What's worrying about the black critics of Mugabe is how eager they are to echo the Western and white farmers' agenda.

They attack Mugabe's use of torture and killings, his 'stealing the election', his 'starving his people', his destruction of the economy. They echo the attacks white farmers are happy to make.

It is the absence of any independence to the Western agenda that is shocking. When is the last time you heard them criticise Western hypocrisy in Zimbabwe, or Western interference or the racism of white farmers? When was the last time you heard white farmers criticise them? It doesn't happen.

They happily fall for Western propaganda. Even BBC Online admit that there were observer groups in Zimbabwe during the election who argued that the result 'reflected the will of the people' (although this is not admitted by BBC radio and television news).

They go along with the 'starving his people' myth. Yet, the British Red Cross has now admitted that they knew there were no starving people in Zimbabwe when they made their emergency famine appeals in 2002-3 (The Guardian, 15/01/04).

Even some BBC do not go along with the propaganda. In its issue of March 12, 2002, The Guardian carried an article by Matt Wells in which he wrote: "Senior figures at the BBC World Service have expressed concern to the domestic news division that the coverage of the Zimbabwe elections had been driven by a 'colonial' agenda, potentially causing damage to the corporation's reputation for impartiality.

In an article published by The Guardian on March 7, 2002, headed "Colonialism and the new the world order", Seumas Milne wrote: "Now the British government (through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy) and the Tories (through the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust) along with white farmers and corporations - are all funding the MDC, committed as it is to free-market policies and the restoration of white farms to their owners."

No genuine black critic of Mugabe would support the MDC. They would attack Western support for it.

In an article, Much ado about Zimbabwe, written in January 2003, the ANC Youth wrote: "In our country, those who are opposed to President Mugabe today are the same people and forces who were opposed to the struggle for the liberation of Zimbabwe.

"They wanted the perpetuation of colonialism in Zimbabwe, but pose today as the best friends of the formerly colonised people of Zimbabwe.

"They opposed sanctions against the Smith regime in Rhodesia, and now demand sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe on the basis that they are the best friends of the black masses of Zimbabwe." (www. anc.org.za/youth/docs/zimdoc.html)

Why does Mbeki in South Africa support tough action against the dictator Mugabe? Why are there no African nations who will come out in support of the UK? Why do the black nations in the International Cricket Committee dismiss England's whingeing about a cricket tour to Zimbabwe?

As former Zimbabwe liberation fighter, George Shire wrote in The Guardian, in February 2003: "Contrary to hostile western media reporting - and its often racist overtones - there is no total breakdown of the rule of law; nor is there a record of extreme human rights violations or the degree of violence routinely claimed. I condemn all the forms of political violence that have come to dominate Zimbabwean political culture. But, with around 150 deaths reported by human rights groups since 2000, it is simply not at a level that could justify this response. What's more, the western media fail to report violence perpetrated against Zanu (PF) supporters by Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) activists, such as Leo Jeke, stabbed to death because he refused to remove his Zanu (PF) T-shirt.

"Much of the violence directed at MDC supporters has been carried out by people who see themselves as fighting those who control their economic life. They are often people with a profound rage against those they accuse of killing their families during the liberation war, and of betraying them in the struggle for land distribution. These people have concluded that the MDC is supported and financed by white supremacist organisations, transnational corporations and western governments. Yet the media ignore these underlying causes of violence and focuses on demonising a government that supports redistribution.

"Thus the Commonwealth Observer Group's report of the Zimbabwean presidential election last year enjoyed wide coverage, despite the fact that it was one of only two critical reports out of 15. Public opinion in Zimbabwe, Africa and the global south sees Britain as being at the centre of Zimbabwe's economic and political crisis. The British government, because of the legacy of colonialism, must face up to its obligations to provide funds for land reform, and for the compensation of white farmers, as agreed during the Lancaster House talks in 1980."

For a black Aspire person to dismiss me as a Mugabe press officer is dishonest and worrying. If my criticism of the black anti-Mugabe critics is dishonest then they are free to distance themselves from racist propaganda.

Isn't this just another CIA/MI6-funded "opposition" movement, which was created and is sustained in the name of protecting the interests of the Western Multinational?

This is, of course, the same Government that Thatcher's nephew, MI6 and the CIA failed to overthrow in a military coup, in which they were caught red-handed.