU’s job, but we chose to carry on with our glasnost project. Declassification became an element of greater geopolitical fights. Russia, which is actively renewing its imperialistic stance and renewing Soviet policies at home, put pressure on Ukraine. Our nation, in turn, continued to uncover the crimes of the communist regime and Josef Stalin, now hailed as an “an effective manager” in modern Russia.
Fortunately, in this declassification undertaking, Ukraine does not recognize the old Soviet security classifications “secret” and “absolutely secret.” Most of the documents that used to be secret do not contain information which can harm national interests. But in no case should a document remain a state secret if it contains information on the violation of rights and freedoms of citizens. This fits more than 90 percent of the documents in our archives on repression.
Nobody did anything of the kind in the previous 17 years. The documents only started to be opened after former President Viktor Yushchenko’s decree issued in January 2009. Our activity was not like cutting the Gordian Knot, but more like carefully untying this knot.
This process turned out to be lengthy but fruitful – and resonated far beyond Ukraine. Researchers from other countries who studied the Soviet past received access to information they were denied in other post-Soviet states.
In the end, Russia started opening up its archives, albeit slowly, selectively and tendentiously. Today we know the results. The most important one: No government can make secret the information that had been released, nor can the state tame growing public interest in what used to be closed archives. This amounted to an irreversible change for the better, a small but successful reform.
Ukrainians have proven many times throughout history that they can conduct revolutions – in 1648, 1917, in the 1940s, 1991 and 2004. Now is the time to show how our society has changed.
Volodymyr Vyatrovych is the former head of the State Security Service archives.
