Much as I would love to agree with Duh, it is a bit more complicated than that, because just as with the "indians" in the USA, the indigenous people of Zimbabwe can claim that Cecil John Rhodes stole the territory from them in the 19th century. But this is just another case of the "you hit me first syndrome" that is so blatant in the Palestine/Israel issue.

Far more interesting is to ask why another country that was also late in achieving independence from the Western colonialists has managed to steer a seemingly different route. I refer here to Namibia. Sam Njoma was just as much a pariah to the whites as Mugabe. Yet Namibia is (I visited for 3 weeks last year) peaceful, sharing and amazingly free from litter and begging. Why?

Botswana has been held up by liberal westerners as a shining beacon of how Africa should be. Rubbish!! It is a semi-desert with a small population and the offspring of Cecil Rhodes' commercial activities, De Beers diamond company, operates 2 fabulously rich kimberlite diamond deposits there. If it wasn't for this white ("apartheid") enterprise, Botswana would simply be a producer of sub-quality beef. Yet they are amongst the rudest most arrogant people in Africa.

The great pity is that of all of the countries in the Southern African subcontinent, Zimbabwe is my favourite. Just a pity it has a demagogue who has to all intents and purposes been a fascist dictator for the past 20 years and has led this lovely country down the drain pipe.

But Zim has no oil so we should not hold our breath waiting for regime change. Europe witheld from actions in the Balkans believing that the people themselves would institute change. Rubbish. And the same applies to those who hope for internal revolt in Zim. The racist elements amongst the Shonas won't allow it - plain and simple. Dont quote Kenya. The Kikuyu are not a majority.