BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
‘It will come out eventually’

Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. That does, of course, raise the issue of who writes the final draft. On the basis that historians still argue about the events of centuries and millennia ago, the notion of a final draft may be absurd; however conclusions will be drawn at some point. Politicians trying to hold back historical judgement is a little like trying to hold back the tide, even if the facts are not all available the void will be filled with speculation to explain the gap. Ultimately information will emerge and will be assessed. The question seems to be when that should take place. Those states that make use of a ‘thirty year rule’ or something similar to protect particular documents such as cabinet minutes do so to allow the free exchange of ideas in the present.[i] Such a length of time seems sufficient to let politicians and civil servants operate without endlessly focussing on their legacies. However, beyond that trying to control the assessment of history seems to be an exercise in futility. Even the deepest, darkest secrets tend to be extrapolated when they’re not demonstrated. Imprisoning historians and banning things only tends to confirm the view that they were right and there is something damning being hidden. Ultimately, it’s self-defeating. [i] BBC News, ‘Secret papers face faster release’, 29 January 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7857370.stm
Protecting the past

There is rarely anything to do with protecting the past in these decisions. It is all to do with the present and either manufacturing an image of a previous decision or covering up corruption or incompetence on the part of the party, faction or individual that happens to be in charge at the time. What Proposition so cheerily describes as ‘grubby minutiae’ would be more generally referred to as ‘facts’, proposition seems to think that history shouldn’t let these ‘grubby minutiae’ get in the way of a good story. If proposition is correct in its view that “It would be impossible to change those results” then there is no reason why historians should not be free to investigate and reinterpret the record as to how these results were arrived at.
Foundational Myths

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available[i]. China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN”[ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies. [i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011. [ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.
Predicting and protecting the future nation

In such instances, clearly nations will pursue their national interest but, just to take Prop’s example, the ICJ[i] spends most of its time dealing with disputes about maritime law, mostly ownership issues. They work on the basis of investigation and fact. Suppressing information would clearly only be an attempt to reduce the information available so as to prevent an unbiased judgement. To take the Senkaku/Daioyu example yes the China’s may have some documents conceding Japanese sovereignty but that does not end the dispute. Nor would losing the case in such a dispute be a real threat to the national security of either side; the territory and resources would be nice to have but are not vital for either’s economy or security.  So Proposition has yet to give an example of where there would be a clear issue of national security – or even national interest in hiding history. [i] International Criminal Court of Justice website. Contentious Cases
Open expression

Opposition is living in a fantasy world. They forget that people do not always have rational responses to history, while the outcome of the event in question may not be changed revealing awkward truths could have unpleasant results, so for example if the Chinese government were to suddenly accept responsibility for the killing of millions during the great leap forward riots or even revolution could very well occur. Governments regularly suppress information on the basis of national security and their citizens accept that as a reality. Indeed most accept it as a benefit. It seems likely that the only reason Dr Xu’s case has achieved notoriety is that he studied in the west (Oxford) for ten years. The same is true of Dr. Gao Zhan (Syracuese) and Dr. Li Shaomin (Princeton) – the other two high-profile academic detainees. It does rather suggest that the spotlight on their cases has less to do with a genuine concern with free speech and more to do with having friends in the West who don’t think their associates should be treated under the same rules as other Chinese citizens. Western nations have their own rules on secrecy which can be used to prosecute those who break them.[i] It is hypocrisy to deny China the right to do the same. [i] ‘Official Secrets Act 1989’, legislation.gov.uk, 11 May 1989, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/introduction
Popular history

Ownership of the past, for the purposes of this debate, would seem all too evident. Governments determine what information is legitimate to publish both domestically and internationally and do so in the interests of the state. The recent outcry from Western governments about the Wikileaks publication of diplomatic cables dating back to the mid-sixties suggests that Western governments take a somewhat different attitude when it is their historical national security being broadcast. The ongoing detention of Bradley Manning in solitary confinement further suggests that they take a rather more supra-judicial approach than the Chinese[i]. [i] One of many sites to notice this double standard between the West commenting on other nations’ dissidents and dealing with its own is: Lankaweb. Hameed Abdul Karim. If Bradley Manning were Chinese... 16 June 2012.
‘It will come out eventually’

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.
Protecting the past

There is a simple case of natural justice in protecting the decisions and reputations of those who have served the state and can no longer speak for themselves[i]. The same applies to events, for better or worse political or military disputes that were settled fifty or a hundred years ago are best left like that, settled. All nations have moments in their histories that are unlikely to reflect that country at its best but we judge our own nations and others on a balance of the broad sweep of history rather than the grubby minutiae of particular events. By its nature the historical record will always be incomplete – silent on motivations of those involved or the particularities of individual decisions as we can never know everything and not all decision making processes are recorded. We already know the overall outcomes of, for example, wars or elections. It would be impossible to change those results by discovering that they were not handled as one might have wished. Neither is their much to be gained in despoiling the characters of those involved – national psyches need their heroes and villains, making either of them more human in both senses of the phrase adds little and could distract much. For example do we really need to know that Churchill opposed the Nuremburg trials instead favouring execution without trial for senior Nazi leaders? Does it diminish Churchill’s greatness or undermine the results of the Nuremburg trials? No.[ii] [i] BBC News Website. Secret papers face faster release. 29 January 2009. [ii] Cobain, Ian, ‘Britain favoured execution over Nuremberg trials for Nazi leaders’, The Guardian, 26 October 2012
Foundational Myths

Nations come from somewhere, or at least we tend to believe they do[i]. The fact that these foundational myths are usually either partially or completely untrue is mostly irrelevant. These myths – be they of glorious revolutions or long histories reaching back into antiquity are projections of the modern nation. However, they are only the most obvious example of national mythologies, we project our current-day identities onto all sorts of more recent histories as well. To take one fairly flippant example of this, ask a national of any country involved on the victorious side in WWII and ask them who won the war. States have an interest in perpetuating these myths, not for particular or personal motives but because they add to a sense of national identity and the homogeneity of the whole. To that extent they are, quite literally, a matter of national security they confer and justify the notion of the nation as an entity or the concept of the nation state as a possibility. As national historian Spyridon Lambros said “next to military power, the pen of the historian is the most powerful weapon of national ambitions.”[ii] [i] Tambini, D. Ethnic and Racial studies, Vol 24 No. 2 March 2001 pp. 195 – 217. Post-national citizenship. [ii] Berger, Stefan, ‘History and national identity: why they should remain divorced’, History & Policy, December 2007
Predicting and protecting the future nation

In a much more practical sense historical data may well breach national security. They may well be instances, such as in the case given in the introduction, where governments may even be unaware that there were issues of national security involved until they are brought to light. Data that was not significant fifty years ago may become of great significance later on. To take a simple, hypothetical example. Laws relating to the ownership of the sea are relatively obscure and often based on ancient negotiations or treaties that are mostly about something else. They frequently involve custom and precedent and, for the most part, nobody really makes a fuss about the exact details. Until, of course, someone finds an oil field underneath that stretch of ocean or the fish supplies of a neighboring area become depleted[i]. At his point, the exact details of those negotiations and treaties become a source of great interest. Thus for example documents relating the Senkaku/Daioyu islets may have been uncontentious and irrelevant in the 1950 may now be of vital importance in an international dispute between China and Japan over the islands.[ii][iii] In a scenario such as this, there may well be vital national issues that were not predicted at the time of the negotiation or ratification of a treaty. Disputes of this nature – justifying industrial scale claims to mineral and fishing rights on the basis of historical claims are likely to boom over the next few years in relation to the poles as the icecaps recede[iv]. [i] There are islands around the world under disputed ownership for this reason. Senkaku/Diaoyu (China/Japan) and Dokdo/Takeshima (Japan/Korea)are two obvious examples. [ii] Lee, Joyman, ‘Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict’, History Today, Vol. 61 no.5, 2011 [iii] Gertz, Bill, ‘China-Japan tensions’, The Washington Times, 15 September 2010 [iv] Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Captain Paul Watson. The Birth of a New Manchuria. 25 January 2008.
Open expression

If ever there were a situation where free expression should be assumed, this is surely it. Where no harm can come of knowing something (Prop appears to accept this by saying the outcome can’t be changed) what possible reason could there be suppressing the information?[i] The only possible reason would seem to be that it is more convenient for that small group of people, those currently both living and powerful, that the true details of past events not emerge. If this is the case then the other arguments for free speech come into play, particularly its role in holding the powerful to account. Either way, proposition loses; if it’s just the minutiae of bygone times, then why not release it, if it’s the stuff of modern day political discourse then the failure to publish it is tantamount to tyranny. To take oppositions own example will learning that Churchill wanted Hitler’s lieutenants executed without trial will this really affect people’s opinions of Churchill? It seems unlikely, many would have similar opinions in the same situation and will be able to understand Churchill’s position. [i] This principle – that all things being equal there should be a presumption in favour of publication – has been argued in different ways in different countries. A useful example is the US Supreme Court Ruling in the matter of the New York Times vs The United States.
Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated

Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security.[1] Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions. [1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...
SWFs can help the financial system in times of trouble

Sovereign Wealth Funds could potentially help the financial system but they will only do so if it is in the national interest of their country to do so. It is this political dimension that is the reason for more regulation. Moreover regulation of SWFs will not prevent these funds from helping the global financial system. They will still be free to invest. Moreover it does not reduce the incentives for them to do so either, regulation will make no difference to a state’s motivations in a time of crisis – the national interest will remain key.
SWFs should be welcomed for the benefits they bring rather than ostracized for doing what others do.

The amounts sovereign wealth funds invest in the poorest countries is tiny compared to their overall portfolio. In 2008 the head of the World Bank Robert Zollick was attempting to persuade sovereign wealth funds to invest just 1% of their assets in Africa.[1] Investment by SWFs in Africa is not all good. Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed firms from China and the Arab world (not all of the SWFs) have provided capital to maintain some of Africa’s worst rulers in power, in exchange for the opportunity to gain access to the natural resources of their misruled states. Sudan for example has sold 400,000 hectares to the United Arab Emirates.[2] This has allowed dictators to ignore the conditions (e.g. for political freedoms and economic reforms) attached to funding offered by western aid donors and international institutions such as the World Bank. It also contrasts sharply with the behaviour of western companies, who are led to act more responsibly by pressures from their own governments, investors and media. [1] Stilwell Amy, and Chopra, Geetanjali S., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Should Invest in Africa, Zoellick Says’, 2008. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21711325~pag... [2] The Economist, ‘Buying farmland abroad, Outsourcing’s third wave’, 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/13692889
Sovereign wealth funds can undermine economic independence

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. The already exceed the assets controlled by hedge funds and will surpass the stock of global foreign exchange reserves.[1] They are now so big that their activities can shift markets, such as Norway’s Government Pension Fund did when short selling Iceland’s banks, leading to panic and instability when they sell assets suddenly.[2] Their purchases can mean that companies owned by other states can end up dominating the economies of smaller countries, undermining their own sovereignty and economic independence. It is also worrying that many SWFs are controlled by undemocratic states which have a questionable commitment to capitalism; should we allow such states to exercise so much power over our economies? [1] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008, http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm [2] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10533428
Sovereign Wealth funds are not transparent

Sovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain secrecy about the size of their funds and the extent of their holdings, their accountability to government, their investment strategies and their approach to risk management. Without knowing these things, it is impossible to gauge whether political or economic objectives will dominate the SWFs’ behaviour, or indeed whether they will make safe and responsible shareholders in any business – secrecy breeds corruption. For these reasons, Jeffrey Garten of Yale has argued that SWFs should be obliged to publish independently audited accounts twice a year. He has also pointed out that many countries operating SWFs protect their domestic economy from foreign competition and investment. We should demand reciprocity, so that countries seeking investments abroad must open up their own economies fully before they are allowed to hold significant assets elsewhere.[1] [1] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...
Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated

A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some, such as Gilson and Milhaupt, have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock.[1] Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business without government approval within the country the SWF is investing in[2] – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy. At the same time such rules would prevent any broader protectionist backlash so the Sovereign Wealth Funds themselves could welcome the regulation. [1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate... [2] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...
SWFs can help the financial system in times of trouble

Sovereign wealth funds should be credited with coming to the rescue of the global financial system during the turmoil of 2008. With their long-term horizons for a return on their investments they have been willing to provide billions of dollars in new capital to distressed companies, at a time when other sources of funding have headed for the door.[1] Their money has allowed firms to continue trading and so safeguarded jobs at a time of great uncertainty. It has also helped prevent complete collapse of global equities prices, on which many people, through their pension funds, depend for a secure future. Moreover unlike some other types of funds such as hedge funds SWFs have an interest in keeping the global economy stable and reducing the impact of any downturns as their own country is bound to be affected by global economic conditions so responsible investment practices are encouraged. SWFs therefore “can play a shock-absorbing role in global financial markets”.[2] [1] Beck, Roland, and Fidora, Michael, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds – Before and Since the Crisis’, 2009, p.363. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6245144&... [2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm
SWFs should be welcomed for the benefits they bring rather than ostracized for doing what others do.

Developed countries are guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy in their attitude to the sovereign wealth funds of emerging economies. In the past their own companies were used as instruments of state power, for example BP’s origins lie in Britain’s attempt to dominate Iran’s (at the time known as Persia) oil wealth.[1] The developed world is always willing to buy assets on the cheap, as shown by American banks buying up Asian banks during the Asian Financial crisis at the end of the 1990s.[2] Recently SWFs have proved willing to channel a great deal of investment into poorer states, particularly in Africa, their investments have already surpassed the IMF and World bank’s,[3] boosting their economies and assisting their long-term development through the provision of infrastructure such as roads and ports. This is a much more equal relationship than that promoted by the west, with its manipulation of aid and loans to maintain political influence in former colonies. [1] BP, ‘Our history’. http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=10&content... [2] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735 [3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Africa and the future’.  http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/kampanjer/refleks/innspill/afrika/ci...
SWFs can harm national security

Fears about national security are greatly overblown, and are often simply an attempt to justify protectionist measures. Very few companies pose a national security risk, and those that do are covered by existing regulations – so that, for example, the USA could veto Dubai Port World’s bid to take over American ports. Most SWFs do not seek full control of companies they invest in, so they are not in a position to manipulate their assets for political gain, even if they wished to.[1] In reality, countries set up SWFs for economic reasons and they represent a major national investment, the value of which would be expensively destroyed if they once tried to abuse their position. Nor are there any actual examples of a country trying to exert political influence through its sovereign wealth fund. Overall, tying a wide variety of states into the international economic and financial system is beneficial, as it gives them a stake in the peace which the global economy needs for prosperity and so makes them less likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies. Conversely, alienating the governments of other states by designating them as dangerous predators who cannot be allowed to invest in our companies is a sure way to create enemies. [1] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008. http://thepocketpart.org/2008/11/24/rose.html