Esler,+Mary

Izzy Esler Period 4 Historical Investigation Sophisticated Rough Draft November 9, 2010 This purpose of this historical investigation is to determine whether the assassination of Patrice Lumumba was justified. To do this, who was involved in the assassination will be examined, and whether they were successful in achieving their respective goals. To gain these multiple perspectives, different accounts of the event will be utilized, particularly one of an American CIA officer in the Congo, and the other from an influential modern Belgian reporter. Weighing this balance of information, it can then be determined whether the assassination is justifiable. (86 words) The Democratic Republic of the Congo became an independent nation in 1960 after decades of oppressive Belgian colonial rule. At the ceremony, Belgian King Bandouin delivered a patronizing speech praising the work of King Leopold II, and implying Belgium’s intent to remain a neo-colonial force in the DRC [i]. The first elected Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba, was incensed. He delivered his own speech, alarming to the Belgians, but applauded by the Congolese in attendance [ii] : “The Republic of the Congo has been proclaimed and our country is now in the hands of its own children… [iii] ” Once in office, Lumumba set out immediately to decolonize his country, but was opposed on many fronts. The government was laced with “personal and tribal rivalries” [iv]. Katanga, the copper-rich province, seceded under Moishe Tshombe and declared itself independent in a “legal //coup d’état//.” Belgium allowed this by simply abolishing proportional voting laws that had previously been in place [v]. Lumumba’s dispatch of the army to prevent the secession resulted in the deaths of civilians, further deteriorating ethnic relations [vi]. The army mutinied simultaneously, partly because Lumumba had not given them a pay raise, as he had other Congolese professionals (to subvert Belgian presence in such professions) [vii]. Lumumba appealed to the UN to help end rioting, inviting them into the country, to little avail [viii]. Belgium assisted the secession against his will as legal prime minister, yet the UN did not act to support him [ix]. The UN remained inactive, even hindering Lumumba policies. Meanwhile, other Western powers pursued influence in Katanga to bring down Lumumba’s government. Lumumba turned to the Soviet Union to request assistance [x]. The US, fearing a Soviet attempt to expand Communism, entered the Congo Crisis, now a hot spot of the Cold War. The CIA committed to supporting Mobutu so that Lumumba would be removed from power [xi]. Influence in the DRC could have provided the USSR with power in the third world and thusly in the UN, as well as access to abundant minerals, oil and other valuable raw materials, notably a near-monopoly on cobalt, a key component in many weapons systems [xii]. The subversion of Lumumba took many forms, such as European leaflets circulating hateful anti-Lumumba propaganda in Leopoldville, and falsified messages framing Lumumba as a communist leaked to the press [xiii]. Various parties already wanted to overthrow him: rival tribes, Tshombe, Belgium, and the US. The CIA soon decided that “Lumumba in opposition is almost as dangerous as in office” and that complete elimination was necessary [xiv]. CIA agent Larry Devlin was sent a box of poison to be given to Lumumba; he, however, threw it into the Congo River out of moral discomfort [xv]. Eventually, Lumumba was captured and placed on house arrest by the efforts of the UN, Belgium, and rebel soldiers. He escaped temporarily, but was slowed along his way to security by the crowds of supporters he attracted for impromptu speeches [xvi]. He was delivered to Mobutu, the once head of military, and a political rival. At his prison cell in Katanga, where Lumumba was vehemently detested, but to which the UN delivered him nonetheless, he and other nationalists were subject to routine beatings and torture [xvii]. The UN did not protect him, or react to letters from Lumumba and others describing the inhumane treatment [xviii]. Several African and Asian leaders did not understand how the UN could protect the Belgians, but did nothing for the elected Lumumba, and threatened to withdraw from the UNOC because of it [xix]. On July 17, 1961, Lumumba and two other nationalists, Joseph Okito and Maurice Mpolo, were transported to a remote area near Elisabethville, where they were shot by a firing squad [xx]. This was as agreed upon by Mobutu, Kasavubu and Tshombe, and presided over by Belgian officers [xxi]. Four years later, after leader two military rebellions, Mobutu seized and consolidated power for himself. He formed a one-party dictatorship laced in corruption, amassing a personal fortune of $5 billion while most of the population mired in poverty and endured flagrant human rights abuses [xxii]. According to Ludo De Witte, this meant foreign intervention had been successful, as his was a stable, pro-Western government [xxiii]. In 2002, Belgium issued a public apology, acknowledging a “moral responsibility” for the assassination of Lumumba [xxiv]. (773 words)
 * Part A **
 * Part B **
 * C. Evaluation of Sources **

//The Assassination of Lumumba// is a meticulous exposé about the liquidation of Patrice Lumumba. The origin is Ludo De Witte, a Belgian sociologist and author of another related book: //Crisis in the Kongo//. His purpose in writing was to reveal the prevalent role of Western powers and the neo-colonialist motives behind the assassination; and indeed, its publication prompted the Belgian parliament to establish an official inquiry about Lumumba’s death [xxv]. The book is valuable for its thoroughness in described the events surrounding Lumumba’s removal, because it was revolutionary in its accusations of western powers. It is limited, however, because De Witte has a point to prove, and although it is certainly accurate, it is definitely one-sided.
 * De Witte, Ludo. //The Assassination of Lumumba//. Trans: Ann Wright and Renée Fenby. New York: Verso, 2001. Print. **

The origin of //Chief of Station, Congo// is Larry Devlin, who served as a CIA Station Chief in the Congo during the Congo Crisis. The purpose of the book, besides serving as a memoir, was to convey how “unique and particularly challenging” the Congo affair was for the CIA, and to contextualize some potentially unsavory-seeming tactics [xxvi]. The source is valuable because of its perspective: that of an American officer who can represent reasons and justifications given by Western powers for intervening in the Congo. For the same reason, it is also limited; it is subjective and personal, meaning fact could be obscured by impression or bias. (294 words) As so many parties were involved, Patrice Lumumba’s assassination is mired in mystery. Included in those directly or indirectly responsible for his demise are Belgium, the UN, Lumumba’s Congolese political rivals, America, and the Soviet Union. It is important to note the respective goals of each, and whether they were successful, to determine if their actions were justified. Motivation among the Congolese was varied, as to be expected in a country so vast. However, Patrice Lumumba was elected leader, showing a strong desire for independence and sovereignty. Lumumba also had his political rivals, such as Tshombe and Mobutu, whose interests were generally personal ambition. Mobutu, working with Americans on the grounds of ending Communism and removing an ineffective leader, used his own power as leader to amass personal fortunes at the expense of an impoverished nation [xxvii]. Belgium long had a significant stake in the Democratic Republic of Congo. On November 15, 1908, the Congo was annexed to Belgium after the brutal King Leopold II had owned it privately. In order to make the Congo profitable, land and mineral concessions were granted to large Belgium corporations, a policy of exploitation [xxviii]. It was clear at the Congo’s independence ceremony that Belgium intended to maintain a neo-colonial presence in the country. This was threatened by Lumumba’s nationalist sentiments for a Congo whose “soil really benefits its children” and “independence and African unity [xxix] .” Belgium’s motivation was to end nationalism, and so they acted to assassinate Lumumba, playing a very direct role. It was, after all, a Belgian that gave the order to fire at his execution. They were successful in removing him, but their motivations were selfish, and not worthy of subverting a newly elected government which they themselves had promised independence. The UN played an enabling role. Lumumba invited them into the country to help preserve order; they failed in this respect. They did not act against the capture, beatings, and eventual execution of Lumumba, but protected the illegal seceded Katanga. Their motives are sometimes unclear, but may be due to the sentiments of the Secretary-General, Hammarskjold, who strove for a pro-Western UN [xxx]. The Soviet Union entered the Congo by invitation of Lumumba. It was in their interest to gain influence in the Congo for its resources and access to the UN. America was subsequently drawn into the conflict by its own principles to contain Communism. As reported by Larry Devlin, the CIA was clear in its desire to remove Lumumba, whether by coup or by murder. The US believed it should be able to choose next prime minister [xxxi]. However, this motivation may have been unfounded. Lumumba turned to the Soviets because the UN had not offered the desired aid in maintaining order. To quote De Witte, “Lumumba was not a communist. He was a nationalist, prepared to accept help from any quarter provided that it was unconditional help which did not compromise sovereignty [xxxii] .” Furthermore, Lumumba’s murder ended constitutional government in the Congo [xxxiii]. If America entered the Congo to promote democracy or human rights, they failed. It seems that American policy was influenced by its own economic and political security. Larry Devlin and Ludo De Witte offer historically significant and legitimate accounts of the Congo Crisis. Devlin was an active part of the events that unfolded while serving as the American Chief of Station, while De Witte’s investigation shed new light on the event in retrospect, leading the Belgian government to issue an inquiry about Lumumba’s assassination. Their perceptions of Lumumba differ – Devlin saw him as unstable and ill-equipped to lead, while De Witte emphasizes his political passion and martyrdom. But was he fit to lead? Lumumba did not have the most impressive credentials; having dropped out of secondary school and gone to prison [xxxiv] .This was typical, though, as Belgium had limited the extent to which Congolese could advance in education, professional careers, and the army. Furthermore, he was a volatile man, sometimes changing his mind quickly and contradictorily. But he was also decisive, and a brilliant orator that could inspire the masses [xxxv]. He was a native Congolese and, active politically, founder of a nationalist political party, he had the interests of the country in mind [xxxvi]. It is unclear how he would have served as a leader – he saw only a few peaceful days as prime minister before chaos, largely due to foreign intervention, ensued. However, considering the corrupt, brutal regime Mobutu established, Lumumba could not have been much worse. The significance of this conclusion is the moral responsibility that should rest with the western powers - particularly Belgium, also America - that played a role in Lumumba’s assassination. While none can say exactly what sort of leader he had been, it certainly could not have been much worse than who did replace him, again with western support. These endorsements have led to a modern day DRC that is one of the most poverty-stricken, violence-laden humanitarian disasters in the world. Because of their role in shaping it, these countries have an obligation to actively seek to reverse it. (867 words) Various powers were involved with the assassination of Patrice Lumumba – namely, Belgians interested in neo-colonialism, Congolese political rivals, Soviets interested in expanding power, and Americans interested in containing Communism. These powers were all acting out of self-interest, rather than interest for the Congo itself, as often publicly claimed. The use of subversion and the murder of the newly elected prime minister cannot be justified, particularly in the case of the Belgians. It is unclear how Lumumba would have fared as a leader, but he certainly could have done no worse than the fate that did befall the Congo. (98 words) Devlin, Larry. //Chief of Station, Congo//. New York: PublicAffairs, 2007. Print. De Witte, Ludo. //The Assassination of Lumumba//. N.p.: Verso Books, 1999. Print. Edgerton, Robert B. //The Troubled Heart of Africa//. N.p.: St. Martin's Pres, 2002. Print. "Lumumba's son hails Belgian apology." //BBC News//. BBC, 6 Feb. 2002. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. <@http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1802929.stm>. Meredith, Martin. //The Fate of Africa//. New York: Public Affairs, 2005. Print. "Patrice Lumumba’s Speech at the Proclamation of Congolese Independence." //Milestone Documents//. Schlager Group, 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. <@http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/patrice-lumumbas-speech-at-the-proclamation-of-congolese-independence/>. Reuters. "Mobutu dies in exile in Morocco." //CNN World News//. Cable News Network, 17 Sept. 1997. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. <@http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/07/mobutu.wrap/
 * Devlin, Larry. //Chief of Station, Congo//. United States: PublicAffairs, 2007. Print. **
 * D. Analysis **
 * E. Conclusion **
 * F. Sources **

[i] Meredith 93 [ii] De Witte 3 [iii] “Patrice Lumumba’s Speech” [iv] Devlin 25 [v] De Witte 6 [vi] Devlin 30 [vii] Ibid 35 [viii] Ibid 36 [ix] De Witte 9-12 [x] Ibid 15 [xi] Devlin 78 [xii] Ibid 48 [xiii] De Witte 19, 45 [xiv] Ibid 23 [xv] Devlin 96 [xvi] De Witte 56 [xvii] Ibid 56-9 [xviii] Ibid 61 [xix] Ibid 85 [xx] Ibid 119-121 [xxi] Edgerton 195 [xxii] Reuters [xxiii] De Witte 164 [xxiv] “Lumumba’s son” [xxv] In 2002, a Belgian inquiry found that Belgian had a “moral responsibility” for Lumumba’s murder. Belgium issued a “formal apology” and established a “Patrice Lumumba fund” to finance development projects in the Congo – see end of Section B.   [xxvi] Devlin 270-2 [xxvii] Ibid 258 [xxviii] Edgerton 157 [xxix] Patrice Lumumba’s Speech [xxx] De Witte 66 [xxxi] Devlin 149 [xxxii] De Witte xvii [xxxiii] Edgerton 196 [xxxiv] Ibid 182 [xxxv] Devlin 7 [xxxvi] Ibid 25