Foreign Office Cautioned Against Armed Intervention to Topple Robert Mugabe

Recently released papers reveal 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".

Policy Papers Show Deliberations on Addressing a "Remarkably Robust" Dictator

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials weighed up options on how best to handle the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old dictator, who refused to step down as the country descended into violence and economic chaos.

Faced with the ruling 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 produce potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Deemed Ineffective

Diplomats concluded that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and forging 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:

• "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 departing 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 FCO paper rejected military action as not a "serious option," adding that "The only nation for leading such a armed intervention 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 heavy casualties and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, large-scale refugee flows, and instability in the region – we judge that no nation in Africa would agree to any efforts to remove Mugabe by force."

The paper adds: "We also believe that any other international ally (including the US) would authorise or participate in military intervention. And there would be no legal grounds for doing so, without an authorising Security Council Resolution, which we would fail to obtain."

Playing the Longer Game Advocated

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, warned him that Zimbabwe "could become a real spoiler" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". Lee concluded that as military action had been discounted, "it is likely necessary 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 ahead of this election and then afterwards, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a firm agreement."

The departing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, had advocated critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought given all that Mugabe has said and done".

The Zimbabwean leader 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 military coalition to depose Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.