Mugabe and Zimbabwe

I know in theory that taking a non-aligned political stance internationally is good in theory. It makes the citizens feel safe, and more, it reinforces the liberality of other countrie's rights to choose. I really do like Sweden because of our neutrality and non-alignment, although I have to say that I strongly believe it has more to do with Sweden's incapability to defend ourselves if we ever got into a war rather than as a fighter for liberality. Especially when looking to the Swedish domestic politics where the social democrats, who are anything but especially liberal, have ruled the country for most of as long as I've been alive, and for the greater part before that as well. Sweden has got a sceptical view of the more liberal, capitalistic parties and has also got a history of being a bit wary of international cooperation when it comes to the EU, EMU and NATO. Swedes tend to vote against these political unions, and when we joined the EU, the decision was won by 4% of the voters (52-48 in favour).
Sometimes, I do, however, wish that we would take some kind of political standpoint when it comes to people suffering in the world. Gordon Brown has gone out and said that Mugabe must go, and now the archbishop of York has done the same thing.
The fact is that people are dying as a consequence of this tyrant. 13,000 people are infected with cholera, the inflation is at 231,000,000 per cent. This is not the time to stand idly by and respect Zimbabwe's rights to have its own rulers. Because the fact is that Mugabe did not win a free and fair election, and people are dying. When people are dying, that's where the politeness stops. When someone threatens human rights, that's when you do something. Take a stance. Do someting, say something! Sometimes silence is just a quiet acceptance.