CIA and Defectors from USSR, Part One: Project CAMANTILLA: The American Friends of Russian Freedom ©

CIA and Defectors from USSR, Part One: Project CAMANTILLA: The American Friends of Russian Freedom

 

AFRF was set up in 1951 by Reader’s Digest senior editor Eugene Lyons, Albert (Bert) Jolis, and William (Bill Casey). Lyons also was the first president of the American Committee for the Liberation from Bolshevism responsible for Radio Liberation, later Radio Liberty. Jolis was a successful diamond merchant, and Casey was a future CIA Director in the President Reagan administration. According the biography of Casey. Frank R. Barnett directed The New York AFRF office in 1951 and later described AFRF: “The idea was to get Red Army personnel in Berlin and Vienna to desert, to get them papers, find them jobs, resettle them in the West and make propaganda hay out of their defections.”

 

AFRF was primarily supported as a voluntary agency under the U.S. Escapee Program (USEP) directed by the U.S. Department of State that was formed in March 1952.  USEP had two objectives: “(1) to supplement the basic shelter and sustenance provided by refugees by voluntary relief agencies and the countries first giving them asylum and (2) to assist in permanent resettlement of escapees in free countries.” Reportedly, there were over twenty voluntary agencies in the USEP program, including AFRF.

 

In a 1955 Memorandum from the Acting Chief of the International Organization Division to the CIA’s Deputy Director (Plans), AFRF was described as

 

[Active in Europe in assisting, feeding, rehabilitation, and resettling new refugees from the USSR, including the two barracks in Munich…The AFRF receives funds for its European activities from…USEP, and has frequently requested additional support from the Agency (CIA), the American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism, and from private foundations. 

 

In May 1952, Mr. Dulles (Director CIA) requested that the American Committee contribute subsidization it had been granting since June of 191 to AFRF…the subisidy continued until February 1953. 

 

It is our view that no further funds should be granted the AFRF by the Agency directly or through the American Committee. The AFRF is a regular recipient of USEP funds and can and should be overtly supported. It is out understanding that such welfare activities, although beneficial to our covert programs, are not to be covertly supported.

 

In addition to operations in Munich, AFRF also had a field operation in Brussels.

 

How AFRF worked with CIA is detained in a 1964, project renewal exchange messages between CIA East European Division at CIA headquarters to Germany.

 

Headquarters' functions have been and are limited to three routine support activities: 

 

·      our subsidy is routinely channeled to the New York Office through Finance on a quarterly basis; 

·      CAMANTLLLA accountings are routinely forwarded through KUVEST to Finance; and 

·      the Desk maintains occasional contact with the New York Office for administrative and support purposes. In our view, these facts characterize CAMANTILLA as being primarily a field type Project. 

 

The Chief CSB, Frankfurt sent a memo to the Chief East European Division in CIA headquarters for the renewal of the resettlement programs in Frankfurt for fiscal year 1964 that gives gave a detailed description of the activities of AFRF:

 

HARVARD would like to submit the following facts and comments pertaining to the part currently played by CAMANTILLA in connection with the resettlement of KUBARK (CIA) agents and defectors.

 

CAMANTILLA has become more and more the “outside arm” of HARVARD performing those resettlement and rehabilitation tasks, which would be extremely difficult for a KUBARK organization under official cover to handle. By referring to CAMANTILLA as the “outside arm” of HARVARD we mean to convey the fact that CAMANTILLA does not resettle some cases, while HARVARD performs the identical functions for others. While certain particularly sensitive cases may be handled exclusively by the HARVARD case officer, most resettlements are accomplished through the joint efforts of both organizations. 

 

Certain functions, e.g., the setting up of job interviews with West German employers – contacts and correspondence with local housing, medical, educational and welfare organizations – the sponsoring of individuals for immigration to the U.S., etc., can be far more effectively accomplished by a private refugees organization bearing none of the stigma of ODIBEX ** or ODIBEX intelligence. Official stature, on the other hand, facilitates other aspects of resettlement activity. The complimentary relationship between HARVARD and CAMANTILLA (one official and one non-official) provides the highly desirable degree of control and flexibility needed to cope with the often complex problems encountered in rehabilitation work.

 

Of the 62 resettlement cases with which the two HARVARD case officers were involved during the period 1 July 1962 through 30 June 1963, CAMANTILLA provides varying degrees of assistance—in many instances the major portion .. with the resettlement of 41. These 41 cases actually represent 60 individuals when wives and children – many of whom also required employment, schooling and housing .. are added in CAMANTILLA provided help in integrating 25 of these cases into the local economy. 14 were assisted to immigrate to the U.S., one to Canada, and one to South Korea. 11 of these cases immigrating to the U.S. were met by CAMANTILLA’s New York representative and given various types of help, including employment counseling and placement. The breakdown by nationality of the CAMANTILLA assisted cases is as follows:

 

Bulgaria          9

Czech              8

Russian           5

Polish              5

Hungarian      5

Romanian       2

Estonian         1

Albania           1

Lithuanian      1

German           1

Chinese           1

Korean            1

Ukranian        1

 

Without the benefit of CAMANTILLA’s unofficial cover status our resettlement efforts would lose much of their “human welfare warmth” which we fee has contributed much to the success of the defector program.  If the resettlement function is ever placed solely in the hands on an official cover organization, it is likely that resettlement could degenerate to the expedient of a mere monetary “pay off” rather than the providing of sympathetic attention to individuals problems. 

 

Should the USEP program, as some time in the future, be abolished, we recommend that serious thought be given to the possibility of retaining CAMANTILLA (or a similar counterpart) as a “privately endowed” institution. Even though its funding may be only thinly disguised, it is felt that such an organization is essential to the continuance of a useful resettlement program.