Those of you heading to Astana: ask the IFLA people what they’re thinking

Next week, the library sector’s annual world congress will be held in Kazakhstan. Here’s a question the Swedish participants might want to put to the organizer, IFLA.

Right now, suitcases are being packed for WLIC, the annual congress of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), which this year will be held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.

Freedom of expression is not exactly a hallmark there – Kazakhstan ranks 141 out of 180 on Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index. Opposition voices are persecuted and imprisoned. The fact that librarians from all over the world will be descending on the city, carrying their hard-earned reputation as champions of knowledge and free thought, is something the Kazakh government’s PR department will no doubt be delighted to showcase.

But that’s not the main point here. This is more of a note to those travelling from Sweden – eleven people have received scholarships from the Swedish Library Association to attend – encouraging them to raise another issue when they meet representatives from IFLA. (I won’t be going myself.)

Earlier this year, I wrote about IFLA’s puzzling stance on Russia and Ukraine. The Ukrainian Library Association has repeatedly urged the federation to expel its Russian counterpart. The latest appeal came last winter, when the Ukrainian association presented evidence that libraries in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories were being enrolled as members of the Russian association.

That was just one detail in a wider dossier of events and circumstances sent to IFLA – yet the board remained unconvinced of the case for expulsion.

Now IFLA has once again acted in a way that raises eyebrows. This time, the matter concerns an academic article by historian Tetiana Hranchak, who also sits on the Ukrainian Library Association’s board. Titled Russian Libraries in Wartime: Outside or In Service of Politics, the piece examines the role of libraries in Russia’s war on Ukraine. Drawing on a long list of examples similar to those above, Hranchak concludes that the Kremlin’s propaganda has turned Russian librarians into obedient supporters of the full-scale invasion.

In her view, that breaches IFLA’s own code of ethics – and strengthens the case for expelling the Russian association.

Hranchak submitted the article to IFLA Journal, the federation’s scholarly publication. The peer reviewers had a few comments but were generally positive – even appreciative:

• “Thank you for writing this new perspective.”
• ”The Findings are presented clearly and give a very interesting account.”

Despite this, and despite Hranchak’s extensive revisions in response to the reviewers’ feedback, the journal’s editor rejected the article – while, rather oddly, still calling it “important.”

Yes, one could chalk it up to an overwhelming volume of submissions – which is exactly what IFLA’s Deputy Secretary General Helen Mandl suggested in an email to me. But given IFLA’s pattern of peculiar decisions on matters involving Russia and Ukraine, I can’t help wondering why the organisation appears so reluctant to take a stand.

Is this pragmatism – a calculation that taking a firmer position would make it harder, for example, to host a congress in a country like Kazakhstan?

To those heading to Astana: if you bump into IFLA’s head-office staff from The Hague in the corridors, ask them what they think.