Foreign Office Cautioned Regarding Armed Intervention to Topple Robert Mugabe

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

Government Documents Reveal Deliberations on Handling a "Depressingly Healthy" 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 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 options.

Isolation Strategy Deemed Not Working

Diplomats concluded that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and forging an international consensus for change was failing, having failed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the documents included:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by force";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and closing the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the option advocated by the then departing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"Our experience shows from conflicts abroad that altering 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 prepared to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Significant Losses and Legal Hurdles

It warned that military intervention would cause significant losses and have "serious consequences" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a severe human and political catastrophe – 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 forcibly."

The paper continues: "We also believe that any other international ally (including the US) would authorise or join military intervention. And there would be no jurisdictional basis for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Playing the Longer Game Advocated

The Prime Minister's advisor, Laurie Lee, warned him that Zimbabwe "could become a significant obstacle" to his plan to use the UK's presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". Lee concluded that as military action had been ruled out, "we probably have to accept that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, noting: "We must devise a way of revealing the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then afterwards, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a firm agreement."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, had advocated critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he recognized 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 depose Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the former UK premier.