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

Recently released documents show that the UK's diplomatic corps advised against British military action to remove the former Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "serious option".

Government Documents Show Deliberations on Handling a "Remarkably Robust" 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 refused to step down 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 overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential courses of action.

Isolation Strategy Deemed Not Working

Officials agreed that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and building an international consensus for change was not working, having not managed to secure support from influential African states, notably the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki.

Options outlined in the files included:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as freezing assets 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 bad policies is almost impossible from the outside."

The diplomatic assessment rejected military action as not a "serious option," adding that "The only candidate for leading such a armed intervention is the UK. No one else (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Heavy Casualties and Legal Hurdles

It warned that military intervention would result in heavy casualties and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a severe human and political disaster – resulting in widespread bloodshed, large-scale refugee flows, and instability in the region – we judge that no African state would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe by force."

The paper 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 jurisdictional basis for doing so, without an authorising Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Long-Term Strategy Recommended

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "will be a real spoiler" 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, "it is likely necessary that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-engage 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 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 understood the Prime Minister "might shudder at the thought given all that Mugabe has uttered and perpetrated".

The Zimbabwean leader was ultimately removed in a 2017 coup, at the age of 93. Previous claims that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure the South African president into joining a military coalition to overthrow Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the ex-British leader.