UK Diplomats Advised Against Armed Intervention to Overthrow Zimbabwe's Leader

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

Policy Papers Reveal Considerations on Handling a "Remarkably Robust" Dictator

Internal documents from Tony Blair's government indicate officials considered options on how best to deal with the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old leader, who refused to step down as the country fell into violence and economic chaos.

Faced with Mugabe's Zanu-PF party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined a US-led coalition to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to produce potential options.

Policy of Isolation Considered Ineffective

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

Courses considered in the files were:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Go for 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 altering a government and/or its harmful policies is exceedingly difficult from the outside."

The diplomatic assessment dismissed 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 prepared to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Heavy Casualties and Jurisdictional Barriers

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

"Short of a severe human and political catastrophe – resulting in massive violence, large-scale refugee flows, and instability in the region – we assess that no nation in Africa would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe by force."

The document adds: "Nor do we judge that any other international ally (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 Recommended

The Prime Minister's advisor, a senior official, warned him that Zimbabwe "will be a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for Africa". The adviser stated 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 must devise a way of exposing the falsehoods and misconduct of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then subsequently, we could attempt to restart dialogue on the basis of a clear understanding."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, had advocated 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 finally deposed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Previous claims that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise Thabo Mbeki into joining a armed alliance to overthrow Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the ex-British leader.