UK Diplomats Advised Regarding Armed Intervention to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

Newly disclosed documents reveal that the UK's diplomatic corps cautioned against British military action to remove the former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "serious option".

Government Documents Show Deliberations on Handling a "Depressingly Healthy" Dictator

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government show officials weighed up options on how best to handle the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old leader, who declined to leave office as the country descended 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, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Not Working

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, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the documents were:

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

"Our experience shows 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 military operation is the UK. No one else (even the US) would be prepared to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Significant Losses and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military involvement would result in heavy casualties and have "serious consequences" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, significant exodus of refugees, and instability in the region – we assess that no African state would support 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 participate in military intervention. And there would be no legal grounds for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Long-Term Strategy Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, Laurie Lee, warned him that Zimbabwe "will be a real spoiler" to his plan to use the UK's presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". The adviser stated 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, writing: "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 attempt to restart dialogue on the basis of a clear understanding."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had recommended cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought given all that Mugabe has said and done".

Robert Mugabe was ultimately removed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise the South African president into joining a armed alliance to depose Mugabe were strongly denied by the ex-British leader.