Foreign Office Advised Regarding Military Action to Topple Zimbabwe's Leader

Recently released documents reveal that the Foreign Office advised against British military action to remove the former Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "viable option".

Government Documents Reveal Considerations on Addressing a "Remarkably Robust" Leader

Policy papers from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials weighed up options on how best to deal with the "remarkably robust" 80-year-old dictator, who refused to step down as the country descended into violence and economic chaos.

Following the ruling party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined a US-led coalition to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, No 10 asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to develop potential courses of action.

Isolation Strategy Considered Ineffective

Officials agreed that the UK's strategy to isolate Mugabe and forging an international agreement for change was not working, having not managed 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";
• "Implement tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-engage", the option supported by the then departing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"Our experience shows from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that changing a government and/or its harmful policies is exceedingly difficult from the outside."

The diplomatic assessment 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".

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.

"Short of a severe human and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, large-scale refugee flows, and instability in the region – we assess that no African state would support any attempts to remove Mugabe by force."

The paper adds: "Nor do we judge 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."

Playing the Longer Game Advocated

The Prime Minister's advisor, Laurie Lee, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "could become a real spoiler" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "a pivotal year for Africa". The adviser stated that as military action had been ruled out, "it is likely necessary that we must play the longer game" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair seemed to concur, writing: "We should work out a way of revealing the falsehoods and misconduct of Mugabe and Zanu-PF up to this election and then subsequently, we could try to re-engage on the basis of a clear understanding."

The departing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, had recommended critical re-engagement with Mugabe, though he understood the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has uttered and perpetrated".

The Zimbabwean leader was ultimately removed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Previous claims that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure Thabo Mbeki into joining a military coalition to overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.