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

Newly disclosed papers reveal 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 "serious option".

Government Documents Reveal 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 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 overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential options.

Policy of Isolation Considered Ineffective

Officials agreed that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and forging an international consensus for change was not working, having failed to secure support from influential African states, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the documents were:

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

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

The diplomatic assessment rejected military action as not a "serious option," adding that "The only nation for leading such a military operation is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Heavy Casualties and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military intervention would result in heavy casualties and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a severe human and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, significant exodus of refugees, and regional instability – we assess that no African state would agree to 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 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 fail to obtain."

Playing the Longer Game Advocated

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". Lee concluded that as military action had been discounted, "it is likely necessary that we must play the longer game" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, writing: "We should work out a way of exposing the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and Zanu-PF ahead of this election and then subsequently, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a clear understanding."

The departing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, had recommended cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he recognized the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought given all that Mugabe has uttered and perpetrated".

Robert Mugabe was ultimately removed in a 2017 coup, aged 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise Thabo Mbeki into joining a military coalition to overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the ex-British leader.