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

348. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

Washington, October 24, 1962.

SUBJECT

• Portuguese Negotiations

PARTICIPANTS

• United States
  • Mr. William R. Tyler, EUR
  • Ambassador C. Burke Elbrick
  • Mr. Francis E. Meloy, Jr. WE
• Portuguese
  • Foreign Minister Franco Nogueira
  • Ambassador Theotonio Pereira
  • Mr. Jose de Meneses Rosa, Counselor

Mr. Tyler asked Ambassador Elbrick if there were any points he would like to make at the beginning of the conversation.

Ambassador Elbrick said that in the preliminary conversation with the Secretary upstairs¹ the subject of the Portuguese list had been broached. He could assure the Foreign Minister that the list had been most carefully considered here by many officials as well as by the Secretary himself. We would hope to be able to cover the list thoroughly both here and in Lisbon. As the Secretary had said, however, Portugal has included on the list past problems which we feel have been covered in Lisbon, in Athens in a conversation between the Secretary and the Foreign Minister, and here in Washington. We do not believe a purpose would be served in going over these same points here and now. Further certain points were raised on the Portuguese list on which we feel we can not be any more responsive than we have been for legal and constitutional reasons. We would like to be as thorough as possible without going over past problems, where we can not be more helpful.

The Foreign Minister asked what sort of problems did the Ambassador mean. Mr. Tyler pointed out that we had in mind such items as the charge that the U.S. attitude on the problem of refugees in the Congo was instrumental in preventing them from returning to Angola. Full facts as to our part in Angolan refugee relief were fully explained in writing in Lisbon after the Foreign Minister returned from Athens where he had raised this question with the Secretary. Further we had in mind the concern of Portugal over views expressed or alleged to have been expressed by Governor Williams and other U.S. officials. We have already given the Government of Portugal a full and accurate account of what Governor Williams said at stops during his European trip. There is nothing more we can add. In general we doubt that it is useful to discuss matters where there is no reciprocity. We do not intend to monitor statements of Portuguese officials regarding the United States and protest any that do not appear friendly or any that do not meet our approval and the Government of Portugal can not expect us to accept the protests which it registers regarding statements by U.S. officials. We have tried to set matters straight and we do not feel we can add much more.

Mr. Tyler continued that with regard to visits to the United States by terrorist chiefs, the Government of Portugal must bear in mind that we have certain responsibilities as the host nation to the United Nations. Admission of an individual to the United States does not necessarily constitute U.S. Government approval of the individual or support for his principles, views, or actions. Such admission in short does not constitute U.S. Government endorsement or support. We would hope for understanding by Portugal of the situation in which we are even though Portugal does not agree with what we do. Mr. Tyler pointed out that the United States has attempted to be helpful in connection with the Galvao affair although it was important to remember that there were legal complexities in this problem which made it possible for us to keep Galvao from coming to the U.S.

The Foreign Minister said when Portugal raised these points they did not intend to indulge in a display of resentment or recrimination. Instead they wished to see if we can find a basis for cooperation and agreement. Having taken certain positions which Portugal considered harmful to her interests, they wanted to see if the U.S. Government were disposed to change its attitude. He said he perfectly well understood the legal and constitutional limitations on the U.S. Government but Portugal is not satisfied that the U.S. Government has exhausted the legal and constitutional means available to it to control the activities of groups and individuals. In particular, there is the U.S. attitude toward Angolan refugees in the Congo.

It is true that Portuguese officials may have made statements displeasing to the United States but it is not the Portuguese Government and people who are guilty of carrying out policies detrimental to the vital interests of the United States. It is rather the United States which is carrying out policies harmful to the vital interests of Portugal. The Foreign Minister did not think that reciprocity was involved. The United States should bear in mind that what it says and does is so important that it carries great weight throughout the world.

The Foreign Minister said he recognized the obligations of the U.S. with regard to the UN but he would like to make certain points on which he would expect Mr. Tyler to comment. He must point out that not only did the United States allow these people to enter the U.S. but they were in contact with members of the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations, they were received by high U.S. officials, they were permitted to establish offices in the United States and were allowed to receive support.

With regard to the American Committee on Africa, Portugal does expect reciprocity. Recently the U.S. asked its allies for solidarity on the Cuban shipping problem. It is only right and proper that the allies of the United States should give this solidarity and full support would be given to the United States by Portugal. On the other hand, however, when the American Committee on Africa sent two members clandestinely to Africa who entered Angola without visas and without official permission who then submitted a report highly detrimental to Portugal and were thereafter appointed to high advisory positions with the U.S. Government, the U.S. can not expect the Portuguese Government to be pleased. If U.S. position is that it can not be any more responsive than in the past on such matters as these, a serious issue is raised and the Foreign Minister would have to be more explicit than in the past as to the effect of this attitude on U.S.-Portuguese relations. He would like Mr. Tyler to comment.

Mr. Tyler said he believed the Foreign Minister was under a misapprehension. Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Africa was not a high government appointment nor did it give the individual concerned an official position with the government.

The Foreign Minister asked if the U.S. feels a special responsibility for refugees throughout the world or just in the Congo. Mr. Tyler replied that the United States has an interest in refugees and we have been very active in refugee relief through such organizations as the UN and the International Red Cross. The Foreign Minister rejoined that the Red Cross was ready to let the Angolan refugees in the Congo go back to Angola but U.S. groups intervened at this moment with assistance to the refugees which encouraged them to remain in the Congo. Ambassador Elbrick pointed out that there was no direct U.S. Government aid to the Angolan refugees in the Congo.

Mr. Tyler said that with regard to the question of Holden Roberto’s reception by U.S. officials, the United States in an effort to accommodate the Government of Portugal will not receive Roberto at our UN Mission in New York and officials of our UN Mission will not seek him out for conversations. Roberto furthermore will not be received at the Department of State. We would not change this practice without first notifying the Government of Portugal that we are doing so. Mr. Tyler said he hoped that the Foreign Minister would realize that in giving this assurance we are making an effort to meet Portuguese problems. The Foreign Minister rejoined by asking if this really required a great effort on the part of the United States. Mr. Tyler replied with emphasis that this indeed required an effort on the part of the United States Government since such a procedure is contrary to our general practice.

Franco Nogueira said what about Holden Roberto’s activities in this country, establishing an office and printing propaganda? Was the United States Government prepared to do anything about that? Mr. Tyler replied that so long as Holden Roberto does not violate the United States law there is nothing the United States can do.

Ambassador Elbrick pointed out that a previous reference by the Foreign Minister to Holden Roberto’s travelling on a false passport did not correspond with the facts. Holden Roberto has come to this country only on a passport officially issued to him by another Government. Mr. Tyler pointed out that if Holden Roberto were traveling on fraudulent papers, he would not have been admitted to this country.

Mr. Tyler said it was clear that the United States and Portugal have certain differences and have different views on how to reach the same goals. We should not gloss over this fact. The U.S. position has not been taken lightheartedly and we have not casually and thoughtlessly taken positions which are not pleasing to Portugal. Our U.S. positions have been taken because they conform to basic convictions and principles held by this country. In spite of our differences and within the limitations set by these differences we wish to work as closely as possible with Portugal. We are not working against Portugal but do what we deeply believe is best for all of us. We want to find a basis even with our differences for cooperation as allies and old friends. Franco Nogueira said Portugal deeply desires to have the most cordial and friendly relations with the United States and believes that its past performance has shown this. The best judge of the vital interests of the United States is the United States. The same is true for Portugal and Portugal is the sole judge of what is best for Portugal The question is how to harmonize these views. If the U.S. Government pursues a policy hostile to Portuguese vital interests (and Portugal is the only judge as to what its vital interest may be), what does the U.S. expect of Portugal?

Mr. Tyler said that the issues here are greater than either the U.S. or Portugal can control or influence. We believe that forces are at work in the world beyond the control of either of us. We are not working against Portugal. We would hope that if the Portuguese do not like our policies they would still understand we are not against the vital interests of Portugal but would hope the result of our policies would preserve the interests of all.

Franco Nogueira said that only Portugal can decide its vital interests. What is happening in Africa must be seen in a global context. We have already seen in the Cuban crisis the extent of the Communist threat. We can not separate these elements.

The Foreign Minister said he had been told by Ambassador Elbrick and by the Secretary that U.S. policy is to see that Portuguese presence and influence should be maintained in Africa. Portugal has never been told, however, how the U.S. expects to achieve this end. When Portugal acts in the light of what it considers to be its own vital interests, the United States does not seem to agree with Portuguese policies. What does the United States suggest?

Mr. Tyler pointed out that the Portuguese Government has in the past year undertaken far-reaching reforms. The Government of Portugal had been vindicated by the report of the ILO Committee which visited Angola. It seems to us the more Portugal opens up to the rest of the world and to the UN what it is doing in its African territories, the better its position is. We praised Portuguese reforms at the time they were announced and since as steps in the right direction. We continued to believe progress along this line provides the best assurance for a continuing constructive Portuguese position in Africa.

Mr. Tyler said that he did not wish to minimize what Portugal has done but there appears to be almost a difference of scale. The presence here in the United States of people who are anathema to Portugal or statements by individuals which are displeasing to Portugal are in U.S. terms explicable and understandable to us. These isolated irritations do not symbolize the attitude of the U.S. toward Portugal or its problems, or the efforts that Portugal is making. We laud and praise progressive steps Portugal is taking. We are with Portugal and sympathize with Portugal to the extent of the efforts Portugal is making to meet the problems created by the aspirations of the peoples of Africa. Portugal has taken far-reaching steps already. We would hope she would continue this course.

The Foreign Minister returned to the subject of Angolan refugees in the Congo. He said he believed about 190,000 to 200,000 refugees were present in the Congo. Approximately 90,000 had returned to Angola when at this point U.S. organizations intervened with aid and thus stopped the return of the rest. The refugees know they can return without reprisal. They fled only to escape terrorists. They are now being used by Roberto and by others against Portugal. The Foreign Minister did not believe the U.S. has any responsibility to help these refugees. It should not harm the U.S. position to stop aid to these refugees. Ambassador Elbrick pointed out that such aid as went from the U.S. to these refugees was not unilateral and was given in response to an appeal from an international organization.

Franco Nogueira said it is a well known fact that the U.S. is deeply involved in the Congo; that the U.S. is behind the UN forces in the Congo; that the U.S. is behind the Congo administration; and that the UN forces in the Congo are largely supported by the U.S. The Congo Government has established a base for the training of terrorists near the Angolan border. The U.S. should say to Adoula, “Stop” or the U.S. should say publicly that it does not approve. The silence of the U.S. is a matter of great surprise to the Portuguese Government. This silence is one of the “irritants” to U.S.-Portuguese relations. The Foreign Minister did not believe that the U.S. silence had anything to do with the principles to which Mr. Tyler had previously referred. Mr. Tyler replied that it is true we have a great stake in the Congo but this is a stake for the free world not for the U.S. alone. However, we do not have absolute power in the Congo. Moreover, the United States Government has spoken to Adoula about this camp.

The Foreign Minister said that the conversation so far had developed certain positive facts and certain negative facts. He wondered tentatively if it would not be a good thing to have a written statement from the United States Government regarding the positive facts. Regarding Portuguese presence and influence in Africa, he said he seemed to detect that the U.S. feels we can pursue a cooperative policy. Couldn’t the U.S. say so publicly? The Foreign Minister stressed that this was not a formal request—that he was merely raising the point. He understood that the United States approves a policy of reforms by the Portuguese Government and also approves Portuguese cooperation with the ILO and other international organizations. With regard to the UN, the Foreign Minister said he understood the U.S. respect for the UN but Portugal attaches less importance to this organization. The trend seems to be substantiating the Portuguese view.

Ambassador Elbrick referred to the fact that the Committee of Seventeen had produced such an extreme resolution that the United States had not been able to go along with it. Franco Nogueira replied that he had not underestimated the value of this U.S. attitude toward Portugal but to be helpful such an attitude must be a more permanent part of U.S. policy.

The Foreign Minister asked if the United States had added any subjects to the list which he had given Ambassador Elbrick in Lisbon?

Both Mr. Tyler and Ambassador Elbrick said that we had added nothing and Ambassador Elbrick commented that the list appeared long enough to us as it was. Franco Nogueira said that he was not at all sure that the list was long enough and that he personally had deleted a number of items before handing it to Ambassador Elbrick. Ambassador Elbrick said that if the Foreign Minister were inclined to delete items perhaps this was a hopeful sign. The Foreign Minister said that Mr. Tyler had referred to the free world. Portugal wants to support the free world but if the free world exists only to destroy Portugal, the Portuguese would feel differently.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 033.5311/10–2462. Secret. Drafted by Meloy.

1. Rusk gave a luncheon for Nogueira at 1 p.m., and in a memorandum to the President that day he wrote:

   “At luncheon today I discussed with Nogueira the fundamental crisis in which we are involved and told him that I thought that you would much appreciate an assurance from him that at this time of crisis there would be no problem about the Azores bases, and that there will be full opportunity for long-term discussions looking toward a solution.” (Kennedy Library National Security Files, Portugal)

   The 2-page memorandum of Nogueira’s conversation with the President at 4:45 p.m. on October 24 deals only with a repetition of the Portuguese position on Africa and attempts by the President to get Portugal to acclaim publicly its support for self-determination. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.53/10–2462)