This is a useless high-sounding phrase which explains nothing. If we are to accept this logic, then each and every atrocity in the World would be explained by the “dynamics inherent in that situation.” Imagine Hitler seeking to justify what happened in Nazi Germany as the “dynamics inherent in the German situation.” Imagine the world trying to wring its hands of the Rwandan genocide by talking of the “dynamics behind the Rwandan situation”. Next you will obviously have George Bush justifying his trigger-happy actions by this or that dynamic.

I agree with Matshazi that African struggles are not simple. Precisely because they are not simple, there is therefore the need to respect the sanctity of life. There is nothing inherently African about the bludgeoning to death of people who hold a different political opinion. I have followed Matshazi’s articles in the Daily Mirror and elsewhere. He has written celebrating AIPPA and POSA. He has sought to justify each and every action by the Zimbabwe regime.

His thinking is frozen in developmental theories and in the process he succeeds in giving developmental theories a bad name. To be sure, the promotion of rapid financial and trade liberalisation in the developing world has seen a concomitant rise in economic losses and social inequalities as countries attempt to become part of the global free market. Modernisation theories of the 1950s and 60s assumed that countries in the South would eventually catch up with the North if they would open up their economies. The free market forces promoted by globalization have wrought havoc on economies of the South. While Northern countries continue to call for a total opening up of economies in the South they have continued to protect their markets. European Union (EU) sugar policies are a case in point so are the subsidies that US offers its farmers. Yet these have very little to do with the problems faced by Zimbabwe, Rwanda or Sudan.

Matshazi says what Zimbabwe does not want is money from Brussels. If ever there was evidence of someone who is thoroughly out of touch this is it. Zimbabwe wants money from anywhere whatever the amount of bravado that we show. Indeed Britain and the US are our greatest donors even today.

So what is the point? The point Mr Editor is that it is possible to criticise Britain, US and indeed any country in the West without justifying human rights abuses in African countries. As someone who grew up during the liberation struggle I have no sympathy for the Smith regime and the indignity with which they treated Africans. Tears still come to my eyes when I remember the atrocities in Chimoi and Nyadzonya. What is interesting though in today’s Zimbabwe is that we are told that we should not talk about Gukurahundi because it opens up old wounds. Surely if we can talk about Chimoi and Nyadzonya, we can also talk about Gukurahundi. When we raise issues of Gukurahundi we are told about the “dynamics of Africa.” We are told about modernisation theories. We are told that the situation is complex. Complex my foot! Write sister Grace, write.