Secrecy and secrecy keep intelligence agencies away from sustainable political interest. Reforming an intelligence agency often requires specific historical milestones, such as the end of the Cold War or scandals that spark public debate about the agency’s work. From this point of view, the case of Nikos Androulakis being observed may give the EMP an opportunity to be more transparent about its past.

Openness about the past intelligence agency is not only of historical interest, but also of great political significance. This brings the intelligence service to a kind of retrospective accountability, maintains a permanent political and social interest in it (instead of an ephemeral interest in connection with the scandal), and increases its political legitimacy.

Confidentiality is, of course, essential to the operation of an intelligence agency when that agency recruits agents (human resources) and employs operational methods. However, when these two main categories that justify privacy – (human) sources and business methods – are gone, privacy is no longer justified in all cases. Why shouldn’t a citizen or a former agent, after 30 or 50 years, check his case? How relevant can the methods used 50 years ago to justify privacy still be? The same applies, for example, to historical changes in operational priorities, information about past hires (showing what kind of staff the agency needs), changes in leadership, and discussions within the agency about transparency. In the case of the EPM, there is no practical reason to keep secret even matters related to how the CYP operated during the junta.

The passage of time significantly reduces the operational sensitivity of the document. If responsibility for a particular issue is not possible in the present, it can become possible when the same issue concerns the past. This retrospective accountability, stemming from the transparency of the past, is an important step in the legitimization of any intelligence service. In particular, EYP can make significant strides in this area.

Retrospective accountability is an important step in the legitimacy of any intelligence service.

The declassification of a large part of the EYP file is a major step in this direction. This will allow researchers to start a well-informed discussion about the history of EYP, free from unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories related to the work of the agency. Declassification will also allow citizens to see files that may concern them, and allow both the public and agencies to come to terms with a sometimes difficult and uncomfortable past. The declassification of the secret service archive is a laborious and lengthy process, which must be preceded by the classification and (partial) digitization of the archive. However, there are many services that have declassified part of their file. The best-known examples are the CIA and the agencies of the former communist countries, such as the archives of the East German Ministry of Civil Service (MfS or Stasi) and the Czechoslovak State Security (StB).

In addition to the necessary declassification of part of its file, EYP has other options to ensure greater transparency of its past. He could hire his own historian, as the CIA does with its large history department, or work with university historians for specific investigations, as the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) did, for example. Although particular agencies often determine the subject matter of historians’ research, historians are independent in their choice and interpretation of empirical material in agency reports. They publish their research, present it at conferences and in the media. Therefore, encouraged by the services themselves, they contribute to an informed dialogue about the past of the services. The activation of interested former employees of the EMP can serve the same purpose. The CIA, for example, has a rich tradition of recruiting former (retired) employees to go public with their past. These former employees publish memoirs (pre-approved by a special commission), participate in conferences, speak at schools and universities, etc. d.

In 2008, EYP organized a pioneering conference on the service itself. It was attended by officials, politicians, scientists and journalists, and a book was published with the minutes of the meeting. Although the intention was to continue the regular organization of such days, the experiment was not repeated. That same year, as part of a new EYP bill, then-Governor Ioannis Korantis announced the creation of the Historical Archives Service and the declassification of records for the period 1953–1958. Fourteen years later, nothing has yet been declassified. Let’s hope that the current interest in the reconstruction of YMZ will push the administration of the agency to soon continue the initiatives started in 2008.

* Dr. Eleni Braat is Associate Professor of Modern History at the University of Utrecht (Netherlands), specializing in the history of information services.