Foreign Office Cautioned Regarding Armed Intervention to Topple Zimbabwe's Leader

Recently released documents show that the Foreign Office cautioned against British military intervention to overthrow the former Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "viable option".

Government Documents Show Considerations on Addressing a "Depressingly Healthy" Leader

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials considered options on how best to deal with the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old dictator, who refused to step down as the country fell into turmoil and financial collapse.

Faced with Mugabe's Zanu-PF party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK participated in a US-led coalition to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, No 10 asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to develop potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Not Working

Diplomats concluded that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and building an international consensus for change was not working, having failed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki.

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 approach advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"We know from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that changing a government and/or its harmful policies is almost impossible from the outside."

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

Cautionary Notes of Significant Losses and Legal Hurdles

It cautioned that military involvement would result in heavy casualties and have "considerable implications" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a severe human and political disaster – resulting in widespread bloodshed, significant exodus of refugees, and instability in the region – we judge that no African state would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The paper adds: "We also believe that any other international ally (including the US) would authorise 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."

Long-Term Strategy Advocated

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "will be a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for 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 seemed to concur, noting: "We must devise a way of exposing the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then afterwards, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a firm agreement."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, 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, at the age of 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure Thabo Mbeki into joining a military coalition to depose Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the ex-British leader.