In a message dated 12/20/04 5:21:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>
>  The Polish Library Association has asked IFLA/FAIFE to circulate their
>  "Appeal for Cuban Librarians" via the mailing list faife-l ...
>
>  So why should this be "another sign of growing dissent within IFLA"?

The Polish action is just one sign of growing disquiet within the world
library community as to FAIFE's inaction with regard to the heightened persecution
of librarians in Cuba. In 1999 IFLA/FAIFE issued a report
(www.ifla.org/faife/faife/cubarepo.htm) confirming and condemning the systematic repression of
Cuba's independent library movement, a uniquely Cuban innovation in the history
of opposition to censorship. The Cuban government and its spokespersons, such
as Marta Terry, contemptuously rejected the FAIFE report and insisted, as they
continue to do today, that there is no censorship or repression in Cuba. For
unknown reasons, which have still not been explained, FAIFE has never
introduced a resolution within IFLA to condemn the unprecedented campaign of
persecution against our Cuban colleagues.

Since 1999, FAIFE has done very little to focus the attention of the
international library community on this crucial issue, despite the Cuban regime's
intensified campaign of persecution unleashed in 2003. As an example of growing
disquiet within IFLA as to the effectiveness and capability of FAIFE, none other
than Marta Terry has now been named as a member of the FAIFE committee.

Would Ms. Schleihagen please explain the rationale for naming an outspoken
opponent of intellectual freedom to the IFLA committee dedicated to opposing
censorship?

In the face on continuing inaction by FAIFE, in August 2004 a group of
prominent Eastern European leaders, including Vaclav Havel, Elena Bonner, Markus
Meckel and Adam Michnik, sent a public letter to FAIFE urging the committee to
renew and complete its investigation of Cuba. Among the points made by the
leaders in their letter to FAIFE are:

* "The IFLA conference in Buenos Aires, to be held in August 2004, offers an
opportunity for the worldwide library community to focus attention on, and
make a definitive statement against, the Cuban government's intensified campaign
of repression being waged against the independent librarians..."

Sadly, FAIFE did not carry out its duty at the August meeting, and no
explanation has been given as to why FAIFE has failed to publicize its response to
the European leaders' historic letter.

* "As definitively proven by the recently published court documents available
online (www.ruleoflawandcuba.fsu.edu), the facts of this matter are no longer
in dispute."

As recently as 2001, the Cuban regime tried to persuade FAIFE investigators
in Havana that there is no censorship on the island.  But as noted by the
European leaders in their August letter, newly-revealed Cuban court documents on
the trials of the imprisoned librarians prove, beyond any question whatsoever,
that the Cuban regime is, in fact, lying about the existence of systematic
censorship on the island. The documents prove that not only are classic works of
freedom such as "Animal Farm" being confiscated from the independent libraries,
but that the Cuban courts are ordering these library books to be burned. In
its undisclosed response to the letter of the European leaders, does FAIFE
express justifiable alarm and indignation with regard to the falsehoods, deception
and systematic represssion practiced by the Cuban government?

* "This campaign of persecution reached a peak beginning in March, 2003, when
about 25 of the independent librarians were arrested during raids conducted
by the secret police..... [A]pproximately nineteen of them, following unfair
one-day trials, have been sentenced to prison terms of up to 26 years. They may
die in prison unless the international community takes action in their
defense."

What urgently need action is FAIFE taking to save the lives of Cuba's
imprisoned librarians? Since the intensified persecution of Cuba's independent
librarians has been emphatically condemned by a broad range of respected human
rights organizations such as Amnesty International, why hasn't similar action been
taken by FAIFE, which has the specific duty of defending intellectual freedom
and librarians? Why has FAIFE failed to take meaningful action to condemn the
Cuban regime, to call for the immediate release of the imprisoned librarians,
or to rally the worldwide library community in opposing the Cuban regime's
unprecedented campaign of persecution being waged against our colleagues on the
island?

These are just a few examples of growing concern within IFLA as to FAIFE's
puzzling and alarming silence with regard to the most important human rights
issue confronting today's international library community. This issue is bound to
be a central matter of concern at the next IFLA conference in 2005.

Sincerely,

The Friends of Cuban Libraries
(www.friendsofcubanlibraries.org)