CIA’s covert operation in the Congo 1960-1968

To understand when, why and how the CIA got involved in the newly independent country (by that time) Republic of Congo, it is necessary to look back in history.

Knowing beforehand that in the 50s the main focus of the United States was to stop communism, the decolonization of Sub-Saharan Africa from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s resulted in several Cold War confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union over the dozens of newly independent, non-aligned nations.

From 1960 to 1968, CIA conduct­ed a series of fast-paced, multifaceted covert action (CA) operations the Congo (the Democratic Republic of the Congo today) to stabilize the government and minimize communist influence in a strategically vital, re­source-rich location in central Africa. (Robarge, Para 1) To add up, the CIA Chief of Station in Leopoldville (Kinshasa), described the situation in the Congo as a classic Communist takeover.

The reports of the Agency showed, coupled with the arrival of Soviet bloc technicians, convinced members of the national security team that Patrice Lumumba, the prime minister elected by the Congolese, had to be removed. A flurry of U.S. diplomatic activity in support of unseating Lumumba resulted. Plans were also developed to assassinate Lumumba if necessary. Moreover “evidence strongly suggests the Station Chief withheld his advance knowledge of Lumumba's fatal transfer from Washington policymakers, who might have blocked it.” (Weissman)

On September 5, Joseph Kasavubu, elected president, dismissed Lumumba from the government. Lumumba ignored the decree and dismissed Kasavubu. Lumumba’s supporters in the Congo and abroad were outraged and pledged to support his return to office. In an attempt to avoid civil war, Colonel Joseph Mobutu of the Congolese National Army (CNA) orchestrated a coup d’état on September 14, and ordered the Soviets out of the country. Mobutu’s early efforts to support a pro-Western government and his ties to the military placed him in good stead with Devlin, who informed Mobutu of a plot to assassinate him on September 18. Lumumba, who was blamed for the plot, was arrested and ultimately killed on January 17, 1961.

Over the next four years, as the Republic of the Congo installed a series of prime ministers, the United States repeatedly attempted to create a stable, pro-Western regime through vote buying and financial support for pro-Western candidates. Mobutu also received funds to help him gain the loyalty of the CNA and avoid rebellion in the ranks. Neither effort succeeded in suppressing the apparently endless conflict in the unstable provinces.

Concern over the instability that would occur following the departure of United Nations troops led the Kennedy administration to sign bilateral military agreements with the Republic of the Congo and resulted in a May 1963 visit to Washington by Mobutu, who met with President Kennedy on May 31.

Support for the Congo continued unabated during the Johnson administration. U.S. military assistance increased dramatically in response to the fall of Stanleyville (Kisangani) to rebel forces on August 4, 1964. Planes provided by the Department of Defense, flown by pilots supplied by the Central Intelligence Agency, increased the CNA’s efforts against a progressively robust rebel insurgency, which received support from neighboring African nations, the Soviet bloc and Chinese Communists. The United States also made diplomatic approaches to the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to secure support for the Republic of the Congo.

By late October, the situation in Stanleyville was awful. On October 28, the rebel army commander placed all Westerners in the area (including a number of Americans) under house arrest. Smaller but significant numbers of hostages were held in other cities under rebel control.

A combined U.S.-Belgian effort to rescue the hostages in late November, Operation Dragon Rouge, succeeded but severely damaged Prime Minister Tshombe, who was viewed as ineffectual by both Kasavubu and Mobutu. He was dismissed in October 1965 and once again, the nation teetered on the brink of civil war. Mobutu orchestrated another coup d’état on November 25, 1965, removed both the President and Prime Minister, and took control of the government.

Despite periodic uprisings and unrest, Mobutu ruled the Congo (renamed Zaire in 1971) until the mid-1990s. Viewed as mercurial and occasionally irrational, Mobutu nonetheless proved to be a staunch ally against Communist encroachment in Africa. As such, he received extensive U.S. financial and political support, which increased his stature in much of Sub-Saharan Africa where he often served the interests of administrations from Johnson through Reagan.

The overall program (the largest in the CIA’s history up until then) 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. According to David Robarge, by the time the operations ended, CIA had spent nearly $12 million (over $80 million today) in accom­plishing the Eisenhower. (Robarge para 1)

Some elements of the program, particularly the notorious assassi­nation plot against Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba that was exten­sively recounted in 1975 in one of the Church Committee’s reports, have been described in open sources.

CIA’s program initially focused on removing Lumumba, not only through assassination if necessary but also with a display of nonlethal un­dertakings that showed the Agency’s clear understanding of the Congo’s political dynamics. The activities included contacts with oppositionists who were working to get rid of Lumumba with parliamentary action; payments to army commander Mobutu to ensure the loyalty of key officers and the support of legislative leaders; street demonstrations; and “black” broadcasts from a radio station in nearby Brazzaville, across the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to encourage a revolt against Lumumba.

CIA used an extensive assortment of covert techniques to accomplish that objective:

1. Advice and subsidies to political and tribal leaders.
2. Funds to Mobutu to buy the alle­giances of army officers through salary subsidies and purchases of ordnance and communications and transportation equipment.
3. Payments to agents of influence in the Adoula administration and to sources in the leftist opposition.
4. Parliamentary guiding assisted by covert money.
5. Contacts with labor unions and student associations.
6. Newspaper subsidies, radio broad­casts, leaflet distributions, and street demonstrations.
7. Efforts to influence delegations from the United Nations (UN) to adopt positions that favored the Congolese government.

As Jeffrey Michael suggests, this operation was notable because the CIA's primary function was to prevent the need for the U.S. military to become involved in the situation rather than to enable its intervention.

Work cited page

Robarge, David. CIA’s Covert Operations in the Congo, 1960–1968: Insights from Newly Declassified Documents. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.

"The Congo, Decolonization, and the Cold War, 1960–1965." U.S. Department of State-Office of the Historian. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. <https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/congo-decolonization>.

Michaels, J.H. "Breaking the Rules: The CIA and Counterinsurgency in the Congo 1964-1965." International Journal Of Intelligence And Counterintelligence 25.1 (2012): 130-159. Scopus®. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

Exchange experience sickness

"I am a Rebel"

For those who are not aware, I was recently on an exchange in the United States.

I lived in Oxford, Mississippi for 4 months while I was studying at the University of Mississippi- Ole Miss. This was possible thanks to the U.S. Department of State through an institution called World Learning, they provided me with an scholarship as a consequence of my grades and leadership skills. 

I don't even have to mention how amazing and unforgettable my experience was. However, before going abroad I read a couple of articles regarding "the hard part no one talks about after an exchange experience". I honestly thought it was all drama and overreaction.

 Now I openly say I was mistaken. 

After I came back, I spent two weeks locked down in my room, recovering from the shock of leaving my friends who are now family; family I gained during those 4 months. There is nothing to compare the feeling of leaving someone you love, such as best friends and even the lady who used to serve you lunch everyday. 

At the beginning, after coming back I used to close my eyes and all I could visualize were all the moments I lived during those 4 months, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Vain details crossed my mind, I could remember the smell, the colors and texture of everything I saw and everything I experienced.

Nevertheless, now it's even worst. With my eyes open my brain replays everything over and over non stop. No one told me about this sickness post exchange, about the happiness and pain mix up all together when I THINK about my dorm, my friends, the food, the opportunities.

Now I know that what I read before going abroad is real, it's not someone overreacting, it's just reality.

It has been 4 months since I came back, I miss everyone I met and all the places I visited.  Even though that makes me a little sad, it also makes me happy and gives me the strength to keep moving forward. 

Representing Dominican Republic

As a friend from Moldova says: "I am a lucky bastard."

 Especial thanks to those who made my stay at Ole Miss and United States in general unforgettable, thanks for the memories.

The child's draft

On her article title "Shitty first drafts", Ms. Anne Lamott grants us with a realistic view of the writing world, especially when she says: “Almost all good writing begins with terrible first efforts.” (Par.10)

Reflecting on her words, I find myself along the same lines. As a new member of this world wide communtiy of free writers, I can identify every single characteristic mentioned by Anne. I especially appreciate that she included examples of her daily struggles in her writing.

At this time, I cannot think of anyone who sits in front of their computer or in front of a piece of paper and just writes. It is nearly impossible to not make a mistake and have a rough copy of what it is intended to be the final text.

As the author of Bird by bird says, “All good writers write them” (Par. 1) when referring to drafts. That is why I strongly believe that to be an excellent writer, mistakes and shitty drafts are needed, not only because of the brainstorming of ideas that later become a well written paper, but because as human beings, we usually learn from our errors.

At the end, it is not only about putting words together that sound correctly, but it is about the mere act of writing, which produces some sort of mental satisfaction. That sensation when our feelings are being expressed as words and different emotions in one sentence, is definitely magical. I know it may sound unrealistic, but the truth is that writing is all about emotions, communication and, most importantly, feeling through words.

Taking the above into consideration, I ask myself: What would have happened to human kind without writing? Where can I find the inspiration needed to start the shitty draft? Do people who write only for payment feel the same as I do when they are about to start a paper?

A message of tolerance

On his article, “Bipartisanship isn’t for Wimps, After All”, Authur C. Brooks writes about the polarization influencing the actual primary campaign, and how it affects the progress of the United States both socially and economically. It is interesting when he says: “Polarization — and thus contempt — leads to permanent enmity.” (Para 10)

First, the author focus on the primary campaign but his statements can be transported to the actual presidential campaign. Brooks makes a good point when he states that the presidential primary campaign it is full of nastiness and polarization. He is right. 

However, coming from a conservative person it is definitely a non-bias statement he is making. “Americans are becoming more predictable”, he states, because are either conservative or liberal and being on one end or the other it is not good for a fair and balance political system.

Second, his opinions are backup with statistics from different sources which makes the article more than an opinion based reading. One of his claims is that polarization has led to significant political discrimination against those who have a different ideology. This polarization translates into bigotry and contempt, which on the short and long term influence in Americans to progress.

Third, the author not only brings up the problem but he also provides with solutions to improve the situation, solutions that not only come from his point of view but from Dalai Lama’s opinion, which is a respected figure around the globe. In addition, the goal is to bring people together, make people collaborate to end with bad bipartisanship and therefore with polarization that helps increasing discrimination and intolerance against the opponents.

In conclusion, the proposal is to embrace the “warmheartedness toward those with whom we disagree”(Para 16) Thus, what actions can we adopt on our daily life to practice the warmheartdness? How can we deal with political fanatics who are motivated by anger and intolerance?

Sex workers: the truth behind the most ancient job in the world.

As an Op-Ed contributor of The New York Times, Antonia Crane surprised us with her article "Stop Stealing From Strippers" especially when she says: “Dancing has helped many of us through our adult lives — paying for school, families, fledgling careers as creatives— but it is also exploitative.”(Par. 2)

It is surprisingly amazing the way the author writes about a topic most of the people around the world avoid, yet it is one the most ancient jobs ever. As I have learned, this profession, dislike by many, has been around for a long time and it will certainly be around for many more.

Human beings have, what I call, “the need of entertainment." Which is the necessity to escape from reality and sometimes to find ourselves in another environment, because that make us come closer to who we really are.

Furthermore, Ms. Crane it is right when she writes they are “relegated to the fringes of the workplace”, that is mainly for the dishonors surrounding sex work. (Par.3)

But the truth is, people working as strippers are just that, people. They have families to raise, bills to pay, basic needs to cover and various other expenses that can be add to that list. I totally agree with Crane, because strippers deserve same treatment and attention from the government as regular workers, not only as individuals but because they are tax payers.

When I try to reflect about this Op-Ed in The New York Times only questions come to my mind: Why is it that sex workers still hold a stigma in the 21^st Century? Is it religion one of the main reasons for the stigma? Why has the government not taken action when it comes to strippers?

Analogy theory

Christine Hauser, from the New York Times, on her article titled “‘Buddy Check on 22!’ Veterans Use Social Media to Fight Suicide” writes about the difficulties veterans face after coming back home and how social media influence in the task of keeping in touch and supporting each other through the grey path of depression and suicide thoughts. In addition, it is interesting when the author, referring to two sergeants, writes: “The two men, now thousands of miles apart, had become closer than brothers in Iraq, serving shoulder-to-shoulder under mortar and rocket fire.”

First, the article shows the relation between the number 22 use by the Facebook group ‘Buddy Check on 22’ stating this number is related to the average of veterans per day that had taken their lives by their own hands on 2010. (Para 3) It is frustrating and sad how veterans have to deal with survivor’s guilt, PTSD, depression and other mental illnesses, nevertheless it is encouraging how technology is used to support each other as a family and overcome the difficulties together.

Yet, I do not want to focus on the sadness of suicide or the struggles war veterans have to deal with, but focus on a crazy analogy theory that came to my mind when reading this New York Time’s article and relates to what I am living at the moment as an exchange student. Even though, I understand that being an international student will never be literally compare to be in war.

When students are on exchange, experiencing another culture, learning a new language, making friends and doing things for the first time it is like people who serve in the military; exploring a new territory, trying to understand a new language, surviving from the enemy and confronting situations for the first time. Therefore, all the emotions involved in all those activities are magnified for the simple fact that you are not in your comfort zone, you are not at home.

Once we come back to where we started, to the routine or the familiar environment, it is not comfortable anymore. It becomes a bigger challenge to adapt again to our old life, because all you have lived changed us and the things we left at home are the same but we are not. There is when the problem begins. The struggle is not with the language or with the need to stay alive, now it is with our minds, which is even worst.

However, with the current social media boom we are able to help each other and find support on those who are living the same situation, struggling just like us. Also, this kind of experience brings us closer to the people who are on the same boat, it is a relief to find empathy and rely on those who feel what we feel. It is not easy and if we let our mind win in the worse scenario we may end up literally kill by it.

In conclusion, the experience can be either traumatic, like in war or rewarding, like in an exchange, but both makes us lose our mind once we get back to reality and if we do not have the support from those who lived or are living the same we may lost it completely. Therefore, I ask myself: Is there a way to stop our minds to feel lost after this type of experience? How can we deal with depression post-exchange/post-war? What can we do when support from our fellows is not enough?

Make an impact using creativity

The Op-Doc titled “Games You Can’t Win” by David Osit and Malika Zouhali-Worrall is a multimodal opinion page, where the authors gracefully utilice video and words to tell the story of three different people who created video games to share what they have lived. A transgender woman, a mental illness sufferer and the parents of a child with cancer have chosen computarized games to translate their emotions. From the three stories, the one that impacted me the most was about the parents with the child who had cancer, when they say: “Life pulls us away so quickly that the memory of the people we love fades. This game is a reason for me to talk about Joel even after everyone stopped asking about him” (min 2:54)

Unfortunately, they are right. Society has reached the point where events from yesterday are already forgotten and we, as human beings need to find a way to remember those events, not because we are attached to it but because it is a reminder of how human we are. Furthermore, this is what they do through video games, utilizing their abilities to develop program as a way to transmit their deepest emotions, darkest fears or desires.

Phycologists alwalys say realising or taking out the emotions through conducting methods helps the brain and the body to feel better. A normal person would do it with exercise, playing an instrument or writing the emotions down in paper, however this three people have selected an extraordinary and creative way to show their feelings and the story behind them to the world.

So, I question myself to further things beyond video games: why do we use social media to brag about the things we have instead of using it to make an impact in society? how can we learn to tell our story in a way it can change a person’s point of view?

Life Versus Grades

On his article titled “Malia Obama’s ‘Gap Year’ Is Part of a Growing (and Expensive) Trend”, Mike Mcphate writes about the decision students have to make after graduating from high school whether if it is suitable to take or not a year off from school. Like the author of the article states, for students: “It sounds awfully nice: A yearlong postponement of schoolwork.”

Nowadays, taking a year or a semester off after finishing high school has become popular. Even  the president’s older daughter would be among the thousands of students to take a so-called gap year between high school and college. Students have made of this a trend and like the author writes it is an expensive one, not only in money but in time.

First, the idea of going on an adventure of a life-time before starting college sounds attractive, there is no doubt about it. However, many people still look at this idea with resentment, for example, some parents worry that their children could veer off track academically and never recover. Others like me, think that it is a waste of time and money (if you have to pay for it) because international programs normally cost about $35,000 or more.

Nevertheless, “studies have shown that not only do the students go on to perform better than their non-gap-year classmates, they also tend to end up in more satisfying careers” (Para 5) To be honest, this topic is a dilemma for me because it is necessary to put in a balance traveling or finishing university earlier, self-growing or building a career. It is a conflict: life versus grades.

In addition, if someone ask me for an advice about this topic I will not be sure on what to answer because even though I chose to postpone school for one semester to go on an exchange, I am still not sure if taking a yearlong break is a good idea, mainly because of the time a person is loosing. It is an amazing experience, but it is better to take the gap-year after begining university, either at the end of the freshman year or in sophomore year, that way you can expand your horizons and redefine the focus of your career or your life.

Finally, a lot of questions come to my mind: How can we find balance between traveling and academic life? What techniques can we apply to reach balance between life and career?

Different Worlds, Same Attitude

            The art of persuasion is a talent not everyone can obtain. One may learn how to use it but is never going to be naturally inclined as those who were born to lead others and utilize words as a tool to change people’s minds. So is the case of two much-mentioned figures that, for obvious reasons, have the attention of the media; however, if one thinks about them, they will not ever be put it in the same category, although in this article are view from the same lenses.

In his article titled “Clash of the Populists”, Mr. Ross Douthat successfully writes about how two people from completely different worlds can have the same focus and apply the same techniques to appeal to the public.

            They are the attraction, and we are the spectators. To be honest, we like the show that is presented in this worldwide circus. This is why the author is writing about the topic in first place. The article begins with cynicism, mentioning the books of the Bible (Daniel, Revelation and Necronomicon) which predicts that “the Man in White must do battle with the Combed-Over Titan, amid the ravening shrieks of Twitter and beneath the unblinking eye of Cable News.” (Douthat para 1). Right off the bat it is noticed that the article is not for any kind of audience because the reader needs to have religious background or at least an overall knowledge of what the Bible says to understand its sarcasm. Though, it is noticeable that this article is not read by any kind of audience but for more educated and older generation, interested either in politics or religion, sometimes both. Therefore, the author effectively reaches the audience by providing context and sarcasm at the same time.

However, in the next paragraph, when the author explains the meaning of the ‘joke,’ it does not have the same reach as the original because it lacks of the causticness of the first idea. It is also curious the word choice he makes when referring to the non-religious people as “less mystically inclined” (Douthat para 2), taking into consideration the one who writes the article is conservative, whose focus is mostly on religion. Consequently, by this word choice the article obtains the appearance of a non-biased writing and it accomplishes the mission of being open for readers of all opinions.

Mr. Douthat makes a marvelous transition moving from the sarcasm to a more serious and informative stance, amplifying how the whole drama between the Pope Francis and presidential candidate Donald Trump began. That is when the two of them exchanged insults.  The word the author utilizes is ‘war,’ exaggerating the context to obtain a bigger impact on the reader.

Then he explains the obvious reasons why the two men collided into the drama, highlighting the differences between them: “The celibate and the lecher, the ascetic and the billionaire, the mystic and the frank materialist.” (Douthat para 5) With these examples the author introduce us to the point he wants the reader to understand, which is that even though Trump and Francis may look at first sight like oil and water, they have components in common.

It is fascinating how for every motive Mr. Douthat provides about how the Pope and Trump are so dissimilar, he also gives reasons of why they are also strangely alike. And it is not only because both are world leaders, public figures, media attraction, but because the way they challenge their surroundings and the groups they belong. Therefore, the author catches the attention of the reader by writing accurate and in some sense creative information about the topic.  

The similarities presented in the article are backed up by past events and patterns the subjects (Trump and Francis) have been showing to the spectators. Ross utilizes other sources besides his own opinion, which give him extra points. For example, Matthew Schmitz’s article in The Washington Post, when he writes that “Francis challenges a hidebound Vatican bureaucracy and flirts with revising settled Catholic doctrine” (Schmitz para 5) while Trump “attacks conventional Republican politicians and violates every conservative orthodoxy.” (Schmitz para 6)

In the same line, the presidential candidate refers to their colleagues with words like “liar”, “loser” and in the worst cases “stupid.” The Pope prefers to use “Pharisee” and “whiner,” on the point for this public figure. Plus, both know how to select their targets and the way to address the audience, usually with simple language that appeals to emotions and sensible interesting topics.

On the other hand, Mr. Douthat offers on his article a slight tone of humor, using a common slang phrase generating a familiar colloquial word choice while explaining how much the billionaire and the pontiff like troublemaking to catch the attention of the public and of course, of the media.

After explaining the first idea, differences and similarities between the two individuals, the author changes the line and smartly links it with the fact that “by reaching people who usually tune out churchmen and politicians, they [referring to Trump and The Pope] have become leading populists in our increasingly populist moment.” (Douthat para 9) Therefore, both have the same enemy which according to Ross is the Western’s ruling class. Also, both in its own way provide the spectators with anti-establishment personalities that make them immensely attractive.  

In the last part, the author transmits to the reader a powerful idea: “The populist pope may be remembered as a great reformer, and the populist billionaire as the unlikely catalyst for the Republican Party’s long-delayed reform.” (Douthat para 13).  Pope Francis and Donald Trump, both have changed the preconceived idea that people have about the figure of a pope and a presidential candidate. In addition, Mr. Douthat not only compare the two persons but also reflect on the consequences their actions may have, which give the reader a wider vision of the topic.

In conclusion, the author of “Clash of populists” makes a great job and its outcome is a well written article in which the reader can find a different view of recent events since the piece provides a detailed insight of facts and opinions to support the author’s thesis. Mr. Douthat addresses the issue in a unique and creative way, not only by comparing the pontiff and the presidential candidate but for giving something to analyze to the reader. No one will ever imagine the Pope can be so similar to Donald Trump, for the simple reason they are from different worlds even though they have the same attitude. 

  

  

Work cited page

Douthat, Ross. “Clash of the Populists.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Schmitz, Matthew. “What Donald Trump and Pope Francis actually have in common.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.