Foreign Office Advised Against Military Action to Topple Robert Mugabe

Recently released papers show that the Foreign Office advised against British military intervention to overthrow the former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, in 2004, stating it was not considered a "viable option".

Government Documents Reveal Deliberations on Handling a "Remarkably Robust" Dictator

Internal documents from the then Prime Minister's government show officials considered options on how best to handle the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old dictator, who declined to leave office as the country fell into turmoil and financial collapse.

Faced with Mugabe's Zanu-PF party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined 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 Considered Not Working

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

Courses considered in the files were:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and closing the UK embassy; or
• "Re-open dialogue", the option supported by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"We know from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that changing a government and/or its harmful 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 armed intervention is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be willing to do so".

Warnings of Significant Losses and Legal Hurdles

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

"Barring a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, large-scale refugee flows, 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 authorising Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Long-Term Strategy 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 presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for Africa". Lee concluded that as military action had been discounted, "we probably have to accept that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-open talks with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, noting: "We must devise 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 clear understanding."

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

Robert Mugabe was finally deposed in a 2017 coup, aged 93. Earlier assertions 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.