Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has sworn in two vice-presidents ahead of talks on power-sharing. He has also allocated important ministries to his ZANU-PF parties.

It’s a familiar pattern.

Mugabe imposes his will and MorganTsvangirai’s opposition cries foul.

Will former South African President Thabo Mbeki be able to mediate a breakthrough? After being ousted as president by his ANC party, he might not be so confident to be seen walking hand in hand with Mugabe at the airport as he has in the past.

As every twist and turn in the talks is analysed, the word endangered is increasingly used. Endangered talks.

But what about ordinary Zimbabweans? They seem more endangered every time the formation of a cabinet is delayed by accusations flying from one side to another.

Will inflational jump to astronomical levels again? Yes. Will food shortages worsen, probably.  Will Zimbabweans see their country on its feet again? It is not likely to be soon.

The words of Western leaders have long been ineffective and in any case, they have their own financial collapse to worry about right now. African countries appear no more inclined to take action than before.

In the meantime, it seems Mugabe is directing the show again.

How long can this go on?

There have been so many swings from optimism to pessimism and back again, that Zimbabweans might find it hard to believe there finally appears to be a power-sharing deal after two months of talks.

According to both sides, President Robert Mugabe has agreed to share power with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai after 28 years of rule that concentrated power in his own hands.

The details are not clear yet, but it appears to be something of a coup for South African President Thabo Mbeki, whose critics had long said he was too soft on Mugabe.

As Martin Rupiyah, Director of African Research at Cranfield University in Britain, put it, though “I don’t think we are out of the woods yet,” pointing in particular to uncertainty over the role of the powerful security forces.

Plenty of questions remain - not least over how two men who have long made their animosity plain might be able to work together.

What do you think the chances of success are? Who will be the real winner? Will this be able to pull Zimbabwe out of its catastrophic decline?

By the standards of other recent African elections, the aftermath of Angola’s parliamentary ballot at the weekend has been fairly tame.

But polling station chaos that led to an extra day of voting and accusations of cheating from the opposition badly undermined Angola’s hope that the ballot would set a example for the continent after elections in Kenya and Zimbabwe.

The picture of organisational confusion and cries of foul at Angola’s first election in 16 years, the first since the end of its civil war, were all too familiar in Africa.

It is now almost two decades since African states, facing popular calls for change and under donor pressure, started to adopt multiparty democracy.

Nobody could pretend that elections are perfect in the rest of the world, but the same problems and complaints seem to surface repeatedly in Africa.

Does multiparty democracy make sense in Africa? Is it the least bad option or might there be an alternative?

Later this year Zambia and Ghana both have elections. Both are countries where there has been a peaceful, democratic transfer of power in the past. Both are also among the countries most keenly watched by investors.

Can we expect them to set an example now?

This week’s reopening of Zimbabwe’s parliament had been seen by many as a show of defiance by President Robert Mugabe against an opposition that has so far rejected terms of a power-sharing deal that appear more acceptable to the veteran leader and to at least some of his regional counterparts.

But it may not have gone quite to plan.

The election of the parliamentary speaker chosen by the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) came in spite of efforts by Mugabe’s ZANU-PF to bring in the candidate of the breakaway MDC faction. Members of that faction appear to have sided with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai rather than their own party leadership.

Then Mugabe faced unprecedented boos and jeers as he delivered his speech at the reopening of parliament, where ZANU-PF has lost its majority for the first time since independence from Britain in 1980. Mugabe nonetheless said he was optimistic that a power-sharing deal would be reached.

Is there a shift in the balance of power in Zimbabwe? What might it all mean for talks and for chances of an agreement that could help to revive the stricken country?

It would be out of character for the African Union (AU) to order any tough sanctions against Zimbabwe's strongman President Robert Mugabe at its summit in Egypt on Monday. But has his swearing-in on Sunday for a new five-year term after a widely condemned election further narrowed the AU's latitude for action? Mugabe defied international calls to cancel a presidential election run-off and negotiate with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai who defeated Mugabe in the first-round ballot on March 29 but fell short of an outright majority. Mugabe was the only candidate in the second round after Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic change pulled out because of widely reported government-backed violence and intimidation.

Mugabe was heading for the AU summit after Zimbabwe's electoral commission declared him the winner as expected. He was immediately inaugurated in Harare, extending his 28-year rule. This could force the AU to deal with him as the legitimate head of state of Zimbabwe, in the face of calls from the likes of South Africa's Bishop Desmond Tutu for the pan-African body not to recognise his election.  A defiant Mugabe vowed to confront his critics at the summit. The wily Mugabe invited Tsvangirai to the inauguration ceremony and pledged at the event to talk to the opposition to solve the country's political crisis. Tsvangirai rejected the invitation.

Political analysts said Mugabe was attending the AU summit from a position of strength and with an appearance of willingness to negotiate with Tsvangirai, a long-standing demand of the AU.

"If the AU does not recognise his presidency Mugabe simply retuns to Harare and goes on with his life," analyst John Makumbe told Johannesburg's City Press. "Life for Zimbabweans remains the same, if not worse. So the AU has to make a difficult choice: going for Mugabe or going with Mugabe."

The pan-African organisation had for years used a sacred principle of non-interference to justify inaction against rogue leadership on the continent. Many African leaders have been reluctant to condemn Mugabe, who has enjoyed the status of an African liberation hero. But all that is changing, with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga leading a growing number of African voices critical of Mugabe.

So do you expect the AU to take any tough stand against Mugabe? Or has Mugabe out-foxed the AU? What form of international intervention is possible in Zimbabwe? Is Mugabe sincere about his declared intention to reach out to the opposition?

U.S. nuclear weapons in Britain - out with a whimper, not with a bang?

It was once one of the most contentious issues in Europe, inspiring mass demonstrations, “peace camps” and a movement that shaped the politics of a generation. After more than half a century, there are no more U.S. nukes in Britain.

On Thursday, the Federation of American Scientists, a group set up by former Manhattan Project scientists alarmed by the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reported that the United States had removed the last of its nuclear bombs from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath in eastern England.

The move had more to do with changing U.S. strategic imperatives and military technology than with a sudden outbreak of global harmony. Dropping nuclear bombs out of airplanes is an old-fashioned way to deliver them in an era of accurate ballistic missiles. Washington now considers its main threat to come from the area south of the former Soviet Union, and is still keeping nuclear bombs in bases in Italy and Turkey and other parts of Europe. Britain has its own nuclear weapons and has decided to replace the submarines that carry them with a more modern fleet.

If the removal of American nukes from Britain really happened, it happened on the sly. A spokewoman for the U.S. forces in Lakenheath said Washington never talks about the
location of its nuclear bombs. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s spokesman had not read reports on the subject and had nothing to say about it, and the Ministry of Defence had no comment.

But the event, if confirmed, marks the end of an era for thousands of British protesters who defined themselves by their opposition to U.S. nukes, camping outside bases like Lakenheath throughout the 1980s.

The head of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the biggest single-issue campaign group in Europe, welcomed the news that the bombs were gone and said it would be good if the government would announce it publicly. She also said the fight would continue against U.S. plans to set up an anti-missile defence, perhaps with base stations at the same location in Lakenheath.

Those who pine for the days of “peace camps” may still get their chance to break out their muddy tents.

Have your say. Twenty years after the Cold War, should the United States still have nuclear weapons in Europe?