Key Takeaways
- The UK Foreign Office advised against military intervention to overthrow former Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe in 2004, citing it as not a "serious option"
- The UK government considered various options, including military action, tougher measures, and re-engagement, but ultimately ruled out force due to potential heavy casualties and lack of international support
- The decision was made despite Mugabe’s regime being responsible for violence and economic chaos in Zimbabwe
- The UK instead opted for a policy of critical re-engagement with Mugabe, which was advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe, Brian Donnelly
- Mugabe was eventually deposed in a 2017 coup, aged 93
Introduction to the Situation
The UK government’s decision to rule out military intervention in Zimbabwe in 2004 was a significant one, as it marked a turning point in the country’s relations with the African nation. The Foreign Office had been tasked with producing options for how to handle the situation in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe’s regime was responsible for widespread violence and economic chaos. The documents released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that the UK government considered various options, including military action, but ultimately ruled it out as not a "serious option".
The Options Considered
The options outlined by the Foreign Office included seeking to remove Mugabe by force, going for tougher UK measures such as freezing assets and closing the UK embassy, or re-engaging with the Mugabe regime. However, the FCO paper dismissed military action as not a viable option, citing the examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, where external intervention had failed to bring about lasting change. The paper warned that military intervention would result in heavy casualties and have "considerable implications" for British people in Zimbabwe. The UK government was also aware that it would be unlikely to secure international support for military action, with no other country, including the US, willing to participate.
The Decision-Making Process
The decision to rule out military intervention was made despite the fact that Mugabe’s regime was responsible for significant human rights abuses and economic mismanagement. The UK government was keen to find a solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe, but was aware of the potential risks and challenges involved. The then foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, Laurie Lee, warned that Zimbabwe would be a "real spoiler" to Blair’s plan to use the UK’s presidency of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa" at a summit at Gleneagles. Lee concluded that as military action had been ruled out, "we probably have to accept that we must play the longer game" and re-engage with Mugabe.
The Outcome
The UK government ultimately opted for a policy of critical re-engagement with Mugabe, which was advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe, Brian Donnelly. Donnelly had suggested that the UK should try to expose the lies and malpractice of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party, and then try to re-engage with the regime on the basis of a clear understanding of what that meant. Blair appeared to agree with this approach, writing that "we should work out a way of exposing 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 clear understanding of what that means". Mugabe was eventually deposed in a 2017 coup, aged 93, bringing an end to his 37-year rule.
Legacy and Controversy
The decision to rule out military intervention in Zimbabwe has been the subject of controversy, with some arguing that the UK government should have taken a more robust approach to dealing with Mugabe’s regime. In 2013, the former South African president Thabo Mbeki claimed that Blair had tried to pressurize him into joining a military coalition to overthrow Mugabe, a claim that was strongly denied by Blair. The legacy of the UK’s involvement in Zimbabwe continues to be debated, with some arguing that the government’s decision to rule out military intervention was the right one, given the potential risks and challenges involved. Others argue that the UK should have taken a more proactive approach to dealing with the crisis in Zimbabwe, and that the decision to re-engage with Mugabe’s regime was a mistake.
