SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

 View Only
last person joined: 2 days ago 

The Social Responsibilities Round Table works to make ALA more democratic and to establish progressive priorities not only for the Association, but also for the entire profession. Concern for human and economic rights was an important element in the founding of SRRT and remains an urgent concern today. SRRT believes that libraries and librarians must recognize and help solve social problems and inequities in order to carry out their mandate to work for the common good and bolster democracy.

Learn more about SRRT on the ALA website.

  • 1.  IRAN: A MATTER OF URGENCY

    Posted 2 days ago

    This is not a "library issue," per se,but a reason we should amend (for timeliness) and push forward, our SRRTAC resolution re Iran ,taking it to Council at Conference.We will present an amended version  which will bring it up to date, but I ask that we find TWO ALA Councilors to sign off on it and present it to Council. The movers from SRRTAC will do the presenatation at Council RTAC resolution re Iran ,taking it to Council at Conference.We will present an appropriately  amended version  at the appropriate time which will bring it up to date, but I ask that we find TWO ALA COUNCILORS who will sign off on it to [present to Council.

    I suggest Emily Drabinsky for one possible signator....

    __________________________________________________________


    Hands Off Iran: The Right to Sovereignty

    M ROSENZWEIG

    Any U.S. war with Iran is not a "security issue" or a "regional dispute." It is a direct attack on the basic principle of selfdetermination.
    For anyone on the left, that principle is not optional. The people of Iran have the right to decide their own future-even under a repressive state, even in the middle of crisis-without U.S. bombs, sanctions, or intelligence agencies deciding for them.

    Foreign intervention is not neutral. It is not "help." It is the denial of a nation's right to chart its own course.The record is not in dispute. In 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's democratically elected prime minister, after he dared to nationalize Iran's oil and challenge Western control over its resources. Operation Ajax destroyed a government that reflected a real democratic opening and reinstalled the Shah, whose dictatorship was armed, trained, and defended by Washington and London for a quarter century.

    That wasn't an accident or a "Cold War misunderstanding." It was imperial policy: crush independence, protect Western capital, and call it "stability."
    The rage that exploded in the 1979 revolution was aimed not only at a brutal monarchy, but at the foreign powers that had put it there and kept it in place.When U.S. officials and pundits talk about "regime change" in Iran today-through bombing, proxy wars, cyberattacks, or economic strangulation-they are walking the same path.

    They erase this history and present Iran as a blank slate to be redesigned from Washington. They talk about "freedom" and "human rights" in the same breath that they defend sanctions which destroy medicine supplies, crush the poor, and punish ordinary people for the crime of living under the wrong government.
    So let's be clear: this is not the moment to ask what the U.S. should do in Iran. It is the moment to say, without qualification: Hands off Iran.

    Iran's political system is without a doubt deeply repressive. Workers, students, feminists, leftists, national minorities-countless people have been jailed, tortured, or killed for demanding change, from the 1979 revolution's betrayed promises to the Green Movement of 2009 to the "Woman, Life, Freedom" uprising in 2022. None of this gives the United States the right to turn Iran into its next project.Post1979 Iran has tried, in its own contradictory and often reactionary way, to remain independent of U.S. and European domination. That independence is real, and it matters.
    For anyone, however, who has watched the U.S. set Iraq on fire, occupy Afghanistan for 20 years, or help tear Libya to pieces, the pattern is obvious: invasion and regime change do NOT bring democracy or women's liberation or stability.
    They bring mass graves, refugee camps, warlords, and permanent chaos. They make it harder, not easier, for people on the ground to fight for a better society.
    A "Hands Off Iran" position is not a love letter to the Islamic Republic. It is a clear rejection of the imperial idea that Iran is a problem to be "fixed" by American power.

    The U.S. has NO moral standing here. A state that armed the Shah's secret police, backed Saddam Hussein during his war on Iran, and has enforced crushing sanctions for decades does not get to pose as a friend of the Iranian people.
    Many Iranians-including some of the regime's fiercest critics-still see independence from Washington as a nonnegotiable gain of the revolution. They do not want to trade clerical rule for an American proconsul, a NATO occupation, or a puppet government assembled in a foreign capital.
    Escalation-airstrikes, sabotage, covert operations, evertightening sanctions-will not "free" anyone. It will deepen authoritarianism, fuel nationalism, shatter social movements, and push the entire region closer to a wider, possibly catastrophic war. It will close the political space that Iranians themselves have opened with their own blood.

    A serious left position starts from one basic recognition: liberation cannot be delivered by an empire. When it comes to Iran, that means backing the Iranian people's struggles for justice, equality, and freedom against both their own state's repression and U.S. imperial designs. The choice is not between the Islamic Republic and American bombs. The choice is between foreign domination and real self-determination.
    The U.S. has no place in deciding Iran's future.
    Hands off Iran-completely.

    M Rosenzweig

    SRRT AC member/liaison with IRTF of SRRT



    ------------------------------
    Mark Rosenzweig
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: IRAN: A MATTER OF URGENCY

    Posted 2 days ago
    I agree with what Mark wrote here. I think we can get into a framing trap when we talk about what is a “library issue” or not. Rather, we can think about what is a direct or indirect library issue. Opposing a war on Iran is not a direct library issue like the attempt to abolish IMLS, but it is just as important for librarians and library users. We have seen a surge in funding for the military and for domestic repression at the same time we have seen the withdrawal of funding for various aspects related to our quality of life (which of course includes the public good of funding libraries). These budget priorities are not an accident. The militarization of society leads to attacks on civil liberties and the rule of law, and especially targeting the most marginalized groups such as immigrants, people of color, and the LGBT community. And political activists including members of SRRT are also in jeopardy. As a public good, libraries should emphasize services to those most in need. We can think in narrow terms or we can take a wide view of libraries' role in society. Opposing US unprovoked attacks on various countries around the world is indeed very relevant to our profession.