UK Diplomats Cautioned Regarding Armed Intervention to Topple Robert Mugabe

Newly disclosed documents show that the Foreign Office advised against British military action to remove the then Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, stating it was not considered a "viable option".

Policy Papers Reveal Considerations on Handling 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 descended into violence and economic chaos.

Faced with the ruling party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK participated in a US-led coalition to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to develop potential options.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Ineffective

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

Options outlined in the documents were:

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

"Our experience shows from conflicts abroad that changing a government and/or its bad policies is almost impossible from the outside."

The FCO paper dismissed military action as not a "realistic option," adding that "The only candidate for leading such a armed intervention is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Heavy Casualties and Legal Hurdles

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

"Barring a severe human and political disaster – resulting in widespread bloodshed, large-scale refugee flows, and regional instability – we judge that no nation in Africa would support any efforts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The paper 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 Advocated

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, warned him that Zimbabwe "will be a real spoiler" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of 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-open talks with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, noting: "We must devise a way of revealing the falsehoods and misconduct of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then subsequently, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a clear understanding."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had advocated cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he recognized the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has said and done".

Robert Mugabe was finally deposed in a 2017 coup, aged 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure the South African president into joining a military coalition to overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.