UK Diplomats Advised Regarding Military Action to Overthrow Zimbabwe's Leader

Recently released papers show that the UK's diplomatic corps cautioned against British military intervention to remove the then Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, in 2004, stating it was not considered a "viable option".

Policy Papers Show Considerations on Addressing a "Remarkably Robust" Leader

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government show officials considered options on how best to handle the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old leader, 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 joined 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 Considered Ineffective

Diplomats concluded that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and building an international consensus for change was not working, 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:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as freezing assets and closing the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the option advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

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

The diplomatic assessment dismissed military action as not a "serious option," adding 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".

Warnings of Significant Losses and Legal Hurdles

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

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

The paper continues: "We also believe that any other European, Commonwealth or western partner (including the US) would authorise 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."

Long-Term Strategy Advocated

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, warned him that Zimbabwe "could become a real spoiler" to his plan to use the UK's presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for 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 seemed to concur, noting: "We must devise a way of revealing the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then subsequently, we could attempt to restart dialogue on the basis of a firm agreement."

The departing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had recommended 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 ultimately removed in a military takeover in 2017, aged 93. Previous claims 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.