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

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

Government Documents Show Considerations on Addressing a "Depressingly Healthy" 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 dictator, who declined to leave office 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, No 10 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 not managed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the files included:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as freezing assets and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the approach advocated by the then departing 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 dismissed 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 willing to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Heavy Casualties and Jurisdictional Barriers

It cautioned that military involvement would cause heavy casualties and have "serious consequences" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Short of a major humanitarian and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, significant exodus of refugees, and regional instability – we judge that no nation in Africa would agree to any attempts to remove Mugabe forcibly."

The paper continues: "Nor do we judge that any other international ally (including the US) would authorise or participate in military intervention. And there would be no legal grounds for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Playing the Longer Game Recommended

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 presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". The adviser stated that as military action had been discounted, "we probably have to accept that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, writing: "We should work out a way of exposing the lies and malpractice 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 valedictory telegram, had advocated cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has said and done".

The Zimbabwean leader was finally deposed in a 2017 coup, aged 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressurise the South African president into joining a armed alliance to overthrow Mugabe were vehemently rejected by the former UK premier.