Blind on Zimbabwe; U.N. inaction morally indefensible.

COLUMN: In our opinion

In refusing to impose even modest sanctions on the regime of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, the United Nations Security Council again has demonstrated it is unwilling or unable to match the lofty rhetoric of its founding with action in the modern world.

The U.S. plan called for an international travel ban and freezing of the assets of the dictator and other top officials, and the appointment of a U.N. special envoy for Zimbabwe. Opponents of the plan - vetoed last week by Russia and China - argued sanctions would constitute unwarranted interference in a nation that poses no threat to international order.

Really? The same could have been said of Yugoslavia or Rwanda in the 1990s, or of Sudan today. Such objections do not satisfy the moral imperative to take a stand in the face of serious, repeated, widespread violations of human rights.

As prime minister, Mr. Mugabe oversaw the execution of thousands of supporters of the rival Zimbabwe African People's Union. As president, he has expropriated the holdings of white farmers, ruined the nation's economy, intervened in Congo's civil war and, in the recent national elections, waged a systematic campaign of terror that prompted his opponent to withdraw.

Zimbabwe today fulfils the nightmarish scenario laid out in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," only with a black nationalist leader rivaling the worst excesses of European colonialism. The Security Council's refusal to take even modest steps against Mugabe-style oppression illustrates how far the U.N. has strayed from its founding ideals.