On Monday evening, the United Nations Security Council finally got around to doing what countless editorialists, international human rights activists, and ostensibly “outraged” Western leaders have been urging for years: it issued a statement expressing its “concern” about the dire situation in Zimbabwe.

This is a worthy diplomatic accomplishment given the maneuverings of President Mugabe’s chief patron and ally on the Security Council, China, to prevent such an effort. Granted, Monday’s announcement was a meager one-page statement, not a formal resolution, but any action from the world body at this point is welcome.

As promising as this week’s sally at Turtle Bay may seem, however, the net effect for the people of Zimbabwe, like so much of what the “international community” says about that blighted land, will be nil. At this point, the only thing likely to save Zimbabwe is international military intervention.

“The Security Council regrets that the campaign of violence and the restrictions on the political opposition have made it impossible for a free and fair election to take place on 27 June,” the proclamation read. A regret is something you send on nice stationary when you can’t make a wedding. It hardly evokes the sentiment of free people toward the animalistic brutality the Harare junta has taken against the people of Zimbabwe. The strongest verb in U.N. nomenclature — the one that the Security Council ought to have used — is “demand.” The Council should have demanded an end to the amputations, live burnings, and gunpoint executions that have now become an every day occurrence in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Mugabe stands in violation of the United Nations Charter in the most fundamental sense: he is illegally occupying the presidency of a member state. He and his party lost presidential and parliamentary elections held on March 29 and since that defeat he has unleashed a torrent of brute violence on his opponents. Nearly 100 people have been murdered, many more tortured, and thousands driven from their homes. Mr. Mugabe has pledged to wage “war” on those brazen enough to vote against him in a runoff scheduled for this Friday. On Sunday, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai fled to the Dutch Embassy in Harare, where he remains today in fear for his life.

Rather than express “regret” at the unfortunate circumstances in Zimbabwe, the United Nations should be working to delegitimize that nation’s pretenders to power and work to seat its legitimate government. As the Sun’s editorial page said yesterday, “it’s hard to imagine what is gained by an American administration, of either party, recognizing the current regime in Harare or hosting its diplomats in Washington.” The United States should lead the worldwide diplomatic effort to deport Zimbabwean ambassadors from world capitals, as well as the diplomats comprising Zimbabwe’s Mission to the United Nations.

It has become de riguer in the parlance of international diplomacy that force should never be the first option used in international affairs. For more than eight years, Mr. Mugabe has driven his country into the ground, starving and murdering his own people, all while the “international community” protested, imposed sanctions, and “pressured” Zimbabwe’s neighbors to convince the dictator to change his ways. Clearly, these efforts have not worked, and a more robust policy should be given a chance.

America should make the fate of Tendai Biti, the Secretary-General of the Movement for Democratic Change, a crucial part of its diplomatic approach in dealing with the Mugabe regime. Mr. Biti was arrested earlier this month on fabricated charges of treason and “communicating falsehoods” and faces a potential death sentence. His case should be a cause célèbre for all people of conscience, and especially those organizations that stand for human rights. A strong message should be sent to Mr. Mugabe and his cronies that any injury inflicted upon Mr. Biti will be visited tenfold upon regime figures.

In the wake of the NATO’s successful interventions in the Balkans — undertaken in the face of U.N. intransigence — a group of international relations theorists and political leaders, foremost among them the foreign minister of France, Bernard Kouchner, began to propagate a doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect.”

It stipulates that, “When states manifestly fail to protect their populations, the international community shares a collective responsibility to respond.” In the case of Zimbabwe, the government has done far worse than merely “fail to protect” its people. It has raped, impoverished, and murdered them, and has promised to inflict far worse suffering. How many more dead Zimbabweans will it take before we try to stop the slaughter?

Mr. Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.