If inspirational claptrap is the stuff of diplomacy, then Barack Obama should flourish in the White House.

Consider his recent pronouncement on events in Zimbabwe. Conditions in the former British colony of Rhodesia could not be more horrific. After nearly 30 years of independence, presided over by the Marxist tyrant and psychotic Robert Mugabe, the country, once the "breadbasket of Africa," has reverted to something resembling an atavistic state. The economy is essentially dysfunctional, inflation has wiped out savings and capital, "food shortages" have given way to starvation, and the daily life of most Zimbabweans is a combination of grubbing for subsistence and avoiding the attention of Mugabe's armed thugs.

Foreign journalists who report on events are harassed, detained, and expelled from the country; Zimbabwean journalists are routinely murdered. Last week, when the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew from Mugabe's rigged balloting for president--citing personal peril and violence against his followers--he sought refuge in the Dutch embassy in Harare, the capital city.

At which point, Senator Obama threw down the gauntlet, making three salient points. First, "the United States and the international community must be united, clear and unequivocal," he declared. "The government of Zimbabwe is illegitimate and lacks any credibility." Second, he said, Zimbabwe's African neighbors "must do much more to help prevent the crisis in Zimbabwe from spiraling out of control." And finally, "the South African government and [the African National Congress] must recognize the need--and must call for--the kind of diplomatic action that is necessary to pressure the Zimbabwean government to stop its repressive behavior."

Obama's three declarations were followed by a call for "the United States to tighten our sanctions," leading, in due course, to "an enforceable, negotiated political transition .  .  . that would end repressive rule and enable genuine democracy to take root."

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's statement has the virtue of what we might call statesmanlike rhetoric, is reliant on a unified international community, and avoids any Bush-like calls to arms or threats of unilateral action against the government of Zimbabwe or its president.

But as with all diplomatic language, it is equally instructive to boil Obama's rhetoric down to its essentials. To begin with, any unequivocal statement--by the United States, the United Nations, Zimbabwe's African neighbors, or the Organization of African Unity--that Mugabe's government is "illegitimate" or "lacks credibility" is roughly comparable to declaring that the German chancellor (Angela Merkel) is a woman. Not only is there near-universal agreement that Mugabe's regime is illegitimate, and has been for years, it is comical to suggest that its defect is "credibility." President Mugabe's problem is not integrity or the value of his word; it is the fact that he is a (quite credible) tyrant and mass killer of his people.

And while no one would oppose encouraging Zimbabwe's African neighbors to "prevent the crisis .  .  . from spiraling out of control"--what, if anything, does that mean? Is Senator Obama persuaded that there is room for things to get worse in Zimbabwe, in which case the international community should monitor events for incipient signs of spiraling? Or does he fear the export of Mugabe's brand of misrule to Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana, and South Africa? This is the sort of earnest nonsense and terminological inexactitude that used to drive Winston Churchill to distraction.