CIA activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Patrice Lumumba, 1960.

The independent Republic of the Congo was declared on 30 June 1960, with Joseph Kasa-Vubu as President and Patrice Lumumba as Prime Minister. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was originally a Belgian colony that was established in 1908. It shared a name with the neighboring Republic of the Congo to the west, a French colony that also gained independence in 1960; the two were differentiated by also stating the name of the relevant capital city—Congo (Léopoldville) versus Congo (Brazzaville). From the beginning of the Congo's independence, the CIA was running operations in the country to "...stabilize the government and minimize communist influence in a strategically vital, resource-rich location in central Africa."[8] According to a report regarding the CIA's activities in the Congo from 1960 to 1968, the CIA "comprised activities dealing with regime change, political action, propaganda, air and marine operations, and arms interdiction, as well as support to a spectacular hostage rescue mission." [9] During the heights of the Cold War in 1960s, Congo was perceived as geopolitically strategic. This was due to its size, which is quarter of the size of United States, and natural resource endowments. In short, Congo was "the Cold War prize of the first order". The Chief of CIA Africa Division in June 1960 said that "If Congo deteriorates and Western influence fades rapidly, the bloc will have a feast and will not need to work very hard for it".[10]

Patrice Lumumba was seen by the United States as a potential Communist. He turned to the United States for assistance shortly after the Congo declared independence from Belgium. For fear that Lumumba would follow a similar path to that of Fidel Castro, he was denied American aid. Lumumba knew a Belgian attack was coming to reclaim his country. With no American aid on the way, he instead turned to the Soviets who fulfilled his request. Newly appointed Congo Station Chief Larry Devlin, who was sent to assess Lumumba, took note of the Soviet support and interpreted it as Lumumba playing into the Soviet's plan. Devlin ultimately identified him as a target for covert action.[11]

United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower was very concerned at activities occurring in postcolonial Africa. During a meeting with senior advisors in August 1960 he stated that he felt Communists succeeded in convincing people worldwide that they were concerned for the common man while portraying the United States as dedicated to supporting outmoded regimes.[12]

Lumumba was a proud nationalist and claimed to be neutral in terms of the Cold War. The UN instead intervened in the Congo, however was unfit and truly not designed for forceful military or clandestine intelligence support.[13] A CIA report from September 1960 described Lumumba as a "demagogic speaker" who was emotionally convinced it was his duty to unify Congo through a strong central government.[14] This report illustrated the CIA's belief that the Soviet Union was attempting to undercut the United Nations by providing Lumumba aid outside UN channels in exchange for Lumumba being the Soviet's tool.[14] Lumumba continued to maintain that his interests were those of the Congolese majority, and described himself as a nationalist.[13] He wanted full independence and full control over natural resources in order to use them to better the lives of the people.

Despite Lumumba's statements, Washington was unconvinced and becoming concerned that he was too close to the Soviets. If left in power, Washington feared Congo would fall into chaos and turn communist.[15][16] According to a document released by the CIA, many Congolese had traveled to Belgium, in order to make contact with members of the Belgium Communist Party.[17] Though Lumumba was not listed as one of the Congolese in Belgium, it was reported that he had accepted financial support from the Belgium Communist Party. Another CIA document identified around three hundred active Soviet personnel in the Congo.[18] The Soviet personnel included flight crews, medical teams, truck technicians and diplomatic personnel. Based on the document, in July 1960, Lumumba was identified as speaking to a Soviet ambassador in New York and the topic of weapons was discussed. In addition, the report highlighted that two Soviet merchant ships were active in the Congo, both of which contained food and medical supplies. The report also stated that the Soviet Union offered economic aid in exchange for Congolese copper.

In August 1960, to then-CIA director Allen Dulles, "We conclude that [Lumumba's] removal must be an urgent and prime objective and that under existing conditions this should be a high priority of our covert action".[15] Dulles later rescinded his statement in 1962, admitting, "I think that we overrated the Soviet danger, let's say, in the Congo".[19] Some scholars speculate that Allen Dulles was a "reluctant assassin", citing his hesitance to implement the mandate of President Eisenhower.[20] Dulles seemed too reluctant, though he had just ordered the assassination plan of Fidel Castro[21] and would go on to approve another assassination program.[22] However, Dulles’ nebulous beliefs about the nature of Soviet influence in the Congo is discernible from several reports Dulles generated concerning communist subversion around the world. In a report from June 2, 1961, just several months after the assassination of Lumumba, Dulles emphasized the CIA’s “Bloc policy” which denoted all nations pulled into the Soviet orbit. Dulles believed that the destruction of the “system of colonialism” was the first step to defeat the “Free World.”.[23] The overestimation of Soviet influence in the Congo was not solely a result of intelligence collections, but stemmed from the wider belief that all nations who were even remotely associated with the Soviet Union or China would fall to Communism. The Congo was another piece of the wall against Communism and the CIA was determined to ensure Western loyalty. In the report Dulles stated, “It requires little imagination to perceive the strategic damage to the Western position should the [Communist] Bloc obtain a major foothold on the African continent. As a small example, it is fair to say that the success of our Congo policy to date is in large measure due to the inability of the Bloc to [get supplies in and out of the Congo].”[23] Any hesitation to assassinate leaders, like Lumumba, was overridden by a wider policy for the African subcontinent. The Congo was simply another nation that the CIA could not afford to lose in the wider game of the Cold War. As a result, hesitation in any decisions became moot once those decision went into effect.

Congo scholars and US officials expressed their doubts that Soviets were a threat to Lumumba. According to Foreign Affairs, CIA intervention was based on "an over-hyped analysis of the communist threat".[15] According to scholars Emmanuel Gerard and Bruce Kuklick, Lumumba was portrayed as a proud nationalist and Pan-Africanist in CIA and State Department analyses, striving for neutrality in the Cold War. Agency heads as well as President Eisenhower, however, "disregarded this intelligence".[19]

The initial plan to remove Lumumba would start with Congo's then-president, Joseph Kasavubu, to dissolve the government after a vote of no confidence from two opposition senators, subsidized by the CIA and Belgian intelligence officials. One of the senators would then replace Lumumba as the new prime minister.[15] Attempts to remove Lumumba through street demonstrations, labor movements, and propaganda were funded by the CIA.[15]

However, two days before the vote was to be held, Kasa-vubu fired Lumumba, who responded with his refusal to withdraw from the government and continued domination of parliament.[15]

He reached out for help from the Soviets, who provided him with troop transportation and air support, because he had no other options. So, in terms of the Cold War, Lumumba attempted to remain neutral. He eventually needed military support from the Soviets, which marked him as an enemy of the CIA.[24] Classified CIA cables from Leopoldville to the head of the CIA report the view of the CIA (that Lumumba was involved with Communists), as follows:

The Embassy and station believed that Congo was experiencing a takeover by the communists. The forces that were working on this were the Soviets communist party. It was difficult to determine what the key influencing factors were in order to see the struggle for power. Even though Lumumba may or may not have been playing the communists in order to gain power and with the Anti-west forces increasing their power, there wasn't enough time to try and avoid the same results as with Cuba.[25]

Later in his term, which lasted only 10 weeks, the CIA began to orchestrate plans for Lumumba's assassination. The CIA's program was focused on removing Lumumba, but not only through the option of assassination. A declassified CIA document details how a redacted individual was instructed to assassinate Lumumba via poison.[26] This poisoning attempt failed.

They also had many non-lethal plans in place including having contact with oppositionists who wanted to overthrow Lumumba with paramilitary action; paying army commander Mobutu to ensure the loyalty of legislative officers and important officers; and what were called "black" broadcasts from a radio station in Brazzaville that promoted a revolt against Lumumba.[27]

Files of importance to the CIA mission to assassinate Patrice Lumumba include the 1975–76 US Senate Church Committee's investigation of CIA assassination plots against Lumumba, the report of a Belgian parliamentary inquiry in 2001, Congo Station Chief Larry Devlin's 2007 memoir, and the long-awaited appearance in 2013 of a "retrospective" Congo volume in the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States series, which contains extensive CIA operational documents from the 1960s. Activities were done in Congo in order to control the government and try to stop the communist influence. They ended up spending around 12 million on operations, over 80 million in today's [2014] current value.[28]

In recent years, new evidence has emerged about this grisly event and those responsible for it. A February 14, 1972, memorandum, found at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, by a writer whose name has been redacted, states, he was "directed by Mr. Richard Bissell to assume responsibility for a project involving the assassination of Patrice Lumumba."[29] According to this report, the plan was to murder Patrice Lumumba by poisoning him.

Larry Devlin became Chief of Station in Congo in July 1960, 10 days after the country's independence from Belgium and shortly before Prime Minister Lumumba's two-month term in office, dismissal from power, and eventual bloody execution seven months after the Congo gained independence.[30][31] In his memoir, Devlin reveals that late in 1960, he received instructions from an agent ("Joe from Paris"), who was relaying instructions from CIA headquarters that he (Devlin) was to effect the assassination of Lumumba.[32] Though the CIA denies involvement in the assassination of Lumumba, documents have been released, disclosing information pertaining to the plan of trying to poison Lumumba. This poisoning was discussed as early as November 1962, according to a declassified memo by the CIA.[33] The memo discloses that an agent, name redacted but suspected to be Devlin, had advised "Mr. Lyman Kirkpatrick that he had, at one time, been directed by Mr. Richard Bissell to assume responsibility, for a project involving the assassination of Patrice Lumumba... According to (name redacted), poison was to have been the vehicle as he made reference to having been instructed to see Dr. Sidney Gottlieb in order to procure the appropriate vehicle."[34] The directive had come from the CIA Deputy Chief of Plans Dick Bissell, but Devlin wanted to know if it had originated at a higher level, and, if so, how high. "Joe" had been given to understand that it had come from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, but Devlin, to this day, does not know for sure. Devlin writes (and has said in public speaking engagements) that he felt an assassination would have been "morally wrong" and likely to backfire by working against U.S. interests. In any event, he decided not to act until the day Lumumba was moved to Katanga (the power hold of one of his many enemies in the country and home to a man who publicly called for his scalp). The CIA, regardless of Devlin's hesitancy, was never able to successfully carry out one of its assassination plans. Either the plans were too difficult to implement, or, in the case of Lumumba, the CIA's attempts to kill him were superseded by the passions of Lumumba's enemies. While attempting to travel to Stanleyville, a stronghold of pro-Lumumba support, his "own popularity" plagued him, as he meant to win over the countryside he stopped for speeches, allowing his captors to draw nearer to him and his family.[13][35] Lumumba was ultimately murdered by his enemies in Katanga, with Belgian government participation. U.S. intelligence was kept informed.

The United Nations Security Council was called into session on December 7, 1960, to consider Soviet demands that the UN seek Lumumba's immediate release, the immediate restoration of Lumumba as head of the Congo government, the disarming of the forces of Mobutu, and the immediate evacuation of Belgians from the Congo. Soviet Representative Valerian Zorin refused U.S. demands that he disqualify himself as Security Council President during the debate. Hammarskjöld, answering Soviet attacks against his Congo operations, said that if the UN forces were withdrawn from the Congo, "I fear everything will crumble."[36]

Lumumba fled house arrest in the capital in late November 1960.[27] Following a U.N. report that Lumumba had been mistreated by his captors, his followers threatened (on December 9, 1960) to seize all Belgians and "start cutting off the heads of some of them" unless Lumumba was released within 48 hours.[35] On January 14, 1961, Larry Devlin was informed of Lumumba's escape from house arrest and ultimate capture by Mobutu's forces. Lumumba was to be transferred to South Kasai, whose leader was intent on murdering Lumumba.[15] Lumumba's scheduled transfer was suddenly switched from South Kasai to Katanga, whose leader also vowed to murder him. However, Katangan soldiers and a Belgian officer executed Lumumba a few days later on 17 January. Larry Devlin's cable informing Washington of the transfer was not reached in time, as Lumumba had already been murdered.[15][37] On February 7, a field report informed Washington that Lumumba and his two companions had been executed on January 17, by Katangan soldiers and a Belgian officer, weeks after Lumumba's assassination.[38]

Larry Devlin was noted as taking a permissive stance, despite his deep knowledge of what may happen to Lumumba. Devlin also "deliberately kept Washington out of the loop", which is noted as being an "exception" for a closely managed CIA operation such as his own. His stance is criticized as being "a major factor in the government's decision to move Lumumba".[15] Devlin would later state, "Lumumba was a danger for both the Congo and the rest of the world" because of his perceived anti western attitudes.[39] When asked if he was happy following the death of the leader, Devlin responded that, although happy wasn't his specific word of choice, he was certainly glad to be moving on to another project.

Others provided mixed thoughts on why Lumumba posed the threat that ultimately made Mobutu a US-sponsored leader in the Congo. Jacques Brassin, a Belgian diplomat at the time of Lumumba, and chronicler of his death, acknowledged that part of the reason the Congo's leader was resisted by outward forces was his disregard for Belgian leadership in the region. "He was dangerous for us," Brassin later said, "in the sense that he wasn't open to the kind of solutions we wanted to apply."[39] Another Belgian and personal friend of Lumumba, Jean Van Lierde, contested that Lumumba was killed because he represented an unpredictable political nature that neither the United States nor the Belgium national government could truly identify and control. Still, others including Belgian Colonel Louis Marliere, accused Lumumba of favoring the Soviet side of the political spectrum.[39]

Gerard and Kuklick dismiss the anti-communist rationale for Western intervention against Lumumba. The authors maintain that the governments of Belgium and the United States—including their covert operators—were largely responsible for "this traveling carnival of death." They insist that the West cannot escape accountability for the consequences of its actions by arguing that it was "the locals" who pulled the trigger. Along with their own attempts to deliver the coup de grace, US and Belgian officials more often turned to Lumumba's opponents. The Europeans and Americans goaded the Africans to imprison Lumumba and to secure a capital sentence. The politicians in Leopoldville proved willing to jail him, but were afraid either to bring him to trial or put him to death. Those in Katanga (a Belgian-supported secessionist province) were not afraid, and Belgians, Americans and the Leopoldville group knew that. With Western urging, [President Joseph] Kasavubu and his cohorts sent Lumumba to Elizabethville and his doom. Regarding the US role at the end, they present a very strong circumstantial case. The United States, through the CIA, was demonstrably trying to do Lumumba in—directly and through its cooperating Congolese leaders—from August through November 1960. In January 1961, these same clients gave the station chief advance notice of their plan to ship Lumumba to his bitterest enemies, and he did nothing to discourage them.[19]

It was speculated that the Eisenhower administration's motivations to remove Lumumba from power was influenced, in part, by the Belgian Secretary-General of NATO threatening to resign due to insufficient support by the US of the Belgian Security Council.[19] It was also noted that the Congo Station Chief, Larry Devlin, withheld information of a plan by Congolese assets to send Lumumba to his enemies until after Lumumba had been killed.[19] However, Devlin had actually put in a request to pay off a garrison to help restore Lumumba to power, but the State Department denied his request.[19] Speculation as to why the information and request were handled this way was believed to have been because John F. Kennedy's incoming administration was reconsidering Eisenhower's tough stance towards Lumumba.[19] Though "impatient" and "inexperienced", Lumumba is credited with representing Congo's best hope in a post-colonial setting. Foreign Affairs' Stephen Weissman argues that working with Lumumba would have better served both Congo and the United States.[15] Lumumba's legacy is still felt today, in an article entitled, "Patrice Lumumba: The most Important Assassination of the 20th Century" author Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja states that, "the greatest legacy that Lumumba left for Congo is the ideal for national unity."[40]

The exact involvement of the CIA in Lumumba's assassination is still debated by scholars and journalists. According to National Security Archive senior research fellow John Prados, the CIA was involved in several indirect ways. First, the CIA had the Congolese official that issued Lumumba's arrest warrant on their payroll. The CIA had also been providing Mobutu and his forces with large amounts of money and supplies, as he was going to be their pro-western puppet leading the nation instead of Lumumba. CIA officials were also aware of most situations as they developed, but failed to stop the actions against Lumumba. CIA officer Devlin, in fact, knew about the plan to move Lumumba to an area controlled by his sworn enemy. Devlin decided not to alert either the CIA or the US government until Lumumba was already being moved. He did this because the Kennedy Administration was about to come into power, and Eisenhower would have wanted Kennedy to decide what to do, since his term was so close to ending. So, Devlin wanted to ensure that Lumumba would die at the hands of Mobutu and the Belgians.[41]

The United States backed Joseph Mobutu for over three decades. Support for Mobutu started when Lumumba was in power. Mobutu was Lumumba's chief of staff and head of the army, and continued to grow as he became a more influential leader in the Congo.[42] Even throughout the years following Lumumba's death, the United States is credited with not only supporting Mobutu for over three decades but also with assisting in stabilizing the country during the aftermath of Lumumba's death. "The CIA's program persisted through several political crises in the Congo during 1962-63 and at least can be credited with helping the government survive them."[43]

Then-chief of station Larry Devlin interviewed Joseph Mobutu twice. Mobutu assured Devlin that he was advancing his troops to the capital in order to remove Lumumba. In a volume of Foreign Relations of the United States recalls, "this was the beginning of the plan for Mobutu to take over the government".[15] After the meetings, Devlin decided the best course of action to take was to offer financial support to Mobutu's troops.[15] On September 14, 1960, Mobutu replaced Lumumba, but kept then-president Joseph Kasavubu. The CIA supported him with money, warning of assassination plots, and recommendations for ministerial appointments and ultimately counseled Mobutu to reject reconciliation with Lumumba and arrest him and his associates instead. An American National Security cable shortly after the coup described the need for a 'crash operation' to bolster Mobutu with financial and personal assistance, as well as noting an 'almost successful' assassination attempt against Mobutu.[44] It was of key importance that Mobutu retained his control over Congo, and the CIA was determined to stop Soviet influence at any cost. This support led to Larry Devlin becoming "not just the paymaster but also an influential de facto member of the government he had helped install".[15]

Mobutu and his political allies formed the Binza Group, a primary tool used by Devlin to exert influence. Devlin was an asset to some of Mobutu's decisions, such as Mobutu's plan to fire President Kasavubu in an effort to expand his power. Devlin counseled Mobutu otherwise, recommending Mobutu work with a counsel of CIA-backed associates, and choose cabinet ministers for Kasavubu to maintain control over parliament. Devlin was also responsible for deescalating another aggressive move to attack Lumumba's UN security detail and arrest him – while Lumumba was already under house arrest at the time.[15]

With Lumumba painted as a pro-Soviet radical, Mobutu would lead the September 14th coup against him and President Joseph Kasavubu, hoping to neutralize them and impose a ban on politics for the rest of the year.[42] The coup was sponsored by the CIA, and would receive continued support by the CIA, including an October 27 decision by the 5412 group to release an additional $250,000 to support Mobutu.[42] The coup resulted in Lumumba being placed under de facto house arrest, protected by UN forces. When Lumumbu grew tired of the situation, he escaped UN protection with his family and made his way to Stanleyville in the Orientale province of the Congo. He made frequent stops to help rally people to his cause (and this allowed his captors to catch up to him quickly). Lumumba never made it, he was captured by Mobutu's forces. He was savagely beaten, and he was executed on January 17, 1961.[45]

After the death of Lumumba, the CIA's relationship with Mobutu continued to develop. Frustrated with the assent to power of Antione Gizenga, the CIA continued to support Mobutu. Mobutu worked behind the scenes of then-president Joseph Kasavubu and Prime Ministers Moise Tshombe and Cyril Adoula, helping to secure the nation's new regime with the help of the CIA. This included subsidizing and advising (bribing and buying) tribal and political leaders, fortifying relationships with labor unions and student associations, paying off parliament members and military officers, and increasing efforts to convince UN delegates of the legitimacy of the Congo's government.[46] This support continued to grow after Mobutu visited President John F. Kennedy in the Rose Garden in 1963. This led to Mobutu receiving American financial and military support that allowed him to be in a position to assume total control of the Congo. After his 1963 visit to the White House, Mobutu was regarded as a CIA asset, and a relationship that lasted over thirty years was solidified.[47]

Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., 1973

The chief of AF wrote in 1967 that Mobutu had become accustomed and to some degree dependent on the informal channel to the US Government thus provided... and would interpret the termination of this relationship- particularly if termination were more or less coincident with Delvin's (second) departure - as evidence of a desire on the part of the U.S. Government to disengage from the close and friendly relations that have characterized dealings between the governments for most of the period since 1960.[48]

Although U.S. policymakers wanted to move "away from slush funds and towards genuine development aid", when Mobutu asked for more funds in late 1968, he got it with few strings attached, because, according to the State Department, Mobutu was the ultimate source of power in Congo. They also stated how vital ready access was in order for the State Department to continue their long-standing policy of helping the Congo with unity, stability, and economic progress, as their hopes were to see a stable, western-oriented government in the heart of Africa.[46] They did not want to risk the impairment of access to Mobutu, and that if it were to occur, it would be carried over to the contacts throughout the Congolese Government.[46] The CIA Board of National Estimates echoed that view soon after Mobutu's departure: "If it is sudden, it will probably result in a prolonged turmoil and a sharp decline in internal security." This would also likely cause a significant loss of CIA access and influence in the Congolese government.[46]

The CIA believed that Mobutu was the key to stability in the Congo, but was also a useful pawn for the U.S. They collected intelligence and took covert action in order to prop up his leadership against internal and external threats. For example, Congo faced the external threat from the Front for the National Liberation of the Congo (FLNC), a guerrilla force based in Angola. In a CIA memorandum from 1984, the capabilities and threats posed by the FLNC were discussed. The document mentions that, while the FLNC was ineffective, it could be rallied into a disruptive force in the future. The CIA worried that terrorist attacks carried out by the FLNC were so damaging to Mobutu's reputation that the "[election] was moved forward to July by Mobutu in an effort to shorten the time available for opposition mischief-making." Without Mobutu, the CIA believed the Congo would fall into chaos, and thus were inclined to do everything they could to keep him in power. The memorandum ends stating, "We concur with the [American] Embassy's judgement that continued control of Kinshasa is the key to Mobutu's remaining in power and that disturbances in the hinterland pose a threat to Mobutu only if sustained".[49]

Mobutu remained a beneficiary of U.S. support throughout the Cold War despite the corruption and profligacy that were evident near the end of the Agency's covert operations. He was a reliable anticommunist ally of Washington's until his overthrow in 1997.[46] Over the years, Mobutu proved to be an important geopolitical friend of the United States. He also turned into one of the world's worst leaders, driving the country into economic ruin and political chaos.[50]

• Congo in CIA regime change actions
• Congo Political Crises (1960–1965)
• Arrest of Patrice Lumumba.
• Foreign interventions by the United States
• United States involvement in regime change