"We know from Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia that changing a government and/or its bad policies is almost impossible from the outside. If we really wanted to change the situation on the ground in Zimbabwe we have to do to Mugabe what we have just done to Saddam. It adds: The only candidate for leading such a military operation is the UK. No one else (even the US) would be prepared to do so."
"Officials agreed the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and building an international consensus for change was not working, and had not managed to secure support from key Africans, notably the then South African president Thabo Mbeki, documents released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show. Options outlined included: seek to remove Mugabe by force; go for tougher UK measures such as freezing assets and closing the UK embassy; or re-engage, the option advocated by the then outgoing ambassador to Zimbabwe, Brian Donnelly,"
In 2004 the UK government evaluated responses to Robert Mugabe's refusal to step down amid violence and economic collapse. Officials judged the policy of isolating Mugabe and seeking international consensus had failed to secure key African support, notably from South Africa's Thabo Mbeki. Considered options included military removal, tougher measures such as asset freezes and embassy closure, or re-engagement as urged by the outgoing ambassador. The Foreign Office advised against military intervention, citing difficulty changing governments from outside, likely heavy casualties, risks to British nationals, and the improbability of African states agreeing without a major humanitarian catastrophe.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]