Foreign Office Cautioned Against Military Action to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

Newly disclosed papers reveal that the Foreign Office cautioned against British military intervention to remove the former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, in 2004, stating it was not considered a "viable option".

Policy Papers Show Considerations on Handling a "Depressingly Healthy" Leader

Policy papers from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials considered options on how best to deal with the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old dictator, 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 develop potential options.

Isolation Strategy Deemed Not Working

Officials agreed that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and forging an international agreement for change was failing, having not managed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the files were:

• "Attempt to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and closing 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 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 candidate for leading such a armed intervention is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Warnings of Significant Losses and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military involvement would result in significant losses and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a severe human and political disaster – resulting in massive violence, significant exodus of refugees, and instability in the region – we judge that no nation in Africa would support any attempts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The document adds: "We also believe that any other European, Commonwealth or western partner (including the US) would authorise 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 Advocated

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "will be a significant obstacle" 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, "we probably have to accept that we must play the longer game" and re-open talks with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, writing: "We should work out a way of exposing 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 then outgoing ambassador, in his valedictory telegram, 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 2017 coup, aged 93. Previous claims that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure the South African president into joining a armed alliance to depose Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.