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

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

Government Documents Reveal Deliberations on Handling a "Depressingly Healthy" Leader

Policy papers from Tony Blair's government show officials weighed up options on how best to handle the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old leader, who refused to step down as the country descended into turmoil and financial collapse.

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, No 10 asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential options.

Isolation Strategy Considered Ineffective

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

Courses considered in the files included:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-open dialogue", the approach supported by the then departing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

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

The FCO paper rejected military action as not a "serious option," and warned that "The only nation for leading such a military operation is the UK. No one else (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Significant Losses and Jurisdictional Barriers

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

"Barring a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, large-scale refugee flows, and instability in the region – we assess that no nation in Africa would support any efforts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The paper adds: "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 not get."

Long-Term Strategy Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, Laurie Lee, warned him that Zimbabwe "could become a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". The adviser stated that as military action had been ruled out, "we probably have to accept that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-open talks with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, writing: "We should work out a way of revealing the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then subsequently, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a firm agreement."

The departing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had advocated critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought given all that Mugabe has uttered and perpetrated".

Robert Mugabe was ultimately removed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Previous claims that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise Thabo Mbeki into joining a armed alliance to depose Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the ex-British leader.