Source: Blic
Recently, I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Bernd Florat, the Director at the Trusteeship of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Handling of Dossiers of the Ministry for State Security of the former German Democratic Republic (Stasi). What else would we speak about, but handling of the secret service dossiers, because the manner in which Germany dealt with the issue of the secret service dossiers represents the best example in the overall comparative international practice, and, for each country facing a similar issue, the German experiences are invaluable.
The basic differentiating issue, differentia specifica of the “German way”, compared to all the others which were more or less [un]successful, was the fact that the issue was never treated as a daily political question, as an opportunity to gain a certain advantage in the field of political marketing by “bringing up” this issue. Au contraire, this issue was presented as an issue of immense importance for the society as a whole, a question on whose resolution the attitude towards the past, as well as towards the future based on the ideas of justice, democracy, and human rights, depended.
This is why Germany mobilized resources for this task that are almost unimaginable from our own perspective. At one time, there were almost 3,500 employees working at the Trusteeship for the Handling of Stasi Dossiers, and, even today, when a great number of cases have been solved, this institution employs around 2,000 members of personnel, and has an annual budget of about 100 million euros.
We, in order to solve the same issue, do not need nearly as many resources luckily. But, the resources cannot be inadequate. That is why something seems “simply wrong”. Even though every serious overall debate about the Law on Secret Service Dossiers, which was announced several times in the past, should encompass a debate on the necessary personnel, logistics, material, and other resources, as well as on the readiness to make these resources really available and functioning, these things are practically not even mentioned. The “debate treats” the issue of resources and their availability as completely irrelevant.
Has it not been shown on numerous occasions that the famous “methodological approach” of “no worries” cannot achieve the necessary results? But, it can undermine even the best of ideas.
