Solidarity - an overused word?

When I lived in Sweden in the early 70s, I saw many a poster proclaiming "solidarity" with this group or that group.  Somehow it seemed to me that claiming "solidarity" without doing much more than making a poster or holding a meeting was an empty gesture.

With all the protests, rebellions, and revolutions going on now, especially in North Africa, many people are claiming "solidarity" with the people in North Africa.

I've thought that solidarity as a concept gained currency with the labor movement.  If the union voted for a strike, all members went on strike in solidarity, whichever way they voted.  If one union at a factory went on strike, other unions might go on strike in solidarity with the first.  It was a one for all and all for one attitude.

Now people in many countries go out on peaceful streets and hold up signs of "solidarity" with the people of North Africa.  Where was their "solidarity" when Western countries were kowtowing to these dictators for oil or for "national security"?

Well, better late than never.  These demonstrations do give some hope to those struggling against dictators.  Their struggles are not going unnoticed.

If you really want to show "solidarity", hop on a plane and help get supplies into Libya.  If you can only show "sympathy", attending a demonstration is helpful.  But even more help is to send a check to one of the many organizations that are actually doing something on the ground.  Choices include the International Committee for the Red Cross, Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) , and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

What can we do about Iran?

Not much.

Almost anything anybody does, whether it be politician, newscaster, or even blogger, is seen as foreign meddling. Of course, any regime that has officially-sanctioned human rights abuses considers any comment as interfering with internal affairs. In the case of Iran, they do have a bit more justification for paranoia given the long history of other nations directly interfering.

I had a scheme to cause a minor disruption in Iran. It was not something that would put the country in a snarl, but something that, if enough people participated, would be noticed by the government. But I thought better of it. It would be "foreign meddling" and could provoke a similar disruption in other countries.

Many people are holding solidarity demonstrations, both peaceful and violent. If people in Iran know about them, they may feel others are supporting them. However, isn't that kind of news being suppressed? Besides, how much have anti-US demonstrations changed American foreign policy, even when a large portion of Americans sympathize with the demonstrators?

There are three things that Americans can do.

First, write to the President, your Congressional representative, and your state's Senators supporting the measured response that the President has given.

Second, donate to human rights organizations that are following the situation.

Third, keep yourself informed of developments.

Fourth, drive less! I almost forgot this. Iran is one of the authoritarian petro states. Oil is propping them up. If oil use declines radically, these states will have less funding and become weaker. Because oil prices have dropped dramatically from their eyes, they already have some severe economic and political difficulties. Less oil consumption around the world makes these states even shakier.