SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Achcar is claiming that we've been in a cold war since shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He does talk a lot about what is happening now, but he doesn't make any clear claims that we're entering a cold war situation now, only a claim that the situation we've been in since the Clinton era is a "new cold war." Anyway, really, if you want to convince anyone who is not already leftist, that article is not going to help. It's coming from a perspective that assumes the US is the original driver of all of the conflicts it is currently in. Most people wouldn't agree with that. You'll have to do better if you want to define the "new cold war" as a preventable danger, and as something with a clear meaning that is separate from the sum of specific conflicts that are justifiable. (I.e., counering the thesis it is good for the world if a rising power that has a huge population in concentration camps and explicitly rejects human rights is prevented from controlling all of Southeast Asia and becoming a hegemonic power worldwide.)

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.

Okay... I'll start by saying that the heart of this is in the right place, and that I think Council would agree that it is. So even if there will be a ton of skepticism coming from Council, I think there is also a desire to support peace in some way that seems appropriate for ALA to do. 

Problems:

One problem is that the Russia and China situations are very different, which makes the "new cold war" construct a bit questionable. We are effectively at war with Russia now. Russia is the aggressor in this war (gullible parroting of Russian complaints about NATO expansion notwithstanding). We may have growing tensions with China, but trade has actually increased between the US and China during the current period of re-shoring. China and the US are intensely pursuing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation, because everybody understands what a disaster it would be to get into a war over Taiwan. War seems inevitable to some, because China has promised that it will eventually take Taiwan. The US has vaguely promised it would defend Taiwan. I think that on that question, Council would generally support the idea that China should not be allowed to take Taiwan. In the meantime,  it seems that the resolution is fighting for something that the US is already fighting for in China relations. In terms of Russia on the other hand, I'm not sure what "prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation" is supposed to mean in practice when our involvement in the war is what is preventing Russia from annexing Ukraine. Is the implicit suggestion to allow China to take Taiwan and to allow Russia to take Ukraine? If it comes down to that, Council won't accept it, and I think there will be people who will bring this up in debate on the floor. 

So there is the impression of naiveté to deal with. Geopolitical oppositions seem to be an inevitable part of the the world. To an extent, tensions between the West and Russia and China are about ideas. You can be very skeptical of Western claims to be advancing democracy or whatever, but I think you can't get away from the fact that human rights are being advanced by the West and rejected by Russia and China. Or at any rate, Council is not going to see it your way if you question this.

So what does it make sense to ask ALA to say, especially considering the high interest in sticking to "library issues?" I think your suggestion in the resolution to "partner with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as.... human rights organizations and cultural exchange programs" could lead to partnerships with organizations that you really don't favor. Like Freedom House, for example. Even Amnesty International can be seen as taking sides on these issues. 

Here's where I think the kernel is that we should go with. "Prioritize[ing] resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding within the library profession" seems like something that Council can get behind. It's solidly library-related, and it's meaty enough to be meaningful. Maybe there is a way to propose a concrete activity. That might send it to BARC, but it would at least mean something for ALA. The resolution doesn't call for a statement sent out to legislators, so we should consider whether what it is calling for is meaningful or useful, and not simply vague.

That's all I have to say.

Rory Litwin

Correction: this is the same version of the resolution originally posted by Mark Rosenzweig.

Also, a reminder that today is the last day (June 17) to register to vote at the ALA Membership Meeting.

-- Mark

Here's the message and proposed resolution from Mark Rosenzweig again, better formatted and with all the 'Whereases".

If SRRT hasn't already tried to do so,  I propose a possible resolution to be brought from SRRT to Council which is "AGAINST THE 'NEW COLD WAR ". I feel it would be wonderful to have ALA, the voice of American libraries and librarians,  on the side of peace as we witness the development of  threatening globalized,  escalating conflicts especially with respect to Russia and China. This text is only a working model: I would welcome reworking which amplified or clarified its message and made it possibly more "passable" by Council.
Mark Rosenzweig

RESOLUTION AGAINST THE "NEW COLD WAR" 

    1.    Whereas the ALA should recognize the potential dangers of a "New Cold War" and believes that any conflict between major powers could have catastrophic consequences for the global community.


    2.    whereas the ALA should advocate for policies that promote peace and cooperation between nations, such as increased diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and the promotion of free cross-cultural exchange and understanding.


    3.    whereas the ALA should oppose policies that contribute to the escalation of tensions between nations, such as sanctions and other forms of economic coercion, military interventions, and the demonization of other countries or cultures.


    4.    whereas, the ALA believes that libraries and cultural institutions have an important role to play in promoting peace and understanding between nations, and calls for increased support for international cultural exchange programs and initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding.


    5.    The ALA urges the U.S. government and other major powers to prioritize diplomacy and cooperation in their foreign policies, and to work towards a more peaceful and equitable global community.


_______________________________________________________________________
In addition to issuing a statement, the ALA could also consider partnering with other organizations that are working towards similar goals, such as peace and disarmament groups, human rights organizations, and cultural exchange programs. The ALA could also prioritize resources and programs that promote cross-cultural understanding and international cooperation within the library profession.