Zimbabwe: Who is to do the suffering?

, 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!