UK Diplomats Advised Regarding Armed Intervention to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

Recently released papers reveal that the Foreign Office advised against British military intervention to remove the then Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "viable option".

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

Policy papers from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials weighed up options on how best to handle the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old leader, who declined to leave office as the country fell into turmoil and financial collapse.

Following Mugabe's Zanu-PF party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined a US-led coalition to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Considered Not Working

Diplomats concluded that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and building an international agreement for change was not working, having failed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the documents were:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as freezing assets and closing the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the approach supported by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"We know from conflicts abroad that altering a government and/or its harmful policies is exceedingly difficult from the outside."

The diplomatic assessment rejected military action as not a "realistic option," adding that "The only candidate for leading such a armed intervention is the UK. No one else (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Warnings of Significant Losses and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military involvement would result in heavy casualties and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, significant exodus of refugees, and instability in the region – we judge that no nation in Africa would support any attempts to remove Mugabe by force."

The document adds: "We also believe that any other international ally (including the US) would authorise or participate in military intervention. And there would be no legal grounds for doing so, without an authorising Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Playing the Longer Game Recommended

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, warned him that Zimbabwe "could become a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for Africa". Lee concluded that as military action had been ruled out, "it is likely necessary that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, noting: "We should work out a way of exposing 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 firm agreement."

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

The Zimbabwean leader was ultimately removed in a 2017 coup, aged 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise the South African president into joining a military coalition to overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.