MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

"WIRIYAMU"

OR
A MARE'S NEST

/<::~:~. ~
~.::
~,

f,

,..

': "
\ .

!:,:.\

LISBON
1 9 7 3

....-~.

1......... -

t-.

-.,
;~
'L-

lJ.

'1 II r.
'1 .{.; _t C

i;.,

,..

,~. "-' ~

, ..
I'\ j,

.. ~
.

Wanted: Scandal

Tip. Anuiirio

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

[
r

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, based 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 relied on to
c11eate a juicy scandal appropriately timed to disturb
public opinion on the eve of Dr. Caetano's visit.
Moreover, 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 possession
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 publi5.

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-

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 taken
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 Portuguese Prime
Minister'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, rebuffed 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,

-"-----

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
after 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.
Portuguese 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

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 8does 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 said 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

--~-

In the reports>> (or the artiCle of Mr. Hastings)

one is struck by the abundance 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 Tete. They found Williamo and

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 these questions will probably
never 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 massacres in villages thought
to have helped Frelimo.
2. There was a whole series of such massacres
in the Mucumbura Mea 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.

13

12

___1__._____

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 chase, 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 people 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 least

four years old, 2) to contain no evidence of violence,
3) to serve 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 search 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 devised the entirely gratuitous explanation that Wiriyamu was a dormitory viHage
for people 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 massacres 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 tastes. Other missionari-es added their litHe squeaks to the Spanish
15

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.

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

16

17

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 surrendered 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 character 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 restriction that the Whit~e Fathers
in Mozambique wer~e incensed; and, rather than
accept it, as required both by civil and by ecclesias18

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

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 received money from the Angola
Committee 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 direct 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
over 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 matters. Those priests who suggest
that I have knowledge of this are being dishonest,

he said nevertheless, while in a major rebuff to the

Hastings report, he denied the Spanish priests' insinuation that he had overflown 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, formerly 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
those 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

Cf. The Guardian, July 17, 1973.

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

5
( )

22

Cf. Die Welt, July 25, 1973.

23

r,-:

!
i
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

"-'

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 elsewhere 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 more 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, characterised 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
purpose 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

r
li

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 for30

't
I
t
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.

~
[

!,

't

l
~~,

i:

31

I.
Ij

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

Il
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

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.

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.

36

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-

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~:;'

38

..

39

l
1i
'l'

CONTENTS

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

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

11

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

17

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

27

Annex I ......................................................

33

Annex II......................................................

37

"