This article , was a bit of a paradox, comprehensive in some ways but highly selective in others. The insinuation that the post-liberation Zimbabwean government whimsically turned down the opportunity to buy back land 'legitimately' purchased by White farmers conveniently glosses over certain factors i.e. the Lancaster agreement masterminded by the Thatcher government that effectively shafted the post-liberation Zimbabwean government and restricted how much money they could put forward to resettle those white farmers if they did choose to buy them out.

Funds that were pledged by the previous UK administration were withdrawn so that Zimbabwean authorities would have had to cough up a substantial amount of money in foreign currency to buy out the white settlements and continue with effective redistribution. The post-liberation government capitulated to this unsatisfactory agreement due to various pressures& were lumbered with its terms for a decade. The article was also too harsh on Mbeki and unrealistic about what he could actually achieve in such a short time as a result of the talks held last year. The man is being pragmatic. Instead of merely pandering to Mugabe as the article suggested, he knows there's no point excluding him from negotiations.

Like it or not, right or wrong, Mugabe is a key player. After all, the West's approach of sanctions etc, with all its double-standards& heavy-handedness has thus far proved mostly ineffective.