UK Diplomats Cautioned Against Armed Intervention to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

Recently released papers reveal that the Foreign Office advised against British military action to remove the former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, in 2004, stating it was not considered a "serious option".

Policy Papers Show Considerations on Addressing a "Depressingly Healthy" Dictator

Internal documents from Tony Blair's government indicate officials weighed up options on how best to handle the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old leader, who refused to step down as the country descended into turmoil and financial collapse.

Following the ruling party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined a US-led coalition to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, No 10 asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to develop potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Not Working

Officials agreed that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and forging an international agreement for change was failing, having failed to secure support from influential African states, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the files were:

• "Attempt to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and closing the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the approach advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"Our experience shows from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that changing a government and/or its bad policies is almost impossible from the outside."

The diplomatic assessment rejected military action as not a "serious option," and warned that "The only nation for leading such a armed intervention is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be prepared to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Significant Losses and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military involvement would cause significant losses and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a major humanitarian and political disaster – resulting in massive violence, significant exodus of refugees, and instability in the region – we assess that no African state would support any attempts to remove Mugabe by force."

The document adds: "We also believe that any other European, Commonwealth or western partner (including the US) would sanction or participate in military intervention. And there would be no jurisdictional basis for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Playing the Longer Game Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "will be a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". Lee concluded that as military action had been discounted, "it is likely necessary that we must play the longer game" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, noting: "We must devise a way of revealing the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and Zanu-PF ahead of this election and then afterwards, we could attempt to restart dialogue on the basis of a clear understanding."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had recommended critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has said and done".

The Zimbabwean leader was finally deposed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise the South African president into joining a armed alliance to depose Mugabe were strongly denied by the ex-British leader.