UK Diplomats Advised Regarding Military Action to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

Recently released papers show that the Foreign Office cautioned against British military intervention to remove the former Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "serious option".

Government Documents Show Considerations on Addressing a "Remarkably Robust" Leader

Policy papers from the then Prime Minister's government show officials weighed up options on how best to handle the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old dictator, who refused to step down as the country fell into violence and economic chaos.

Following the ruling party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK participated in a US-led coalition to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, No 10 asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential options.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Ineffective

Diplomats concluded that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and building an international agreement for change was not working, having not managed to secure support from influential African states, notably the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki.

Courses considered in the documents were:

• "Attempt to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as freezing assets and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-open dialogue", the approach supported by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

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

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

Cautionary Notes of Significant Losses and Jurisdictional Barriers

It cautioned that military intervention would result in heavy casualties and have "serious consequences" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, large-scale refugee flows, and regional instability – we assess that no African state would support any efforts to remove Mugabe by force."

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

Playing the Longer Game Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, warned him 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". The adviser stated that as military action had been discounted, "it is likely necessary that we must play the longer game" and re-open talks with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, noting: "We should work out 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 firm agreement."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had advocated cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought 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 overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the ex-British leader.