Foreign Office Advised Regarding Armed Intervention to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

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

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

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials weighed up 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 the ruling party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined a US-led coalition to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, No 10 asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Ineffective

Officials agreed that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and building an international consensus 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:

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

"Our experience shows from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that changing a government and/or its bad policies is almost impossible from the outside."

The diplomatic assessment dismissed military action as not a "realistic option," adding that "The only nation for leading such a military operation is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Warnings of Heavy Casualties and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military involvement would cause heavy casualties and have "serious consequences" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a severe human and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, significant exodus of refugees, and regional instability – we judge that no nation in Africa would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The paper continues: "Nor do we judge 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 approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Long-Term Strategy Recommended

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, warned him that Zimbabwe "will be a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for 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-engage with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, noting: "We must devise a way of revealing the falsehoods and misconduct 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 then outgoing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, had recommended cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he recognized the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has uttered and perpetrated".

Robert Mugabe was finally deposed 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 vehemently rejected by the former UK premier.