Some days ago, the question still was: So, the war started… what does the librarian say? Today we write March 3, Russia’s war on Ukraine is entering its second week, and librarians have had time to say many things.
By Mikael Böök
On March 1, IFLA’s governing board published the following statement:
“IFLA stands in solidarity with our colleagues in Ukraine – condemns all violent actions and joins the international community in their statements on the situation.
In alliance with the protest of the international Library community IFLA urgently appeals to the libraries all over the world to mobilise in favour of accurate information to be spread on the conflict as a means to support democracy and freedom of expression. IFLA also asks libraries to support any Ukrainian refugees, in collaboration with governmental and non-governmental organisations. We should be ready to find practical solutions and be prepared to provide Ukrainians with assistance and support as needed.”
In some of my previous blogposts, I have criticized IFLA’s policies, but this time I am quite happy which is why I quote their statement in extenso. Amidst the warmongering of the news and mass media, IFLA manages to hit a peaceful tone that is proper to librarians and the library as an institution. To condemn violent actions like the Russian aggression is of course OK. To appeal to libraries all over the world to mobilise in favour of accurate information is even more so. We are now witnessing a general drift towards a “Decoupling From Russia”, not only politically and financially, but also culturally and …
… in the field of science and scientific communication. Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe and Roger C. Schonfield write about this ominious trend in The Scholarly Kitchen, March 2, 2022. How gratifying that IFLA deviates from that Cold War mentality and practice!
The statement by by EBLIDA, NAPLE and Public Libraries 2030 (three important groups of the European library community) is a bit more shrill in tone. For instance, it does not appeal to libraries “all over the world” but only to “libraries all over Europe.” The question is, does EBLIDA suggest that the libraries all over Europe should break their cultural and scientific ties with the libraries all over Russia? I cannot believe that EBLIDA wants to see such “decoupling”. Yet I would have liked to see a statement to the contrary. Why did EBLIDA not say that now, more than ever, it is necessary to keep in contact with the libraries and librarians of Russia? Does EBLIDA believe that the Russian libraries and librarians support the Russian war party?
EBLIDA & Co stress the need to support refugees from Ukraina, which is good: “We urge libraries all over Europe to welcome refugees and to provide a warm and safe shelter away from their temporary housing, also providing access to library’s collections and services.”
For its part, The American Library Association (ALA) has produced the following:
“The American Library Association and its divisions support our Ukrainian colleagues and will work with the global library community to answer the appeal from the Ukrainian Library Association to provide accurate information as a means to support democracy and freedom of expression.
ALA has adopted into its policies Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
ALA continues to encourage our members to help raise public consciousness regarding the many ways in which disinformation and media manipulation are used to mislead public opinion in all spheres of life, and further encourages librarians to facilitate this awareness with collection development, library programming and public outreach that draws the public’s attention to those alternative sources of information dedicated to countering and revealing the disinformation.”
This statement, too, can serve as an indication that librarians are not warmongers, but rather pacifists. Are the librarians, then, able to “raise public consciousness regarding the many ways in which disinformation and media manipulation are used to mislead public opinion”? That is a different question. Anyway, it is certainly the duty of a librarian to try.
The Nordic National Libraries, in turn, have expressed their “solidarity with our friends and colleagues in the besieged Ukraine” and stressed “the importance of citizens’ access to free and undistorted information, especially in times of war and crises.” Allright, but should they not as well have extended their solidarity to their colleagues in Russia? Or should we imply that the Russian civil society or, more precisely, the librarians of Russia, are guilty of Russia’s attack on the Ukraine?
Anyway, the Nordic National Libraries added this reminder to their statement, and for good reason: “Russia has ratified UNESCO:s 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the 1954 Hague Convention. By doing so Russia has committed to protecting Cultural Heritage.” We can only hope that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine will not repeat something comparable the German soldiers did at Louvain in August, 1914.
I’ll end these notes with a question: Has the time come for all librarians and their IFLA to criticize the nuclear balance of terror, to join the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and to support the UN Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)? If not now, when?
Right now the balance of terror may seem to work, but for how long? The longer it drags on, the faster the ecological disaster approaches.
