UK Diplomats Advised Regarding Armed Intervention to Overthrow Zimbabwe's Leader

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

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

Policy papers from the then Prime Minister's government show officials considered options on how best to deal with the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old dictator, who refused to step down as the country fell into turmoil and financial collapse.

Faced with 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, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Not Working

Officials agreed 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, the South African leader.

Options outlined in the documents were:

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

"We know from conflicts abroad that altering a government and/or its harmful 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 one else (even the US) would be prepared to do so".

Warnings of Significant Losses and Legal Hurdles

It warned that military involvement would cause heavy casualties and have "serious consequences" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – 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 continues: "Nor do we judge that any other international ally (including the US) would authorise or join military intervention. And there would be no legal grounds for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Long-Term Strategy Advocated

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, advised Blair 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 play the longer game" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, noting: "We should work out a way of exposing the falsehoods and misconduct 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 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".

Robert Mugabe was finally deposed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Previous claims that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure the South African president into joining a armed alliance to depose Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.