MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

d

"WIRIY AMU"

OR

A MARE'S NEST

/<::~:~. ~ ': ···" ~.:: f, \ .• 1

~, ... · !:,:.\ , ..

\

LISBON 1 9 7 3

/

\ 1 ......... -

t-. .... -~. -.·,

·;~ lJ. '1 II r.· ·1 . ,.. , .. .. ~ 'L- '1 .{.; _t C·· i;., ·,~·. "-'· ~··· I'\ j, .

Tip. Anuiirio

I

Wanted: Scandal

The comemoration this year of the 600th anniv­ersary of the signing of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance was highlighted by the visits of Prince Philip of Edinburgh to Portugal and of Prime Minister Marcello Caetano to London.

These manif.estations of the traditional friendship existing between the British and the Portuguese people irked the Labour Opposition and various Leftist groups in Britain. They tried in vain to prevent the visit of Prinoe Philip. And they decided to boycott the visit orf Dr. Caetano. But the opposition groups appa11ently felt that something more than a boycott was needed in order to force the hand of their Government. In these circumstances a strat­egy had to be devised to queer the pitoh for Prime Minister Heath.

3

~ H ~\ :~

~­f~ t [ r r: f:

It was at this juncture that the lanky figure of Mr. Hastings appeared on the scene as agent provo­cateur.

Mr. Adrian Hastings was ordained to the pri-est­hood in the Catholic Church, but it appears that he advocates doctrines which are questionable from the Christian point of view. He has never been to Mozam­bique. Politically, he has long been known for his gratuitous hatred of Portugal. As far back as 1954 he wrote articles on the Goa question, basing himself on thirrd-han:d and unsubstantiated information obtained in Rome. It need hardly be ad.doo that those articles were entiTely unrelated to the reality of the situation in Goa, as subs,equent events amply proved. Mr. Hastings proposed solutions to a pro­bLem about which personally he knew nothing. Equally irresponsible a11e his opinions on the situa­tion in Mozambique, bas·ed as they are on third-hand «r.eports» obtained from Spanish «missionari,es» whose bona Hdes is open to question, as will be shown hereafter.

In the context of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance commemorations, to which referenoe has been made, a scandal was wanted with a view to agitating public opinion in Britain against the visit of the Prime Minister of Portugal. And who could be found to do the job better than Mr. Has,tings? Noted por his emotional disposition, which is ii1elated to his lack of concern for the truth or facts, Mr. Hastings's

4

irresponsible imagination, stimulated by his built-in ·anti-Portuguese obs,ession, could be r·elied on to c11eate a juicy scandal appropriately timed to disturb public opinion on the eve of Dr. Caetano's visit.

Mor·eover, he was- and presumably still is -a close personal fdend of the Editor of The Times of London, Mr. William Rees-Mogg, who regards hims,elf as a «progressive Catholic».

Dr. Caetano was to arrive in London on July 16. On July 10, The Times published an artide headlined: «Portuguese massacre reported by priest- by Father Adrian Hastings».

Wie shall return to this article later. Meanwhile certain comments seem pertinent regarding the atti­tude of The Times which opened its columns to such serious allegations without making the slightest effort (on its own .admission) to check the claims in advance of publication or to hear the other side of the story.

The Times has a permanent correspondent in Lisbon. Its Southern African correspondent is Mr. Michael Knipe and and he lives in South Mrica, next door to Mozambique. Mr. Knipe was in Mozambique in April, and at the time of the publication of Mr. Hasting's article in The Times was in poss·ession of a still valid visa to Mozambique to carry out the checking that responsible newspapers usually require before the printing of any iTeport, especially one with serious implications.

The paper's Foreign News Editor, Mr. Jerome Caminada, was in Lisbon as the paid guest of the Portuguese Government only the week before publi-

5.

cation of The Times allegations. He met several members of the Government, including Dr. Caetano, yd said nothing of these profound aUegations - though it must be presumed that, as a senior member of the staff, he is aware of what goes on inside The Times and that such serious charges as thes1e are not dfteamed up overnight for printing the next day, even by the jaded Times which is now such a sorry flemnant of its past prestige.

No inquiry about «massacres» was receiv.ed from · Caminada, Knipe or any other correspondent. Thus without fulfilling the very basic demands of journalism to check the story, The Times not only published the article by Mr. Hastings but also backed ~editorially the unproven allegations it con­tained. In a press note issued on the same day, the Portuguese Embassy in London, while firmly denying the allegations, did not fail to draw atten­tion to this breach of basic journalistic ethics com­mitted by The Times.

Despite the clear failul'le of The Times to check the allegations in advance, they were carded by news agencies to the ends of the earth. Immediately, as if obeying a mot d' ordre, leftist propaganda circles the world over rallied to activate against Portugal. And, of course, anti-Portuguese groups in London, in concert with the Labour Party, took the initiative to organize public metings and street marches demanding that Dr. Caetano's visit be called off. At one such meeting, w~dely advertised, Mr. Has-

6

-"-----

tings himself appeaJ'Ied with the Labour Party's Lord Caradon, self-styled keeper of others' consciences, and Mario Soares, self-sty1ed but discredited «l,eader» of the Portuguese «socialist» opposition.

The anti-Portuguese campaign sparked by the Labour Party and various leftist groups was tak·en to the House of Commons by the Labour Opposition on the very day the Hastings article appeafled. Mr. Harold Wilson queded the Gpvemment whether it would not be wise to cancel the Portugues·e Prime Minist·er's visit.

To this query Prime Minister Heath replied: «The answer to that is No, Sir».

The Parliamentary climax came, however, only after Dr. Caetano's arrival in London when, in a debate in the House of Commons, an Opposition motion was roundly defeated. The Foreign Secretary, Sir A1ec Douglas-Home, r·ebuffed Opposition de­mands with outs,tanding success, quoting back to the Labour leader his own past declarations, when, for example, Mr. Wilson referfted to Portugal as «an old and loyal ally within NATO». The outcome of the debate was described by one London paper as «the massacre of Harold Wilson».

While these developments Wet'le taking place in London, some 40 representatives of foreign news media were rushing to Mozambique to investigate the alleged massacres, particulary that claimed to have taken place at « Wiriyamu» on December 16, 1972, and «described in detail» by Mr. Hastings. The newsmen included correspondents of the BBC, /TN,

7

The New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Guardian, The Daily Express, The Daily Tele­graph, The Financial Times, etc. Belatedly, The Times sent Mr. Michruel Knipe- some two weeks aft·er first publishing the sensational and unverified claims and despite the fact that Mr. Knipe was all along in possession of a valid visa for Mozambique.

Portugues·e authorities gav'e all facilities to these journalists to conduct their s1earch for the truth. But they found no proof of any «massacJ.'Ie» having been committed. Even Mr. Knipe of The Times had to admit he could find nothing to support his newspaper's claims, and he was apparently in pos­session of no more concrete indicators about the locality of « Wiriyamu» than other correspondents, despite the clos'e links between The Times and Mr. Hastings.

Spanish «miss]onaries» in the Tete district tri,ed hard to provide journalists with «circumstantial evidence» to support the a11egations. But these «apos­tolic» ,efforts of the «missionaries» came to nought and were moJ.'Ie than cancelled out by declarations from an unexpected quarter: the communist-backed anti-Portuguese terrorist organization, · Frelimo, which operates in the Tete district from its ba:s'es in Zambia and Tanzania, disclaimed knowledge of any «massacre» having occurred at the time and place alleged by Mr. Hastings. An announcement to this eff.ect was made by Mr. Jorge Rebello and and carried in dispatches sent from Dar-.es-Salaam, where Frelimo has its headquarters, by Reuter and

8

--~-

France Press on July 12, 1973, two days after the Hastings report appeared. This important denial was confirmed a little later by Mr. Zeoa Caliave, Freli­mo's commander in the Tete area, who handed himsdf over to the Portuguese authoriti,es on July, 16, 1973.

Three months after this denial,. Frelimo is said to have issued a «report» confirming the «massacre of Wiriyamu», which is alleged j:o have taken place following a Frelimo ambush on Portuguese troops. Significantly, this «report» -as quoted by agency dispatches datelined Dar-es-Salaam, October 8-does not indicate the number of alleged victims. Equally significant is the belated appearance of new «Witnesses» in the shape of two Frelimo terrorists who are said to have participated in the rumbush. So, one is asked to beHeve the following: that a «massacre» took place on December 16, 1973; that until July 12, 1973 Frelimo headquarters bad not heard about it; that two of Frelimo' s men actually «witnessed» it in the course of their «official» duties, but never s·aid a word about it to Frelimo head­quarters, neither during the sev,en months that elapsed between the alleged occurrence and its «disclosure» by the «Hastings-cum-Spanish-missionaries» team nor for nearly three months after Frelimo' s denial!

As for the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister to London, it could not have been more successful. On his return to Lisbon Dr. Caetano was able to say: «< bring the certainty that nothing was said in England against the affectionate friendship between

9

May and November 1971» and the latest on Decem­ber 16, 1972. Why were they utilized to raise a scandal only on the eve of Prime Minister Caetano's visit to London?

The true answers to thes·e questions will probably nev•er be known. The-refore, leaving them at that, let us r:eturn to the allegations of the Spanish-«mis­sionaries» -cum-Hastings fraternity. .

It would seem that these allegations can be enu­merated as follows:

1. Portuguese troops in Mozambique carry out «systematic genocidal massacr·es in villages thought to hav·e helped Frelimo».

2. «There was a whole seri·es of such massacres in the Mucumbura M•ea between May and Novem­ber 1971»;

3. Since early 1972 «many further massacres have taken place>>;

4. The latest known «massacre>> took place at Wiriyamu in Deoember 1972.

The major part of Mr. Hastings's article deals with this last aUeged massacre and therefore it seems proper to examine that alleg.ed incident first.

Quoting «reports» supplied to him by Spanish «missionaries>>, Mr. Hastings writes: «The sources of detailed information collected giv.e us the right to maintain the affirmation that there were more than 400 victims>>. There follows a long list of names said to indicate persons who were put to death.

12

___1__._____

In the «reports>> (or the artiCle of Mr. Hastings) one is struck by the abundanc·e of details concerning the manner in which the alleged massacre was per­petrated. Not even the remarks made while the alleged killing was going on, escaped the attention of the rapporteur. Who was he?

In Mr. Hastings's article one reads: «There were no survivors to expLain what happened>>. But a little later in the same article one also reads: «Taking advantage of the darkness, which fell rapidly, some victims managed to escape>>.

Contradictions of this type are not infrequently found in accusations against Portugal, reminding us of the words of Montaigne: «It is not without good reason sai:d that he who has not a good memory shouM never take upon himself the trade of lying».

After all, what did happen? Were there survivors or not?· Could a victim exposed to imminent death have been in a position to take note of happenings around him? Who was the rapporteur who gave such minute details to the Spanish missionaries?

The story of the alleged «massacre of Wiriyamw> falls by the weight of its own excesses. Such a description of cruelty and blood sooms rather to belong to the realm of a diseased imagination.

But there is more. In giving «authoritative>> details of the alleged horrors, Mr. Hastings forgot an indis­peillSable prerequisite. After all, where is Wiriyamu?

The foreign journalists who went to investigate the allegation, including Mr. Michael Knipe, looked for «Wiriyamu>> in T·ete. They found Williamo and

13

Mariano, but no «Wiriyamu». Exact pronounciation of the name is, of course, largely irrel.evant. What is important is that the journalists did not find any evidence of violence in any village with a name sounding anything like « Wiriyamu».

Disgusted with what they found to be a wild­-goose chas·e, one of the journalists wrote: « Wiriyamu belongs to the dream-world of evanescent things».

The reporters ahso ascertained that, because of the structure of African tribal society, there is no village in Tete- and there never has been- with a population of more than about 100. A massacre of 400 p·eople in a singLe village was therefore out of the question. And they quoted authorities on tribal life to back this assertion C).

Confronted by journalists demanding explana­tions, Mr. Hastings hastened to Madrid to consult Spanish «missionaries» and hastened back with a film which he exultantly described as sure supporting evidence for his aUegations. However, the film was

(1) There 81l'e now in Tete some settlements olf between 3.000 allld 7.000 people. These are the aldeamentos or planned II11['a} settlements, where the people are given, besides land to cultivate, schools, water supply, social centres first aid facilities, etc. as wen as the means to organize their own defence against terrorist ['aids. They are a part of the Portuguese Government's efforts to eiilSure the security and the socio­-eoonomic promotion olf the. rurn1 populatioD!S.

14

examined by the BBC and found 1) to be at l·east four years old, 2) to contain no evidence of violence, 3) to s·erve no useful purpose. Mr. Hastings later tried to make out that he had brought the film only as «background material»!

In the face of the negative findings of the journa­lists, including Mr. Michael Knipe of The Times, who went in s·earch of the phantom Wiriyamu and its 400 victims, Mr. Hastings tried to hedge: the figure of 400, which he had quoted so confidently -he 'e:x:plained in a major shifting of his ground -referred not to Wiriyamu alone, but to other villages as well. He also devis·ed the entirely gratuitous expla­nation that « Wiriyamu» was a «dormitory viHage» for peopl·e working in the city of Tete. It must be admitted that Mr. Hastings is not lacking in such imaginative «emergency exits». He needs them when caught napping in his audacious «terminological inexactitudes», which is often the case.

Thus, forced to explain the gaps and contradic­tions in hls specific allegation regaroing « Wiriyamu», he resorted to the technique of inventing other «mas­sacr•es» in an effort to divert attention and confuse public opinion. In this he was amply assisted by his Spanish sources. Soon news media were carrying stories of a multiplicity of «massacres» in Mozam­bique. The fertile imagination of the Spanish «mis­sionaries», so long inactive but sudenly stimulated by Mr. Hastings, began producing «massacre» stories to suit all anti-Portuguese tast·es. Other «missiona­ri-es» added their litHe squeaks to the Spanish

15

1

chorus. « Wiriyamu» had not been proved; it had instead been disproved by many foreign journalists after an inv,es{igation in the Tete district. It was necessary to invent more «Wiriyamus», many «Wiri­yamus», in the line of propaganda suggested by Mr. Hastings and in the hope that at least one «Wiri­yamu» would «stick».

But enough has been said about Mr. Hastings, who after all has only been exercising his o1d metier of purveying irresponsible thind-hand, unchecked and fals,e information designed to denigrate Portu­gal. It is time to tum to his sources of information - the Spanish «missionaries».

16

III·"

... Unmasked

The desarray of religious institutions in our days is a fact which does not need underlining. This is not the place to analys,e its caus,es. Suffice to say that the crisis has attained world-w1de proportions and express,es itself chiefly in the form of defiance of the established order and authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical. It has also affected certain members of the clergy in Mozambique, though in a relatively small number. Most notorious for their indiscipline ar<e the members of certain foreign missionary societies, who seem unable to k,eep their personal antipathy to the Portugues~e Nation from influencing their work as missionaries. Some of thes,e priests have been known to aid terrorism in various ways: by recruiJting young men for Frelimo, by providing terrorists with food and shelter, by s,ending out to

17

j

\ I i foreign countries bias,ed reports about the local

situation, etc. It must, however, be a matter of disap­pointment to thes'e «missionaries» that Frelimo, far from gaining strength and producing r~esults,

is torn by internal dissensions. Some of its top leaders have surrender·ed to the Portuguese authorities and the organization :iJS becoming increasingly obnoxious in the eyes of the people of Mozambique.

Frelimo's morale badly needs buttr~essing. Accord­ingly, certain «missionaries» have decided to aid that communist-backed terrorist organization by acting· as its propaganda agents. Their priestly cha­ract·er enables them to mask their political obj-ectives under the guise of «humanitarian work in the spirit of Christian charity».

It was for this purpose that the White Fathers left Mozambique in 1971. In a statement published by Figaro of May 20, 1971, their governing council admitted, in regard to Mozambique, that nowhere else do missionaries en}oy greater support of the civil authorities and more freedom of action for their specifically missionary activities. The only restriction imposed on them was that they should not attempt to subv,ert the internal order. This res­triction was entirdy reasonable, if only because the White Fathers, being foreigners, had no right to interf,er~e in matters which are the exclusive concern of Portuguese citizens. But it was precisely against this legitimate r·estriction that the Whit~e Fathers in Mozambique wer~e incensed; and, rather than accept it, as required both by civil and by ecclesias-

18

tical law, they preferred to quit Mozambique (2). As it has since become clear, they left their flock in Mozambique untended in order to be free to carry on a venomous anti-Portuguese propaganda abroad. But they left, not before injecting their venom into members of some of the other religious communities working in Mozambique; and not before having organized a subversive network in the areas of inter­est to Frelimo.

One of their agents was· a young Portuguese priest, called Luis Afonso Costa, a member of the HaHan congr,egation known a:s the Fathers of Verona or Combonians. An ardent Marxist, he was an active supporter of Frelimo: he sheltered t~errorists at the mission quarters at Boroma and Marara. He was questioned by the authorities, but neVJer detained, as he was found to be an obvious case of paranoia. He left Mozambique for Lisbon in May, 1972, by order of his own r~eligious superiors. Thence he left of his own accord for Italy. Once abroad, he started a furious propaganda campaign against his own count-

( 2) The White Fathers had decided to leave Mozambique oo July 31. 1971. They were told to leave on May 31. 1971. In a joint communique issued on June 1. 1971. the bishops of Mozambique deplored the decision of the White Fathers. which they (the bishops) «do not think was prompted by a genuine evangelical spirit and seems rather a reflection of the crisis at present affecting certain sectors of the Church».

19

i f ' l ., ' rymen, distorting or rather inventing facts so as to

· attribute to Portuguese troops responsibility for violent acts committed by Frelimo. There can be no doubt that he kept close touch with anti-Portu­guese groups in other countries. At a press confer­ence he gave in Bonn on August 31, 1972, he a:dmitted having r•eceived money from the Angola Committ·ee of the Netherlands e>. His superiors s.ent him to some place in the Andes. His latest exploit, in August 1973, was to give interviews to newspapers in Peru and other Latin American countries, displaying as «evidence» of Portuguese «atrocities» in Mozambique photographs which have been published in a number of newspapers in various countries with different captions to illustrate par­ticular anti-Portuguese stories. Some of the photo­graphs, now said to illustrate incidents in Mozam­bique, have been going the rounds since 1961 when they were published in certain organs of the press as illustrating incidents in Angola('). In fact, they have nothing to do with Mozambique.

To take the measure of this priest, it is worth mentioning, too, that in these same interviews, he claimed dir·ect knowledge that some 3.000 civilians

(i) Cf. Communique issued by KDSE (German Catholic Student's Uniorn), Bonn.

(') This propaganda trick of Portugal's adversaries provides interesting material for research.

20

in the Mucumbura area of Tete had been «massa­cred» by the Portuguese armed forces. Yet this is in direct conflict with the word of his own brother pdests: Two, who served in Mucumbur:a and are now awaiting trial in Louren~o Marques on charges of actively supporting Frelimo terrorists, put tlie num­ber of «victims» at no higher than 78 in all!

Thus we may s.ee how some pdests, bubbling ov·er with hatred for Portugal, invent in order to make political capital.

But among the «missionaries» in Mozambique the most vocal anti-Portuguese elements are the Burgos Fathers. As they are now the main propag­andists of the massacre stories, a few words may be said about them.

The Burgos Fathers have been engaged in sub­versive activities in many countries, not in Mozam­bique alone. For instance, in 1972, most of the Burgos Fathers were ordered • out of Colombia, where they wer-e creating unrest among the indigenous people. One of those expelled from Colombia was previously ordered out of Mozambique for similar reasons.

In M o z am b i que, two Burgos Fathers are under detention awaiting trial for lending direct support to Frelimo. Some others ha:d their residence permits cancelled. It is these who supplied «reports» to Mr. Hastings. After the publication of the latter's article in The Times, two of them went about pro­pagating «maSIS:acre» stodes in England, Holland, Germany and Switzerland, until they were suddenly

21

recalled to Spain by their superiors who seem to have realized at that s1tage that political propaganda was not a proper task for priests.

Be th:at as it may, the Spanish priests tried not only to make out that «massacres» were a routine performance of Portugues~e troops but that the bis­hops of Mozambique, and the Bishop of Tete in particular, knew about them. This. allegation brought a rejoinder from the much respected Archbishop of Louren9o Marques, Dom Custodio Alvim Pereira, who denied that any massacre had taken place. He said that, in one case, Portuguese soldiers had been provoked into overreaction. «We know that our soldiers are also human. and that they are subject to particular pressures. Nevertheless, the Conference of Bishops made representation to the Army autho­rities over this oase». He concluded: «Anything fur­ther that has been aUeged by the Spanish priests is a total invention, a deliberate fabrication for poli­tical ends by some people who are Christian Mar­xists» e>.

The Bishop of 'f.ete, Dom Augusto Cesar Fer­reira da Silva, refused to discuss with journalists, saying that Spanish priests shouLd assume respon­sibility for their statements and not seek to involve him in political matt•ers. «Those priests who suggest that I have knowledge of this are being dishonest»,

( 5) Cf. Die Welt, July 25, 1973.

22

he said nevertheless, while in a major rebuff to the Hastings report, he denied the Spanish priests' insinu­ation that he had ov·erflown the site of an alleged massacre by helicopter. He also denied that rela­tions between the Catholic Church and the Portu­guese authorities in Mozambique were on the point of breakdown (6

).

The Anglican Bishop of Mozambique, Dom Daniel Pina Cabral, forme·rly a lawyer with an extensiVre experience in war ~areas, stated that he was «deeply convinced» that the alleged massacre did not take place. The allegations were «like a surrealistic literary composition>;, he told Daily T ele­graph' s Bruce London. According to him, the delay of seven months and the timing of the article in The Times suggested a political motivation behind thos·e allegations. c<l cannot beHeve», he said, «that, in the kind of war the Portuguese Army is fighting here, any superior officer would coLdly cons,ent to an operation: which would be entirely contradictory to the strategy of the Armed Forces» C).

Other body-blows were dealt to the allegations, sometimes by the Bprgos priests themselves: at a news confe!'lence in London, Father Vincent Beren­guer made it plain that one of the principal authors of the allegations was the Burgos priest, Father Jose

( 6) Cf. The Guardian, July 17, 1973. (') The Daily Telegraph, July 18, 1973.

23

·"-'

Antonio Sangalo, of the Matundo Mission, on the opposite bank of the Zambesi River from Tete.

Sangalo had, acoording to Berenguer, bicycled through the « Wiriyamu» area at about the time of the «massacres». Yet when Bruce Loudon inter­viewed Sangalo at his mission a few days later, he emphatically deni1ed (i) that he was the author of the allegations, and (ii) that he bicycled through the area at about the time.

He had not, he declared, been there since 1968, and he did not understand what Berenguer was talking about.

Later, Louis Heren, writing on the front page of The Times asserted that «reports from Rome state that the alleged massacres in Mozambique last December were quickly investigat,ed and confirmed· by the Church authorities». He added: «The inves­tigation was carded out by two priests, one of them an African, who were well acquainted with the area».

Wmng again! The only African priest in the whole of the Tete district (and it i:s the r~esponsibility of the Church, not of the Portuguese authorities, to appoint priests) is Father Domingos Ferrao who, though he is not of the Burgos Order, works in the Burgos Order mission of St. Peter on the out­skirts of the town of Tete. In an interview with Loudon, Father Ferrao boldly spoke out and said that, although he had heard rumours of killing of civilians, to his certain knowledge they

24

r,-:

! i

were never investigated at first hand by any priest in the area. There was, he pointed out, the virtual impossibility of independent travel by priests in an activ.e war zone.

Father Ferrao was totally scornful of the reports appearing abroad. He was sure that the priests were reporting nothing more than exaggerated gossip. It goos without saying, of course, that this was a brave position for Father Ferrao to adopt, since he works in a Burgos mission: But he obviously felt the need to speak the truth, whi1e the politically­-motivalted «missionaries» wer~e making nonsense of it.

25

k r f

IV

Wanted: Fair Play

The Portuguese military authorities in Mozam­bique (as els·ewhere in the Portuguese Nation) have standing instructions to investigate any rumours which reach them regarding ill-treatment of civilians by members of the Armed Forces. Investigations are thus conducted as a matter of course and those found guilty of reprehensible acts are dealt with in 'acco11dance with the rules of military discipline.

AUegations made by missionaries (and others) in the past weve investigated in the normal manner. But some «missionaries» were mot satisfied with the Ilesults, for they would accept nothing less than confirmation of their own allegations. In this con­nection the following considerations seem pertinent:

1. Missionari'es ar.e not usually qualified to give opinions about situations of this nature, for by

27

j 1'

~ . training and vocation they are unprepared to go beyond superficial impressions and suppositions favourable to any one who appears to be a victim of injustice or of violence;

2. The «missionaries» in the present case have been themselv'es politically involved with Frelimo and have been assisting the latter in various ways, one of which is by trying to discredit the Portuguese Armed Forces;

3. They had no personal knowredge of the alle­gations which they made on the basis of information obtained and exaggerated on telling at two or three removes;

4. They acted emotionally, if not by political design, when they doubted the bona fides of the investigating officers and~ in any oase, showed their incapacity to understand situations of guerrilla war;

5. The Portuguese military authorities, who conducted the inquiries, could have no interest in covering up misdemeanours, the mor·e so as these wel'le prejudicial to good relations between the popu­lations and the Armed Forces, a fundamental requisite in effective reaction to guerrila activities.

Nevertheless, as it could happen that some rele­vant fact or detail escaped the attention of the investigating officers, the Portuguese Government

28

ordered fresh inquiries to be conducted. As a result, it was found that, in one case at least, there had been an overreaction to a terrorist attack, charac­teris·ed by an excess of vioLence which made civilian victims. Inquiry into this incident is still proceeding and no more wili therefore be said about it here. The press-note issued by the Portuguese Defence Ministry on August 17, 1973, has stated the intention of the Government to bring the culprits to justice.

The Portugues,e Government was not afraid to issue this press-note at a time when the propaganda campaign started by Mr. Hastings was at its height. The press-not was variously interpreted in foreign circles. But the Portuguese Government had no other purpos·e in view than to be honest to itself and to the Portugueses Nation and to demonstrate that it is able and willing, under all circumstances, to ensure justice and discipline. The propaganda campaign couLd not deter it from doing what it would have done in any case, as becomes a responsible Government.

Nothing that happened before or after this press­-note detr:acts fmm the firm policy of the Portuguese Government to ensure that the local populations do not suffer as a result of its !leaction to terrorism. Nor does anything alter the fact that this policy is being implemented.

That terrorism in Mozambique (as in Angola and in Portuguese Guinea) is launched from outside with arms supplied mainly by communist powers, is no longer in doubt. RESPONSIBILITY FOR

29

THE ENSUING VIOLENCE FALLS SQUARELY ON THOSE WHO ORGANIZE, FINANCE AND CONDUCT TERRORISM.

For, there is no other method of defending onesdf against the us~e of force than by reacting with the use of force. Self-defence is an indisputable right of persons as of nations. In the process of Slelf-defence excess of violence is not always avo1dable. Soldiers in the regular forces are also human beings. In the heat of fighting, they too can sometimes be carried away by circumstances which they have to face at the risk of their own lives. On the other hand, it is not always possible1 with ,all the good .· will in the world, to ensure the success of a military operation without some pTejudice to local popula­tions, ,even though the operation is undertaken in defence of the populations themselves. This happens in any part of the world. N everthe1ess, in Mozam­bique, tre objective of the s~ecurity forces is to clear ar,eas of . infiltrating terrorists, not to cause casualties, not even among the terrorists. Proof of this is the gfleat number of ex-terrorists who today go about freely in Mozambique.

In short, while some «missionaries» are int,erested in creating scandals as a part of their contribution to Frelimo propaganda (the authorities in Mozam­bique have documentary evidence to this effect), the Portuguese Government fulfils its responsibility to the populations in the best possible way, in spite of the problems created for it by the external forces which encourage terrorism. Chief among these for-

30

r li ~ ! ( l

t

' t I t I f t

f

~· [

' !, !

t r

l ~· ~·,

i: f

ces are China1 the Sovi.et Union, Cuba and other communist countries. A supporting role is played by some «missionaries» who hav;e taken to preaching their own new gospel of racial hatred where Por­tugal is making every effort to promote racial har­mony and cooperation in an atmosphere of peace.

31

I . I j

t ' ).

Annex I

STATEMENT MADE BY PRIME MINISTER MARCELLO CAETANO AT PRESS CONFE­RENCE IN LONDON ON JULY 18, 1973

The present campaign is aimed at weakening Portugal's defence of the overseas territories, to force the Portuguese Government to change its policy, which is intended to create a multiracial society, or societies, where all men could be integrated in a system of perfect equality, the place of birth, the race and the religion notwithstanding.

And it is already a fact that in the Portuguese Provinces of Africa, mostly in Angola and M ozam­bique, where there is a larger non-African population, people of various ethnic groups live in an atmosphere of cordiality and friendly relationship.

In fact, it is hard to understand why Africa should only be for black Africans.

The Americas, both North and South America, were they reserved for the natives of that continent? Nor was Australia. And, in Africa itself, many

33

I l ' I .€

migrations occurred down the ages. Besides, one of the biggest of Africa's problems stems from its low density of population- not lack of space, but lack of people.

In Southern Africa, favourable climatic condi­tions have enabled families from Europe and other continents (particularly from Asia) to settle there, with the intention to stay for good. As a corollary, human societies have been created there, whose cha­racteristics and development clearly distinguish them from those existing in Equatorial Africa.

In Southern Africa, the use of the most sophis­ticated equipment, required by advanced technology, is nowadays part of normal life.

So, we see no reason why the political and the economic direction, inside those multiracial societies, should not be entrusted to its most capable members, and not only to those of a certain race, on the basis of racist considerations.

Portuguese policy has been aimed at promoting the acceleration of the formation of cadres, capable of assuming responsibility for the policy and admi­nistration of the territories.

The idea that the whites must leave Southern Africa cannot, therefore, be accepted. And, today, this is the aim proposed by the movements which are calling for the immediate independence of the territories with the handing over of government to the natives.

These movements were formed outside Portu­guese territory. They are led by people who for many

34

years have had no contact whatever with these territories, but who, on the contrary, have direct relations with the communist countries. They attack the territories from neighbouring countries, with foreign weapons and foreign financial aid.

The methods of attack are those of subversive warfare. A treacherous kind of warfare which makes it necessary to mobilise a large force of vigilance and defence and involves the populations, on whom serious personal and material damage is inflicted.

The policy constantly expressed by the Portuguese Government is that in this war it is much more important to win souls than to kill people.

Therefore, the Portuguese Government rejects accusations of genocide or of methodic cruelty in military operations. Condemning all needless violence in a struggle, the aim of which is to defend territories and peoples from insidious guerilla activity, the Portuguese Government vigorously denies that it has ordered or tolerated recourse to inhuman methods.

Portugal has confined herself to the legitimate defence of the territories which for five hundred years have been Portuguese and whose inhabitants are Portuguese citizens.

Unhappily, political forces of the most diverse nature have been mobilised against Portugal in an hysterically emotional attitude which refuses to listen to her reasons.

What the campaign launched against Portuguese policy seeks is our immediate withdrawal from the African provinces with the sacrifice of its populations

35 . ~

i l

and of the immense work of civilization already carried out in those provinces.

Portugal cannot agree to this abandonment. She carries on with her policy of development, opposing premature unilateral independences which would, of necessity, be stamped with either black or white racism and, more than likely, place the territories in a position of effectual dependence on imperialist powers whose policies are not conducive to the freedom of Europe and the world.

36

Annex II

LEITER OF MR. GEORGE KENNAN, FOR­MER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOSCOW AND WELLKNOWN SPECIALIST ON AFRICA e)

Anyone even remotely familiar with the situation in Southerm Africa can hardly fail to be disturbed by the hysterical reaction of liberal and leftist quarters throughout Europe to the recent secondhand and unsubstantiated report of an alleged massacre of local inhabitants by Portuguese forces in Mozam­bique.

At this time of writing I do not know, any more than do others, whether there is anything in this report. The evidence offered to date seems distinctly unconvincing. But it is standard guerrilla tactics to

(1) This lettem.- records Mr. Kennan's reaction to the anti-Portuguese propaganda campaign initiated by The Times. It was published in that pap« oo July 25. 1973.

37

provoke reprisals by the ruling power against local communities; and where this is the case, unpleasant things are always possible. My concern, in any case, does not stand or fall with the truth of the report. Whether it is accurate or othenvise, two factors remain disturbing.

The first is the double standard so obviously applied by European liberals to developments in that part of the world. Bloodshed and atrocities have been reported in recent years, on a scale far greater than that here alleged, from several other African countries. I seem also to recall that the war in Angola began, in 1960, with a sudden and unprovoked attack by guerrilla elements over the Congolese frontier­as a result of which some 7,000 people were slaught­ered by the attackers just in the first week, the great majority of the victims, incidentally, being black. Perhaps I missed on these occasions the excited reactions and protests of the press organs, political parties, and others who have shown such agitation over the recent report; but I doubt it. If the principle is to be that injustice is injustice, and atrocity -atrocity, only when committed by people presumed to be western European or white - that when committed by blacks or by persons armed with the banners of leftist «revolution» such things are all right- then I think we should be told so, and the argument permitted to proceed on this point of principle.

This brings me to the second factor, which is the evident assumption that the destruction of Por-

38

tuguese authority and the establishment of the power of the guerrilla leaders in these territories is desirable. I wonder on what this assumption is based. Surely not on any adequate evidence that a political change of this nature is desired by the mass of those who would be most affected,· or that the resulting regime would be any more humane or democratic than that which it would replace. Nor is there reason to suppose that such a change would lead to any more rapid advancement of living and educational standards than is now taking place. What there is some reason to except, in the fragmentation of one or both of these territories, portions becoming the seats of Rhodesian-type regimes based on local European elements ,and other portions very likely falling to the South Africans.

It is the natives of these provinces, not the Euro­pean liberals, who would have to live with the results of such changes. I marvel at the readiness of people ostensibly devoted to liberal ideals to consign great masses of other people, by implication, to fates so uncertain and so unpromising.

__ .-~f~~~---~· ~-" -;:~

.,' ....

\.~. :~~.::·~~. -~ ·-~-fl.t~:;' · .•. -· 39

l l 1 i

' ' l

CONTENTS

I-Wanted: Scandal ... .. .... . ..... ............ ... .. ... ....... 3

II- Deceit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

III- ... Unmasked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IV- Wanted: Fair Play ....................................... 27

Annex I ...................................................... 33

Annex II...................................................... 37

"