I cannot find much action behind Mugabe’s pretty words. To demolish people’s homes leaving them with no alternatives says a lot in contradiction to Mugabe’s speeches. You gotta go with the actions speaking louder than the words. There was an expropriation of white farmers, beginning in 1999, which Mugabe sought to portray as a plan to empower landless black peasant farmers. This, while maybe on the right track, is a delicate situation and apparently handled badly. I don’t see any planning anywhere.
Mugabe is a despot but unfortunately this has never been enough to garner Washington’s attention.
Given that Bush and Blair have no interest in human distress and human rights and are off to secure the wealth that led to the European scramble in the late 19th century by the traditional means of coercion and bribery, known as multilateralism and in their pursuit have not attacked Sudan and "liberated" Darfur, or intervened in the Congo or Zimbabwe why are we hearing about Zimbabwe now? What ulterior motives am I missing?
98 per cent of the world's chrome reserves are in Zimbabwe and South Africa, Zimbabwe also has the second largest platinum reserves, is this the reason why attention is being paid to the predicament of the Zimbabwe masses?
Mugabe is now in China. His deplorable record will probably not stop the Chinese from working some sort of deal but then we were Uzbekistan’s friend and Bush still sleeps with many of the world’s worst terrorist groups. What goes around comes around and as usual the people suffer.
Is it the plight of the people or the competition that spurs a government to act?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
