Monks In The Streets!

that have been made against this movement, which I got when I posted a diary on Kos.

Cynthia Boas, writing for Truthout, address this today in an article.

She explains the situation

In the past month, amid the flurry of reports and commentary in international media about the events in Burma, a disturbing theme has emerged among some media commentators. Ranging from the Asia Times and the South China Morning Post to a collection of skeptical Western bloggers, they make the claim that various Washington DC-based agencies and a few key political actors are actually pulling the strings in the Burmese uprising. The rationale behind this “foreign interference,” as it has been termed by both the Burmese and Chinese governments, has been given as (take your pick): interests in oil and/or gas reserves, heroin, methamphetamines, geopolitical advantage, and power projection by the United States. While I am among the first to question the motives of the American administration when it comes to foreign policy, I find these claims absurdly cynical to the point of being delusional.

  These statements, which amount to nothing more than conspiracy theories supported by a cherry-picking of mostly unrelated factoids about links between the NLD and US actors, are both irresponsible and potentially dangerous. In fact, when it comes to the mostly well-meaning leftist bloggers, these claims signal that those who should be most encouraged by mass displays of civilian resistance to tyranny may have bought into the propaganda of the Burmese junta and its backers in China. Thus, those who should know better (many of the progressive web sites who have reported on these ‘theories’) are actually doing the movement in Burma a great disservice by strengthening the hand of the junta there, and potentially undermining the momentum of the resistance.

Misconceptions:

The first misconception in the conspiracy theories stems from the coincidence that in the Burma case, US foreign policy and the interests of the Burmese movement are the same on at least one point: Both entities would like to see an end to military rule in that country. This does not, however, constitute proof the Bush administration is behind the uprising. One of the key criteria for the success of broad-based nonviolent resistance is that it be indigenous. And if the thesis that nonviolent struggle was simply another method for the projection of US power, how do these conspiracy theorists explain the successes of broad-based civilian movements in places like Chile (where the US had supported Pinochet) and the Philippines (whose ousted dictator Marcos had been a close friend of Ronald Reagan)? Are these cases simply anomalies?

Another misconception comes from a degree of ignorance about how nonviolent struggle works. To claim nonviolent protests of the scale we witnessed in late September in Burma can be manufactured abroad is to grossly overestimate the influence of US agents and agencies. How could US agencies organize broad-based protests and manage to get hundreds of thousands to maintain nonviolent discipline half a world away, while these same agencies have, for 50 years, been unable to remove the now 81-year-old, and reportedly invalid, Fidel Castro from his perch only 90 miles from the US border and with a population one-fifth the size of Burma’s? These kinds of claims show contempt for what the people of Burma are doing, which is to assert control of their own destiny. They have had enough of repression, fear and poverty. This is their struggle, and they deserve, like all people who are struggling for justice, respect for having sovereignty over their own lives and credit for their courage and sacrifice in the face of oppression.

This is more than enough for a comment, but I thought I’d provide some fodder in case somebody happens to drop in here with one of those theories.