society'.30 So far, the document is in line with the basic assumptions of the
CCHP. There is a mutual past; a past, moreover, that can be traced in archives;
these records are heritage. Although it is stated that archives can be used to
reflect on our mutual past, they are not yet described as mutual. But look at the
next section: 'There are archives in the countries that are significant for their
own history, but which may also be of significance for other countries: the Mutual
Cultural Heritage Archives'.31 This assertion seems rather cautious given the fact
that, with the exception of Russia, in each of the countries involved, the Dutch
produced a considerable amount of VOC, WIC or Dutch colonial records. As
these documents were created locally, stating that these archives 'may also be
of significance' for the history of other countries is actually making very little
of it. The text then continues: 'By signing these Recommendations, we declare
that we are aware of our professional and moral responsibility for ensuring the
effective management of and access to all these archives'. Deliberately or not,
the claim of joint heritage is avoided, pushing the archivist forward instead. So,
not the rights and obligations arising from joint heritage are called upon, but
the responsibility of the archivist who acts according to his professional and
moral code. The recommendations do point out joint responsibilities though,
especially concerning accessibility and conservation. Here the text becomes
less evasive, asserting that accessibility should be improved through digitization
and the creation of a 'single worldwide digital MH collection that is linked
together and searchable in its entirety' to enable the study of 'the history of
mutual relations'.32 It is made clear though that national legislation regarding
copyright and privacy prevails. The joint responsibilities mentioned with regard
to conservation stress in the first place 'the importance for the archival institution
to keep the archives in good physical condition'.33 This article is followed by the
goal to improve the physical condition of the MCH archives to enhance access for
research and education. Finally, referring to both digitization and conservation, it
is acknowledged that each participant has a different starting position which will
influence capacities, priorities and timing.
Obviously, compared to the CCHP, the claims laid in the recommendations are
much weaker. Sure, there is the acknowledgement of a mutual past; this past asks
for a multilateral effort to improve accessibility and to guarantee preservation.
Also, there are records relating to that past; these are called Mutual Cultural
Heritage Archives. But these archives are only assigned potential significance for
other countries; this is certainly not a given. Other than this cautious possibility,
no other description of mutual cultural heritage archives is offered. Therefore, it
is not surprising that this rather delicate claim is not presented as the foundation
for the joint responsibilities. If there are mutual rights and mutual obligations,
these are first and foremost motivated by the professional and moral duties of
the archivist. However, the archivist can easily back out by pointing towards the
local situation.
JINNA SMIT TO CLAIM OR NOT TO CLAIM - SHARING ARCHIVES: POLICY AND PRACTICE
30 Connecting Archives, 1. This document can be accessed by contacting jinna.smit@nationaalarchief.nl.
31 Connecting Archives, Underlining done by me.
32 Connecting Archives, 2.
33 Connecting Archives, 3.
181
