, it is understandable that you are very upset with professor Mamdani, who so eloquently puncture all the lies you are peddling about Zimbabwe. But please, stop portraying yourself as a friend of Zimbabwe and an anti-imperialist. You are neither in the way you act in the case of Zimbabwe.

In your article you are mixing up things in order to pretend being an anti-imperialist.

You are of course totally right when you talk about the “pseudo-humanitarianism of the so-called international non-governmental structure." I suppose you have in view the so called international NGO-community, heavily supported by Western governments. In Sweden for example, the most NGOs engaged in developmental business are funded by the (conservative) government (between 80 to 95 percent). Western governments in many cases use the NGOs as a tool and human rights as a pretext to destabilise intransigent countries that oppose a neo-liberal agenda. Zimbabwe is a showcase and WOZA epitomize these organisations, wholly funded by the British as it is.

But you are deadly wrong when you talk of the “Mugabe dictatorship” and blame it for all the malice in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe has been ostracised from normal economic relations with the most powerful nations and financial institutions in the world for more than a decade. That is now taken its toll.

Then you mix things up. I follow you when you write that Idi Amin was manipulated by the British and eventually removed by Tanzania. A justified intervention, it seems.

But then it is not easy to grasp you. Do you really mean that the end goal of the present British Zimbabwe policy is, in connivance with Mugabe and Bredenkamp, to rob the Zimbabwean people? And that they will force Tsvangirai into a coalition government in order to perpetuate the scam? Isn’t there a spin to much in your machinations?

And in order to stop this heinous piracy you are calling on the Obama administration and US Justice department to prosecute the Britons who have been involved in corruption and fraud in southern Africa? Jesus! Aren’t you a little naïve here, Mr Campbell?

More interestingly and revealingly is that you are calling for the blocking of all international payments to Zimbabwe. Economic ostracism is partly to blame for the predicament in Zimbabwe and it is obvious how liberals change colours when they scent blood.

Recently Dagens Nyheter, the largest morning paper and leading liberal paper in Sweden, wrote:

“If the (Zimbabwean) borders were totally blocked, making it impossible to get food or money into the country, Mugabe would have difficulties to salary “his cronies” and would run the risk they may turn against himself.”

This way of putting things reveal of course a (white) liberal pipedream, namely that a deluge of blood would purify Zimbabwe from Mugabe and at the same time teach all the Africans and anti-imperialists elsewhere a lesson: stop support the cancer* in your midst or you will face the same destiny!

I remember when Madeleine Albright once got the question if the sanctions against Iraq were worth the price of 500.000 dead Iraqi children and answered: It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it.

Now, if the economic strangulation of Zimbabwe will succeed and the government of President Mugabe removed by this way of foreign intervention to the price of hundreds of thousands dead Zimbabweans, we will ask the Campbells around the world; Can you really justify such a price for the removal of Mugabe?

And most likely they will answer us: Yes, we can!

Mugabe has declared war on the people of the world, writes Grace Kwinjeh. To me it sounds a little bit exaggerated as do other statements in .

However, she is right when she writes that the Mugabe government until 1998 was considered amongst the highest-performing of World Bank and International Monetary Fund clients. And the Zimbabwean government did pay back $205 million in hard currency in 2006 to the IMF and more recently $700,000 or so to the African Development Bank. If Mugabe also flirted with the US military for many years, I don’t know. But in that case, this courtship now has been harshly turned down by the attended.

Kwinjeh paints a somber picture of the developments in Zimbabwe but forget to tell us what really happened when this development sat in.

In 1998 Zimbabwe broke with the IMF and Western-sponsored developmental paths, paths apparently spurned by Kwinjeh, and tried to enter a more homemade one. No doubt, it is has been an arduous pathway with a lot of potholes and blemishes but to blame all the present malice in Zimbabwe on the government may be an elopement. T

The introduction of Kwinjeh’s article promises an analysis of Zimbabwe through regional, African and global capitalism. But she fails grossly to tell us about how the forces of global capitalism are working against Zimbabwe today. The West has been heavily investing in regime change in Zimbabwe lately, through sanctions and its docile media, sometimes referred to as the “free press” or “independent media”. In what way FOX, CNN and BBC are independent is beyond me, but those media paint the same one-sided and ominous picture of Zimbabwe as do Kwinjeh.

In my opinion it is Kwinjeh who is “talking ultraleft” while at the same time “walking right” more than the government of Zimbabwe.