Masimba Musodza wrote: "Yes, the majority of the people in Zimbabwe know that the West has interests. Not just Western governments, but organisations and corporations within these nations. We know, for example that while telling the world that it had imposed so-called smart sanctions on Mugabe's regime- the US government authorised the sale to Zimbabwe of US$3m worth of military equipment; the type used in riot control."

Certainly when you said, "we all know" that could mean many different things, and it is good that you clarified that by saying the majority of people in Zimbabwe know (but to what degree?).

However, for the purposes of engaging this within the international community, I am not taking it for granted that they know these issues. If I wanted to critique our local government in an international arena, I would first give a historical context based on the experiences and information I have, before I start present views that can be interpreted as a malicious attempt to undermine the government. I mean you are now telling us that you have the "superior first hand knowledge", and that is what you could put forward to better enlighten the readers (you don't have to).

#

Masimba Musodza wrote: "The problem still remains that everytime someone speaks out against the present regime, then the automatic conclusion is that they are in the pay of the West or that they admire the West and will sell their own nation for a dollar. Their own nation automatically means Mugabe. This is where you and I have a problem, Ayinde."

"everytime someone speaks out against the present regime"?
This can give a false impression that there are others on the board speaking out against Mugabe, and I am challenging them. This is certainly not true. This is my statement that I am repeating from my earlier post: "As far as I see, the opposition to Mugabe has been appealing to Western interests, that is definitely not interested in the wellbeing of Africans as a whole, for support, and in that regard I do not see them as a viable alternative."

This is reasoning, and if you go through my responses to you, I doubt you would see any response that has been hostile. I do not have a problem with you personally, but I am challenging the opposition type articles that you post, and from my limited research about those media sources that you are posting from, they appear to be White owned, anti-Mugabe, and are relentless in their pro White/Western view of things (you can enlighten us about the direction of the sources if you care). Sometimes I post from the government's media to present their perspective to stories. Remember that I deliberately qualified my statement by saying they were, "White owned, anti-Mugabe, and are relentless in their pro White/Western view of things". I am not putting these media sources down simply because of the color of the owners. I am also aware that colonized Black Africans also hold pro White agendas, and on this board we have explained the reasons for this. Where I reside I know who owns what media and what can be motivating their positions. This helps to explain how and why they present certain stories. From my observation, the Zimbabwean opposition people who I have seen in the international press have been presenting stories, and omitting, or clearly distorting the historical foundation. This is the reason that I asked you to state if any of the content in the article was incorrect. You have not answered that in a clear manner. I will reserve some other comments until then.

#

Masimba Musodza wrote: "The reason why the government was not keen to push for the land grabbing was that however painful this might be to African pride, the white farmers were doing a better job on the farms than many Blacks. It is true that even on the semi-arid zones that Blacks were pushed in to they were roducing more and more food than ever before, more food in fact than the white farmers, it is the white farmers that brought in the badly needed foreign currency. So, although a sore thorn in the side of nationalist goals, the white farmers were the goose that laid the golden egg. In return for this position, they have stayed out of politics and stuck to business."

Now this is a really sorry presentation, notwithstanding the fact that you lived there. Come on now, do you really feel that the pride of Africans is hurt because Whites, who occupied the majority and best agricultural lands, were able to do a "better job", to use your words. Do you really feel the issues come down to jealousy?

They (Whites) claiming the best agriculture lands already did the damage, and of course under neo-colonialism they are the favored business people, especially in the international community. They get easier financing and do not have to face the struggle and survival loans that is usually offered to some Black Africans to keep them the employees of the financiers. Of course, after all the years that Whites have occupied the land, they would appear to be better equipped at what they do. I also know that the international trading companies usually try to offer Black Africans a lower price for their produce than they would give Whites.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the White farmers were doing better if we are considering what is in the interest of Blacks, unless you are measuring better by the quantity of material profits that goes to Whites from the labour of Blacks, and what is forced from them through taxes. They were not doing 'good' for Blacks from my point of view, and they never provided a golden egg. Good, better and golden eggs will come when Blacks control their lands, and the profit from their labour is benefiting Black communities. There is so much more I can say about that paragraph, but another time.

#

Masimba Musodza wrote: "In conclusion, I agree with you that there is a land issue to be addressed. But not by these hypocrites."

I hope you remember that I stated that my concern was with the international coverage that was deliberately distorting the history of the land reform program. I am certainly not venturing to tell Blacks in Zimbabwe whom to support. That is their internal drama to work out.

The rest of your post I would leave for others who reside in Zimbabwe to comment on. You are speaking about the usual internal corruption of most if not all governments, including that of the US and UK who want to topple Mugabe.

But when you have some more time, kindly check the article, and state if any of the information is incorrect.

Mugabe is Right and these are the Facts
http://www.africasia.com/newafrican/may00/nacs0501.htm