Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada

343. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

SET/MC/46

Lisbon, June 28, 1962, 11:30 a.m.–1:25 p.m.

SECRETARY’S EUROPEAN TRIP

(June 18–28, 1962)

PARTICIPANTS

• United States:
  • The Secretary of State, Dean Rusk
  • Ambassador Elbrick
  • Counselor Xanthaky (interpreter)
• Portugal:
  • Dr. Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, President of the Council of Ministers
  • Dr. Jose Manuel Fragoso, Director General, Political Affairs, Foreign Office

SUBJECT

• Portuguese-American Relations

[Here follows discussion of East-West relations, Berlin, and Laos.]

The Secretary then turned to bilateral problems, stating that the United States had always considered itself a friend of Portugal and wished to continue on this basis its relations between the two countries. He was aware that in the last year or so certain difficulties and misunderstandings had arisen. The Prime Minister inquired whether in fact these were misunderstandings. The Secretary replied that he was not sure on this point and therefore believed it important to review the present state of our relations. He had talked to the Foreign Minister, Dr. Franco Nogueira, as to the possibility of the two countries recognizing the advantages of a joint “tour d’horizon” on a systematic basis.¹ He believed that three points would then become clear, i.e., 1) the degree of agreement on many subjects on which we can continue to cooperate closely; 2) some unnecessary misunderstandings which would become identified in frank conversation and subsequently eliminated; and 3) some points of disagreement which may be singled out and identified better as a result of frank conversation than they have up to the present time. This would be done with the idea of managing them without their affecting the general relations between the two countries.

Concerning point number three, the Secretary stated that the accomplishments of Portugal in Angola, the reforms, the economic and social development plans, and cooperation with specialized agencies of the United Nations such as ILO and WHO, and the recent declarations of Ambassador Teotonio Pereira, would seem to indicate that Portugal does not object to the principle of self-determination although insisting that this must come about by internal evolution and not due to external pressure. All of this seems to indicate that the gap is not as great as one might believe.

Dr. Salazar interrupted the Secretary to inquire whether he was aware of the real significance of the expression “internal self-determination” as used by Ambassador Teotonio Pereira. The Secretary replied that that was exactly one of the points which he would like to clarify. In questions of that nature among nations having well established historical traditions, although different, different points of view will probably prevail. He believed, however, that there were certain points of friction which could be eliminated. For example, it is not the objective of the policy of the United States to see Portugal removed from Africa or substitute the United States in the Portuguese possessions. Dr. Salazar expressed the opinion that such expressions were not entirely clear, since the practical results of the policy the US does follow may entail the removal of Portugal.

The Secretary observed that although the American people were attached to the tradition of self-determination, the American Government has not made a crusade of this. He reminded Salazar that the United States had never requested the inscription on the United Nations agenda of any problem of this nature. If the question of Angola had never been raised in the United Nations it certainly would have been more convenient for the United States. This was an observation which he believed important. The United States is confronted with problems which are not of its own making. As to how these problems should be handled in the United Nations, he agreed that there had been differences and it was this subject that he wished to discuss in a more detailed fashion with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary said that we had worked hard to moderate the handling of certain questions affecting Portugal in the UN with prejudice to our own political position. The results obtained have not given satisfaction to Portugal but he could assure that the situation would have been much worse without American efforts. The Secretary believed it was important that there was a growing sentiment of moderation in the UN even among those who had formerly taken extreme views. As an example he cited the UAM group and Nigeria, who are preoccupied with the possibility of a situation of chaos and violence continuing on the African continent. The Secretary believed that this moderating tendency would soon carry weight.

The Secretary also commented that it did not appear to him that the Portuguese cause had always been well presented. This was principally because the Portuguese Government refused to accept the jurisdiction of the United Nations with respect to Article 73 of the Charter. Thus the debates were based half on ignorance and half on knowledge. He believed that the Portuguese decision to have recourse to the specialized agencies of the United Nations would serve to help the Portuguese cause in the future. In his conversations with the Foreign Minister he had endeavored to become better acquainted with the real Portuguese position on furnishing information.

Dr. Salazar then inquired whether the United States believed that the international treaty which set up the United Nations should be changed at the will or desire of the General Assembly. He asserted that at times the United Nations takes decisions based on new interpretations of the Charter without these new interpretations having been debated. The Secretary recalled that in the course of the debates leading to certain resolutions, interpretations of the text of the Charter were discussed. Continuing, the Secretary confirmed that while there had been different points of view between the two countries on the subject of submitting information to the UN, he was encouraged by his conversation with the Foreign Minister because he saw that in this field much depended on interpretations of terminology. On the other hand there had been small points of misunderstanding or the allegation of certain incidents. If we could discuss these on a basis of confidence it was probable that incidents a, b or c would not correspond to the truth. It might also happen in connection with incident b, error would be admitted. For example, he did not know that among diplomatic couriers sent to Angola one was not really a courier, and he immediately put a stop to this. He believed it was important that we should not become involved in fighting against shadows and he could assure that, faced with concrete complaints, everything would be done to eliminate the cause.

The Secretary said Dr. Franco Nogueira had told him of his conviction that our differences were not in matters of substance but more as to methods and techniques. In the light of what the Secretary had said regarding American intentions toward the Portuguese presence in Africa, he believed that the two countries in the ensuing weeks could undertake frank conversations with a view to clarifying one by one the points of friction. As a member of the United States Government he could not deny the principles on which our country was constructed. They are the same which enable us to confront the Soviet Union today in the name of the free world and they are the same with which we are confronting the racial problem in the United States. But in the last 18 months we have seen a tendency on the part of Portugal with respect to Angola which we believe is very constructive: the reforms, the Regedoria elections, the economic and social development programs, and the desire to open up Angola to those that wish to see and obtain information. All of this reduces the gap existing between our two policies. The Secretary repeated that the United States wishes to march with Portugal as a friend. He said Portugal is not considered as a satellite of America and we do not wish to be a satellite of Portugal. The Secretary remarked that if we tackled our problems as friends we may find here and there a stubborn pocket of resistance but not an irreducible one. He mentioned that he was in the State Department when NATO was created and had worked with General Marshall and Mr. Acheson and Mr. Lovett and that the development of the recent misunderstanding and difficulties between us had caused him pain. He was confident, however, that if we entered into frank discussions our troubles will be overcome although he admitted that it may not be possible to overcome them all. What was essential, however, was good will and understanding on both sides. In such an atmosphere we should manage to settle our disputes. Dr. Salazar inquired of the Secretary whether he did not think he was being too optimistic. The Secretary replied that it was the obligation of a representative of an allied government to proceed with optimism. “Even when the results are not encouraging?” questioned the Prime Minister. The Secretary assured Dr. Salazar of his belief that the results will be good.

Returning to the question of Angola, the Secretary expressed the opinion that with the programs in course, Portugal could state that what she was undertaking was what the people of Angola desired and supported. This, in the knowledge that there are always those who desire more. The Secretary remarked that although there may be differences between us, there was a wide field of understanding in the practical course of our affairs. Because of this he believed that there is a great advantage in continuing systematic conversations here and in Washington. Dr. Salazar agreed entirely, explaining that there were certainly many pending problems and added that we should not waste our time with problems of the past. The Secretary thanked the Prime Minister for these views and stated that the United States was prepared to go forward, with no idea of influencing or bringing pressure upon Portugal, in the field of social and economic development in metropolitan Portugal as well as in the overseas, adding that we were ready to discuss these matters as they came to the mind of the Portuguese Government. The Secretary explained that US cooperation might be more easy on some points than on others. With respect to the problem of education in Africa, for example, it would be difficult for us to surmount the language problem but if Portugal has a lack of teaching personnel perhaps the Brazilians could cooperate, since they are also greatly interested in defending Lusitanian culture in Africa.

Dr. Salazar observed that this Brazilian interest did not mean that their interest was identical with that of Portugal in respect to Africa. Brazil is especially interested in Angola as that territory was reconquered from the Dutch with forces coming from Brazil after the Portuguese War of Restoration in the 17th century. Brazil therefore has a “moral” interest in Angola. The Secretary clarified that he had never been under the impression that there was any nationalistic interest in Africa on the part of the Brazilians. As he saw it that interest springs from Brazil’s desire to avoid any reduction of Portugal’s influence in Africa. Dr. Salazar agreed with this thesis and stated that at a certain moment Brazil thought it could be an intermediary between the West and the new African countries. He believed, however, that the doors of Africa only open to Brazil in exactly that part of Africa which is Portuguese and as a consequence of the existence of the Luso-Brazilian community. That was a much easier door than those of the small independent countries.

Continuing, the Prime Minister commented on the Secretary’s allusion to the possibility of Portugal obtaining Brazilian technicians and teachers and expressed the opinion that this would not be easy since Brazil will be needing all of these for her own development for many years to come. Dr. Salazar stated, however, that Portugal would attempt to resolve that problem once it has the means to carry out an overall plan. With respect to the Secretary’s statement that the United States had manifested a desire to help Portugal if a way could be found, Dr. Salazar agreed that this assistance could have taken place. He remarked that when Ambassador Elbrick had presented this idea sometime ago, educational and highway plans for Angola and Mozambique had been drawn up. It had been the intention to submit these to the American Government for consideration but when they were preparing to do so a policy took shape in the American Delegation in the United Nations with respect to Angola which was clearly contrary to Portugal. Portugal therefore believed that the offer for assistance envisaged the same aims as that policy: the expulsion of the Portuguese from Africa and under such circumstances it would not have been decent to present plans to the United States.

The Secretary declared once more that the two countries should consider all these problems. He had spoken to the Foreign Minister in order to see how this could be worked out in practice. If the two countries could place these problems on a plane of cooperation and trust it would be a great relief to both parties.

Dr. Salazar thanked the Secretary very cordially for his visit and said he regretted exceedingly that he could not remain here a few days longer.

0. Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 65 D 533, CF 2123. Secret; Eyes Only. Drafted and initialed by Xanthaky and approved in S on July 5. The meeting was held in Dr. Salazar’s office in the National Assembly Building.
1. In conversations at 11 p.m. on June 27 and at 9:55 a.m. on June 28 Rusk and Nogueira went over much the same ground that Rusk and Salazar did in this conversation. (SET/MC/44 and 45; ibid.) In commenting on the state of Portuguese-American relations, Nogueira told Rusk that he could not conceal the “gravity and seriousness” of the present state of affairs. (SET/MC/44)