Murdering Patrice Lumumba

Having recently read and posted about the letters, writing and speeches of Patrice Lumumba, I was looking forward the book by Gerard and Kuklick (2015), published by Harvard, titled "Death in the Congo: Murdering Patrice Lumumba". While it was well researched and interesting, it was a different book than what I was expecting, and I finished reading thinking that another book needs to be written (or maybe has been written?) that puts the Lumumba at the center, rather than others at the center in their efforts against him. The book outlines a wide array of actors seeking to murder Lumumba, with the Belgians and the CIA taking the lead, the authors end with this: "… the West could not conceive a stand-alone African state akin to European countries in its economic and political capabilities. Lumumba aspired to a greatness the West would not abide." (p. 217)

Other notes:

"The pro-Western United Nations had large debts to the United States, and in addition the United States would pay for much of the Congo operation of the UN. Its leadership regularly consulted not only with the US delegation to the United Nations in New York, but also with American diplomats in Washington. The peacekeepers would do whatever fighting had to be undertaken, and many of the African nations who contributed troops received training courtesy of the United States and purchased military equipment at a discount. More or less at American bidding, the United Nations might dampen the conflict in the just-born nation. The Americans soon had an understanding that Secretary-General Hammarskjöld would contain Lumumba." (p. 57)

"The Belgians advised Kasa-Vubu about what they considered a coup d'état, but Kasa-Vubu used the UN to carry it out. In the aftermath of Kasa-Vubu's radio performance, the Belgians thanked the Americans for egging on Hammarskjöld, yet while Washington supported the coup, it did not intervene as had Belgium. The UN led the way, although Hammarskjöld did discuss his outlook with the Americans and presumed himself in concert with them. Whether Cordier's throwing his weight around was good or bad, the UN violated its mandate, and meant to overturn Lumumba. Hammarskjöld had written that the prime minister must be "forced to constitutionality"; then the secretary-general had pushed Lumumba out of office by unconstitutional means." (p. 103)

"After Washington decided to assassinate, Devlin made eight separate suggestions over a three-week period on how the Americans might accomplish the murder, and he enlisted other to help." (p. 151)

"Eyskens warned: "In the actual state of things, it is necessary to contemplate the eventual return of Lumumba." This fear may have inspired another murder attempt. A Greek called "Georges" arrived in Brazzaville, probably in the beginning of November. Belgians in Brussels had hired him to kill Lumumba at his residence." (p. 175)

"On the tenth day Lumumba, Mpolo, and Okito rose from the dead a last time. Soete unearthed the cadavers and then used a hacksaw to sever the extremities—arms, legs, heads—from the three decaying carcasses. Soete wore a mask and gloves, and drank a lot. Three upper bodies remained. The lawman repeatedly refilled the the barrel with acid. Like the extremities, the torsos were small enough so that the grave robber could throw the chunks of rotting flesh into the vat and have them eaten away. But there was not enough acid, and flesh and bones that had not been obliterated had to be burned, although Soete held on to a few keepsakes like teeth. The butchering took two days and nights." (p. 208)

  135 Hits
135 Hits

Foreign Intervention in Africa – The Colonial Legacy

Elizabeth Schmidt is a professor of history at Loyola University. The following thought provoking quotes are taken from her 2013 book "Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror."

The context:

  • "For many outsiders, the word Africa conjures up images of a continent in crisis, riddled with war and corruption, imploding from disease and starvation. Africans are regularly blamed for their plight. They are frequently viewed as being intolerant of ethnic and religious differences but accepting of corruption and dictatorship. They are often presumed to be unwilling or unable to govern themselves. This book challenges such popular myths. By examining the historical roots of contemporary problems, the book demonstrates that many of the predicaments that plague the continent today are not solely the result of African decisions but also the consequences of foreign intrusion into African affairs." (1)

On Economics:

  • "Although this book focuses upon foreign political and military intervention in Africa, the problems that plague Africa today cannot be properly understood if the impact of foreign intrusion into African economies is ignored. Unequal exchange between African commodity producers and industrialized countries is a legacy of the colonial era that has contributed to the deep impoverishment of African populations. The inequality inherent in these economic relationships persisted after political independence in a system that has been characterized as neocolonialism. In the words of Ghana's first president, Kwame Nkrumah, neocolonial states had "all the outward trappings of international sovereignty," while their economies and political programs were "directed from outside." (9)

On the colonial legacy:

  • "Strategically placed Belgian administrators would remain in the Congo after independence, along with 1,000 Belgian officers commanding the 25,000-man Congolese army. Although the new political officeholders would be Congolese, power would remain in Belgian hands. The interests of the United States, the dominant Cold War power, were largely compatible with these objectives. The Eisenhower administration supported the installation of a government friendly to its NATO ally and one that would guarantee the continued exploitation of Katanga minerals for Western benefit." (58-59)
  • "Britain and France responded as old-style imperial powers. Threatened by Nasser's approach to decolonization, they were determined to overthrow him. Britain worried about the vulnerability of its royal protégés and its enormous investments in the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, whereas France was concerned about Nasser's support for nationalists who were fighting an independence war in Algeria and his growing influence in other parts of Francophone Africa. Britain and France thus initiated plans for a military attack. For this attack they enlisted the support of Israel, which was motivated by its own regional concerns. The United States, in contrast, saw the conflict as one rooted in the Cold War. In Washington's view, the refusal of Western powers to embark on programs of decolonization played into Soviet hands. Moreover, any threat to Egypt would strain relations with Arab countries and jeopardize American access to oil." (40)
  • "In Madagascar, French troops, eventually numbering 30,000, waged a brutal counteroffensive. Employing scorched-earth tactics, they bombed villages, burned fields, and killed livestock. Untold numbers of civilians were tortured, mutilated, and slaughtered. By the time the insurrection ended in November 1948, some 90,000 Malagasies – approximately 2 percent of the population – had died as a result of violence, hunger, and disease." (170)
  • "Between 1890 and 1941, Eritrea was an Italian colony. Following Italy's defeat by Britain and its allies in the 1940-41 East Africa Campaign, Eritrea became a British protectorate. When World War II ended, the UN was charged with disposing of Italy's African colonies. It determined that Libya and Somaliland would be granted independence, while Eritrea would be joined in a federation with Ethiopia, despite significant popular sentient in Eritrea for independence. Although the Soviet Union, a number of Arab states, and other UN members also favored Eritrean independence, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles argued that American strategic interests took precedence over Eritrean popular opinion. In consequence, no referendum was held." (157)

Assassination and Coup d'état:

  • "To implement the final assassination plan, high-level Belgian officers ordered Lumumba's transfer to Katanga, where he would be turned over to his enemies. Brussels was concerns that the incoming Kennedy administration might be more sympathetic to Lumumba than the Eisenhower administration, which has instigated plans for his assassination. Hence, Belgian military and intelligence advisors, with CIA connivance, pressed Mobutu to surrender Lumumba to Moise Tshombe's secessionist forces, who had vowed to kill him. On January 17, 1961, three days before Kennedy's inauguration, Lumumba was brutally tortured and executed at the hands of Tshombe's men – in the presence of Belgian officers who commanded the secessionist army and where under the authority of the Belgian Defense Ministry." (64-65)
  613 Hits
613 Hits
Subscribe to receive new blog posts via email