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

Newly disclosed papers show 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 "viable option".

Government Documents Show Deliberations on Addressing a "Remarkably Robust" Leader

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government show officials weighed up options on how best to deal with the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old leader, who declined to leave office as the country fell into violence and economic chaos.

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

Isolation Strategy Deemed Ineffective

Diplomats concluded that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and building an international agreement for change was not working, having not managed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki.

Courses considered in the files included:

• "Attempt to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and closing the UK embassy; or
• "Re-open dialogue", the option supported by the then departing 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 FCO paper rejected military action as not a "realistic 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 warned that military intervention would cause significant losses and have "serious consequences" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, significant exodus of refugees, and regional instability – we assess that no nation in Africa would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe by force."

The document continues: "Nor do we judge that any other international ally (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

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, warned him 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". Lee concluded that as military action had been ruled out, "we probably have to accept that we must play the longer game" and re-open talks with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, noting: "We must devise a way of exposing 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 final diplomatic dispatch, had recommended critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought given all that Mugabe has said and done".

Robert Mugabe was finally deposed in a military takeover in 2017, aged 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise the South African president into joining a armed alliance to overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the ex-British leader.