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

Newly disclosed papers show that the Foreign Office advised against British military intervention to overthrow the then Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, stating it was not considered a "serious option".

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

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials weighed up options on how best to deal with the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old dictator, who declined to leave office as the country descended 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.

Isolation Strategy Considered Not Working

Diplomats concluded that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and forging 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 files were:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the option advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"We know from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that altering a government and/or its bad policies is exceedingly difficult from the outside."

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

Warnings of Significant Losses and Legal Hurdles

It cautioned that military intervention would cause significant losses and have "considerable implications" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a major humanitarian and political disaster – resulting in massive violence, significant exodus of refugees, and regional instability – we assess that no nation in Africa would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The document continues: "We also believe that any other European, Commonwealth or western partner (including the US) would sanction or join military intervention. And there would be no legal grounds for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would fail to obtain."

Long-Term Strategy Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, Laurie Lee, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "could become a significant obstacle" 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, "we probably have to accept that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, 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 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 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 depose Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the former UK premier.