UK Diplomats Advised Regarding Armed Intervention to Topple Robert Mugabe

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

Government Documents Reveal Considerations on Handling a "Depressingly Healthy" Dictator

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government show officials considered options on how best to deal with the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old leader, who declined to leave office 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, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to develop potential courses of action.

Isolation Strategy Considered Not Working

Officials agreed that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and building an international agreement for change was failing, having failed to secure support from influential African states, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Options outlined in the documents included:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as freezing assets and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the option supported by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"Our experience shows from conflicts abroad that altering a government and/or its bad policies is almost impossible from the outside."

The FCO paper rejected military action as not a "realistic option," adding 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 Legal Hurdles

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

"Short of a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, significant exodus of refugees, and regional instability – we judge that no nation in Africa would support any efforts to remove Mugabe by force."

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

Playing the Longer Game Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "could become a real spoiler" 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 appeared to agree, writing: "We should work out a way of revealing 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 firm agreement."

The departing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had recommended critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he recognized the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has said and done".

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 the South African president into joining a military coalition to depose Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.