282. Despatch From the Embassy in Portugal to the Department of State0

No. 108

SUBJECT

  • Conversation with Dr. Marcello Mathias, Newly Designated Portuguese Foreign Minister

As already reported,1 although Dr. Marcello Mathias, Portuguese Ambassador in Paris, has been selected as the new Foreign Minister, he has not yet taken his oath of office. His plan is to go back to Paris this week to make his official farewells and return here to assume his new duties in the latter part of September. In view of my expected absence from Lisbon at the time of Dr. Mathias’ return, I asked if I could come to see him informally at his home, which I did on the afternoon of the 23rd. Our talk lasted a little over an hour.

Dr. Mathias began by again saying how much he had appreciated the friendly message of greeting from Mr. Dulles.2 He was all the more pleased at the Secretary’s thoughtfulness since, although he had once met him in a large group, he had never really had the opportunity of knowing him. He said he had long recognized the Secretary as a man of great physical and moral courage, as well as strength of will, and spoke admiringly of the manner in which, despite a serious operation, he continued without any sign of let-up to carry the heaviest responsibilities. He looked forward with keen anticipation to getting to know the Secretary better and working with him, particularly in NATO.

Dr. Mathias then said he wished to make clear his own firm belief in the vital role of the United States in these troubled times. He had no doubt whatever that without us the Western cause was lost and he was [Page 626] determined to cooperate with us in every possible way. However, the fact that we were the corner stone of the alliance also meant greater responsibilities for us. He said that when he, as Portuguese Foreign Minister, made a mistake it would not be fatal to the West, but when we made one the whole free world suffered. This placed on us the necessity of weighing our words and actions with the greatest care since we could not afford to make the slightest slip.

From this he went on to a discussion of the state of NATO which he found very bad and which, he said, had been the main subject of the conversations just concluded here with M. Louis Joxe, Secretary General of the Quai d’Orsay. The Portuguese shared the view of the French that the NATO base was now “too thin”, the original concept having been rendered out-of-date by new weapons developments and the change of Soviet tactics. When NATO was founded there was a real fear of a Russian attack on Western Europe; now the Soviet threat to Europe was by way of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. NATO needed to take cognizance of and adapt itself to this change. When I asked if detailed suggestions to this end had been touched on in the conversations with M. Joxe I was told that only “broad principles” had been discussed.

With respect to France, Mathias clearly showed his deep affection and admiration for that country. He also indicated his firm belief that if the De Gaulle experiment failed NATO would be doomed, since he then anticipated the return to power of such men as Mendes-France, Jules Moch and Mitterand, for whom he had the greatest distrust.

He expressed himself as appalled at the breadth (but not the depth) of anti-American sentiment in France, for which he put the blame on the “ineptitude of American propaganda” and the “lack of unified direction”. He thought we had too many people there whose activities were uncoordinated. Italy, he felt, was also very weak and, were it not for the stabilizing influence of the Catholic Church, would give us “some very disagreeable surprises”. Even the Turks, he thought, were beginning to have second thoughts about NATO and to ask themselves “What is there in it for us?”

While he spoke “more in sorrow than in anger”, Dr. Mathias made clear he felt American policy had been largely responsible for many of the setbacks which the Western world had suffered since the last war, notably the loss of China and the situation in Indonesia, the Near East and North Africa. With regard to Africa in general he reiterated the thought, often expressed by his predecessor3 and Dr. Salazar, that the continent is an extension of Europe without which Europe cannot live. He spoke of the constantly growing pressure of India on East Africa, [Page 627] particularly in Madagascar, and of Islam. He had given particular study to the writings of Lenin on the subject of Black Africa and stressed the latter’s belief that the revolution of the Blacks in that continent would make the October Revolution pale by contrast. He was particularly worried about the steady growth of neutralism in Morocco and had grave doubts about the ability of the Sultan and Balafrej4 to combat it.

All the above led Mathias back to his main point which he stressed with great vigor and which clearly revealed what the Portuguese have in mind when they talk of “broadening the NATO base”. He said that if the West is to be saved “the United States must choose. It cannot have one policy north of the 42nd parallel and another south of it.”

Turning to the domestic scene, Mathias spoke bitterly about the recent election campaign and the candidacy of General Humberto Delgado. His remarks displayed a deep contempt for public opinion and he expressed the extraordinary view that both prior to and since the election the people were completely quiet and satisfied. Only when demagogues had been allowed to excite them had there been trouble. Normally the people were apathetic and government should remain the concern of only those who wield power. He went on to say, however, that he himself had never joined the Uniao Nacional or any other off-shoot of the regime. He wanted me to know this so that I could always feel free to discuss any problem with him.

Comment:

As will be seen from the above, Dr. Mathias’ views on the world today do not differ from those of Dr. Salazar (with whom he is very close) and of his immediate predecessor, Dr. Paulo Cunha. Nor do his views on the domestic scene, despite his expressed lack of identification with the regime, show anything but the most extreme right-wing coloration. However, the difference between him and Dr. Cunha is marked and while we may expect no changes in policy as a result of his taking over the post of Foreign Minister we will have the advantage of dealing with a man who can be expected to deal with us with considerably more candor and with a greater “feeling” for NATO and the importance of trying to work with the United States.

For despite the critical opinions expressed in our first talk I had the strong impression that he is innately friendly and, with the exception of problems where a basic difference of opinion on policy exists, will do his best to support us in our leadership of the Western alliance. Unlike his predecessor he will not, I believe, oppose us in small matters for the fun of sticking pins in us. The man is obviously in his prime, both physically [Page 628] and mentally, and in spite of his protestations about not wanting the job he gives every indication of approaching it with vigor and enthusiasm. There is already a noticeable atmosphere of relief in the Foreign Office, where for over a year it has been next to impossible to obtain decisions, even on important questions, without interminable delays. Those days, it is hoped, are now over and the carrying on of day-to-day business between the Foreign Office and the foreign diplomatic missions here should be much accelerated.

James Bonbright
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 753.00/8–2558. Confidential.
  2. Following the Portuguese national elections on June 8, Mathias informed the Embassy in Lisbon that he would be the new Foreign Minister. (Telegram 44 from Lisbon, August 15; ibid., 753.13/8–1258)
  3. Not further identified. Presumably Dulles wrote to Mathias congratulating him on his new position.
  4. Paulo Cunha.
  5. Ahmed Balafrej, Moroccan Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.