‘Despite the special bonds that tie us’: Portugal, Brazil, and the South Atlantic in the late Cold War

ABSTRACT

As the Cold War entered the mid-1980s, concerns over the Brazilian nuclear programme lingered on through the global stage. In this context, Brazil’s 1986 proposal for a Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic (ZOPACAS) emerged as an opportunity to recast the country’s external profile; yet, unexpected reservations emerged from the unlikeliest of its partners, Portugal. This article argues that while Portugal’s initial positioning was fuelled by broader Western concerns, including misperceptions over Brazil’s nuclear ambitions, the official predisposition towards such a project eventually shifted, following changes in Portugal, the region, and the world.

KEYWORDS:

• Portugal
• Brazil
• South Atlantic
• ZOPACAS
• Cold War

Notes

¹ Frederik Schulz and Georg Fischer, “Brazilian History as Global History,” Bulletin of Latin American Research 38, no. 4 (2019): 408–22 at 416–17. See also Sebastian Conrad, What Is Global History? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016).

² See, for example, Rodrigo Mallea, Matias Spektor, and Nicholas Wheeler, eds., The Origins of Nuclear Cooperation: a Critical Oral History between Argentina and Brazil (Rio de Janeiro/Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars/Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2015), 99–100; Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, “Brazil and the Nonproliferation Regime: a Historical Perspective,” The Non-Proliferation Review 23, nos. 5–6 (2016): 545–58 at 547; Paulo Wrobel, Brazil, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Latin America as Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (Brasília: Fundação Alexandre Gusmão, 2017), 62.

³ Carvalho’s doctoral thesis remains to this date the only meaningful academic effort tackling Brazilian-Portuguese relations with an impact on the years under study here. Thiago Carvalho, “Identidade de Ânimos, Diferença de Propósitos As Relações entre Portugal e o Brasil (1974–1985)” (PhD diss., ISCTE-IUL, 2016). For works that also highlight discrepancies between rhetoric and results in previous periods, see Amado Luiz Cervo and José Calvet de Magalhães, Depois das Caravelas: as relações entre Portugal e Brasil, 1808–2000 (Brasília: Edunb, 2000); Williams da Silva Gonçalves, O Realismo da Fraternidade Brasil-Portugal: do Tratado de Amizade ao Caso Delgado (Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2003).

⁴ See, for example, Stella Krepp, “A View from the South: the Falklands/Malvinas and Latin America,” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 15, no. 4 (2017): 348–65; Andrew Hurrell, “The Politics of South Atlantic Security: A Survey of Proposals for a South Atlantic Treaty Organization,” International Affairs 59, no. 2 (1983): 179–93; Chris Saunders and Sue Onslow, “The Cold War and Southern Africa, 1976–1990,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, ed. Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 222–43.

⁵ Ruud van Dijk, “Nuclear Weapons and the Cold War,” in The Routledge Handbook of the Cold War, ed. Artemy M. Kalinovsky and Craig Daigle (London: Routledge, 2014), 275–91 at 287. See also Francis J. Gavin, “Nuclear Proliferation and Non-Proliferation During the Cold War,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, ed. Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 395–416.

⁶ See Carlo Patti, “The Origins of the Brazilian Nuclear Programme, 1951–1955,” Cold War History 15, no. 3 (2015): 353–73; Matias Spektor, “The Evolution of Brazil’s Nuclear Intentions,” The Non-Proliferation Review 23, nos. 5–6 (2016): 635–52.

⁷ Brazil declined to waive a provision in Article 18 stating that the treaty would only take effect when all regional parties became members. Instructions by Brazilian President Costa e Silva to his negotiators were clear: ‘Sign the Treaty; Await the implementation of the conditions imposed by Brazil, Argentina and other countries, before [proceeding with] ratification and entry into force.’ Records of the 40^th Meeting of the National Security Council n. 104, 4 October 1967, Secret, p. 2, Arquivo Nacional do Brasil [hereafter Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: ANB] www.sian.an.gov.br (accessed September 20, 2019). Given the ensuing lack of ratification by Argentina, Chile, and Cuba, Brazil was left essentially unconstrained from a legal standpoint.

⁸ Jozef Goldblat, “The Seabed Treaty,” Ocean Yearbook 1, no. 1 (1978): 386–411 at 389, 397, 399.

⁹ Michael Barletta, “The Military Nuclear Program in Brazil,” Stanford University/Centre for International Security and Arms Control Working Paper (1997), no. 10.

¹⁰ Leonardo Bandarra, “A luta contra o Tordesilhas Nuclear: três momentos da política nuclear brasileira (1969–1998)” (Master’s thesis, University of Brasília, 2016), 77–8.

¹¹ Central Intelligence Agency, “Brazil: Nuclear Program Under Neves, National Intelligence Daily,” 15 March 1985, Top Secret, p. 3, https://www.cia.gov/library

¹² See, for example, Enéas Macedo Filho, “Brasil a partir de 90 poderá ter a bomba,” Jornal de Brasília, 22 January 1984: 13; Leila Reis, “Brasil deverá ter sua primeira bomba atômica em 1990,” Folha S. Paulo, 28 April 1985: 25.

¹³ Spektor, “The Evolution of Brazil’s Nuclear Intentions,” 636; Barletta, “The Military Nuclear Program in Brazil,” 18. Suggestions that Brazil could carry out a Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE) on the eve of the 1985 presidential inauguration as a celebration of the end of the military regime were nonetheless quickly discarded by the top brass. Mallea, Spektor, and Wheeler, The Origins of Nuclear Cooperation, 152–4; Carlo Patti, “Brazil in Global Nuclear Order” (PhD diss., University of Florence, 2012), 209.

¹⁴ Carvalho, “Identidade de Ânimos,” ii.

¹⁵ See, for example, Wayne A. Selcher, “Brazilian Relations with Portuguese Africa in the Context of the Elusive ‘Luso-Brazilian Community’,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 18, no. 1 (1976): 25–58.

¹⁶ The swift recognition of Guinea-Bissau’s independence on 18 July 1974 or of the Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola (MPLA) government in Angola on 6 November 1975 attested to the new Brazilian orientations towards Africa. See, for example, Jerry Dávila, Hotel Trópico: Brazil and the Challenge of African Decolonisation, 1950–1980 (Durham: Duke University Press 2010).

¹⁷ António de Figueiredo, “Portugal and Africa,” in Portugal in the 1980s: Dilemmas of Democratic Consolidation, ed. Kenneth Maxwell (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986), 89–108; Carlos Gaspar, “Portugal’s Policies towards Angola and Mozambique since Independence,” in Regional Conflict and U.S. Policy: Angola and Mozambique, ed. R.J. Bloomfield (Algonac: Reference Publications, 1988), 40–74.

¹⁸ See Norrie MacQueen, “Portugal and Africa: The Politics of Re-Engagement,” The Journal of Modern African Studies 23, no. 1 (1985): 31–51; Bruno Cardoso Reis and Pedro Aires de Oliveira, “The Power and Limits of Cultural Myths in Portugal’s Search for a Post-Imperial Role,” The International History Review 40, no. 3 (2018): 631–53; Bruno Cardoso Reis, “Decentering the Cold War in Southern Africa: The Portuguese Policy of Decolonization and Détente in Angola and Mozambique (1974–1984),” Journal of Cold War Studies 21, no. 1 (2019): 3–51.

¹⁹ Jaime Gama, Política Externa Portuguesa (1983–1985) – Selecção de Discursos e Entrevistas do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Lisbon: Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, 1985), 286–7.

²⁰ Carvalho, “Identidade de Ânimos,” 295–305; António de Siqueira Freire, “O impacto da adesão à CEE nas relações luso-brasileiras,” Estratégia, no. 5 (1988): 71–8.

²¹ On August 1985, Portugal began to take part in the EPC as an observer, before becoming a full member the following year. See Álvaro de Vasconcelos, “Portugal and European Political Cooperation,” The International Spectator 26, no. 2 (1991): 127–40; João de Matos Proença, “A Cooperação Política Europeia,” Estratégia 4 (1987–88): 159–68.

²² For Portuguese foreign and security interests in the 1980s see Scott B. MacDonald, European Destiny, Atlantic Transformations: Portuguese Foreign Policy under the Second Republic, 1974–1992 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1993); Kenneth Maxwell, “Portuguese Defense and Foreign Policy: An Overview,” in Portuguese Defence and Foreign Policy since Democratisation, ed. Kenneth Maxwell (New York: Camões Centre for the Study of the Portuguese-Speaking World, 1991), 1–13; Nuno Severiano Teixeira, “Portugal, a Europa e os Estados Unidos: uma perspectiva histórica,” in Regimes e Império: As Relações Luso-Americanas no Século XX, ed. Luís Nuno Rodrigues (Lisbon: IPRI/FLAD, 2006), 147–59.

²³ For the weight of anti-Soviet views amidst Portuguese priorities see Álvaro de Vasconcelos, “Portuguese Defence Policy: Internal Politics and Defence Commitments,” in NATO’s Southern Allies: Internal and External challenges, ed. John Chipman (London: Routledge, 1988), 86–139.

²⁴ Pedro Pires de Miranda, Política Externa Portuguesa 1985-1987 – Selecção de Discursos e Entrevistas do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Lisbon: Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, 1987), 15–16. Subsequently, Foreign Minister Pires de Miranda also acknowledged the limitations that a country like Portugal faced, when stating ‘negotiations over disarmament matter to all. Which doesn’t mean that all should participate in them.’ Ibid., at 141.

²⁵ For more on their frail institutional relations, though, see, for example, Maritheresa Frain, “Relações entre o Presidente e o primeiro-ministro em Portugal: 1985–1995,” Análise Social 30, no. 133 (1995): 653–78.

²⁶ Preparatory memorandum to the visit of the Brazilian State Minister to Portugal, 6 February 1984, Historical Archive of the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations cited in Carvalho, “Identidade de Ânimos,” 292.

²⁷ Telegram from the Brazilian Embassy in Lisbon to Brasília n. 24A, 10 January 1986, Microfilmed, Tape 2193–23.09-86, Secret, p. 5. Arquivo Histórico do Ministério das Relaçõeses Exteriores do Brasil [hereafter Brasília, Brazil: AHMRE].

²⁸ José Fonseca Filho, “Tancredo: Democracia une Brasil e Portugal,” Estado de S. Paulo, 29 January 1985: 6; Diário de Notícias, “Reencontro em democracia,” Diário de Notícias, 29 January 1985: 6.

²⁹ Carvalho, “Identidade de Ânimos,” 273.

³⁰ Telegram from the Brazilian Embassy in Lisbon to Brasília no. 3A, 3 January 1986, Microfilmed, Tape 2193–23.09-86, Secret, p. 1, AHMRE.

³¹ Patti, “Brazil in Global Nuclear Order,” 217–19; Mallea, Spektor, and Wheeler, The Origins of Nuclear Cooperation, 10; Octávio Côrtes, A Política Externa do Governo Sarney: O Início da Reformulação de Diretrizes para a Inserção Internacional sob o Signo da Democracia (Brasília: Fundação Alexandre Gusmão, 2010).

³² Brasil, Presidência da República, Pronunciamento do presidente José Sarney, por ocasião da abertura do debate geral da XL Assembléia-Geral da ONU, Nova Iorque, 23 de setembro de 1985 (Brasília: Presidência da República, 1985).

³³ Significant insights can be found in a memorandum drafted by Itamaraty at the time. See Dispatch n. 0808/86 DNU/DAF-I/DAM-I/PGUE-Z20 from the Ministry of External Relations to the National Security Council, 28 July 1988, Secret, ANB, www.sian.an.gov.br. A redacted version was leaked to the press in the days leading up to the UNGA session. Estado S. Paulo, “Brasil quer paz no Atlântico Sul,” Estado de S. Paulo, 16 October 1986: 7.

³⁴ Dispatch n. 0808/86, 2.

³⁵ Ibid., 12.

³⁶ Ibid., 10.

³⁷ Ibid., 6.

³⁸ Ibid., 8–9. Shiguenoli Miyamoto, “Atlântico Sul: zona de paz e cooperação,” Lua Nova 3, no. 3 (1987): 20–3.

³⁹ See Roberto Abreu Sodré, “1986 – XLI Sessão Ordinária da Assembléia Geral da ONU – Ministro Roberto de Abreu Sodré,” in O Brasil nas Nações Unidas 1946–2011, ed. Luiz Felipe Seixas Corrêa (Brasília: Fundação Alexandre Gusmão, 2012), 571–84 at 583. The IOZ set the precedent for subsequent proposals on other zones of peace worldwide by emphasising a broader regional disarmament that went beyond non-proliferation concerns, while the Declaration for the Denuclearisation of Africa was an integral part of the campaign against the Apartheid regime and its nuclear ambitions. Brazil had provided previous support at the UNGA in both cases, which meant any linkages with ZOPACAS were not expected to incite any particular controversy.

⁴⁰ Wrobel, Brazil, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Latin America, 62.

⁴¹ Appraisal by the National Security Council – Creation of Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic, 6 August 1986, Secret, p. 1, ANB, www.sian.an.gov.br.

⁴² Dispatch n. 0808/86, pp. 8, 14.

⁴³ Fernando Albuquerque Mourão, “Zona de Paz e Cooperação no Atlântico Sul,” Política e Estratégia 6, no. 1 (1988): 49–60 at 49; Eugénio Vargas Garcia, “Questões estratégicas e de segurança internacional: a marca do tempo e a força histórica da mudança,” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 16 (1998): 99–120 at 117.

⁴⁴ UN General Assembly, “Request for the Inclusion of an Item in the Provisional Agenda of the Forty-first Session – Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic,” 29 May 1986, A/41/143, http://www.un.org/documents.

⁴⁵ Telegram from the Portuguese Embassy in Brasília to Lisbon no. 465, 9 July 1986, (S7.E9.P8/60569), 1, Arquivo Histórico-Diplomático do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros de Portugal (hereafter Lisbon, Portugal: AHDMNE).

⁴⁶ Brasil, Presidência da República, Almoço no Palácio Real de Sintra, 5 de maio de 1986 (Brasília: Presidência da República, 1986).

⁴⁷ This was evidenced when a harsher condemnation of the Apartheid regime in the final communiqué, as per Sarney’s original suggestion, was scratched due to possible fallout for the Portuguese community in South Africa. See Teresa Cruvinel and Cida Fuentes, “Comunicado conjunto consumiu um dia de discussão e afinal saiu tímido,” O Globo, 9 May 1986, 3; Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva, “Comunicado conjunto divide Brasil e Portugal,” Folha de S. Paulo, 9 May 1986, 4.

⁴⁸ Telegram from Brasília to the Brazilian Embassy in Lisbon no. 74, 4 September 1986, Folder 17.03.04 – ‘Travels and Official Visits Brazil-Portugal’, Confidential, p. 9, AHMRE.

⁴⁹ Telegram from Lisbon to the Portuguese Representation to NATO no. 736, 26 August 1986, (P.2.15/152717), 1, AHDMNE.

⁵⁰ Assessment by the Directorate of Defence, Security and Disarmament Services, “Denuclearization and demilitarization of the South Atlantic,” 5 August 1986, p. 1, cited in Telegram from Lisbon to the Portuguese Representation to NATO no. 736, 26 August 1986, (P.2.15/152,717), AHDMNE.

⁵¹ For the Brazilian position see Gilberto Alves, “Portugal não apóia paz no Sul,” Correio Braziliense, 21 August 1986, 8; Jornal de Brasília, “Portugal leva a OTAN plano de paz Brasileiro,” Jornal de Brasília, 21 August 1986. For the Portuguese perspective see José Henriques Coimbra and Hermano Alves, “África é traço de desunião luso-brasileira,” Expresso, 23 August 1986, 3; Diário de Notícias, “Realidade e retórica,” Diário de Notícias, 26 August 1986: 4.

⁵² Jornal de Brasília, “Socialistas vão apoiar proposta brasileira,” Jornal de Brasília, 22 August 1986: 11.

⁵³ Estado de S. Paulo, “Virada de bordo,” Estado de S. Paulo, 24 August 1986: 3. Those concerns arose from a similar proposal by the Socialist bloc at the UNGA, calling for the implementation of a so-called ‘Comprehensive System of International Peace and Security’ that pushed for demilitarisation on a global scale. This substantiated resolution 41/92 in 1986. Aware of the undesired connections, Brazilian diplomats at the UN were instructed to ‘reject incisively any attempts by the socialist group to correlate it with the proposal from that group […]. There are indications that the possibility of those attempts occurring are real.’ Postal dispatch n. 8.811, General Instructions for the Delegation of Brazil to the XLI United Nations General Assembly, 20 October 1986, Folder G13.2.2 – ‘Multilateral Policy’, Confidential, p. 4, AHMRE.

⁵⁴ Folha de S. Paulo, “Serra do Cachimbo pode ser local de provas nucleares,” Folha de S. Paulo, 8 August 1986: 1, 6.

⁵⁵ Alan Riding, “Brazil and the Bomb: Questions Arise Anew,” The New York Times, 21 September 1986, 20. See also Mallea, Spektor, and Wheeler, The Origins of Nuclear Cooperation, 37–8, 129–32.

⁵⁶ Telegram from the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the UN to Lisbon no. 523, 23 October 1986, AHDMNE (P.2.15/152717), 1. The Barton Group informally convened under the UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security and by 1986 included every EEC member state, Australia, Canada, Greece, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Turkey, and the US.

⁵⁷ Telegram from Brasília to the Brazilian Permanent Representation to the UN no. 1791, 11 September 1986, Box 1 – G13.3, Folder ‘Policy on Blocs and International Organisations 1986’, Confidential, p. 4, AHMRE.

⁵⁸ Telegram from Brasília to the Brazilian Embassies in Bonn, Brussels, Canberra, the Hague, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Ottawa, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Tokyo, and Vienna no. 14547, 15 October 1986, Folder CX460 – ‘Policy on Blocs and International Organizations’, Secret, 1–2, AHMRE.

⁵⁹ Telegram from the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the UN to Lisbon no. 542, 27 October 1986, (P.2.15/152717), 1, AHDMNE.

⁶⁰ Telegram from Lisbon to the Portuguese Representation to the UN no. 391, 27 October 1986, (P.2.15/152717), 1, AHDMNE.

⁶¹ UN General Assembly, “Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic,” 27 October 1986, A/RES/41/11, http://www.un.org/documents.

⁶² Telegram from the Portuguese Embassy in Brasília to Lisbon no. 716, 29 October 1986, (S7.E9.P8/60569), 1–2, AHDMNE.

⁶³ Telegram from the Brazilian Embassy in Lisbon to Brasília no. 1913, 4 November 1986, Folder CX460 – “Policy on Blocs and International Organizations,” Secret, p. 2, AHMRE.

⁶⁴ Telegram from Brasília to all diplomatic missions n. 14574, 30 October 1986, Folder CX460 – “Policy on Blocs and International Organizations,” Secret, pp. 2–3, AHMRE; Telegram from Brasília to the Brazilian Embassy in Lisbon no. 684, 30 October 1986, Folder CX460 – “Policy on Blocs and International Organizations,” Secret, 1, AHMRE.

⁶⁵ Telegram from the Portuguese Embassy in Brasília to Lisbon no. 727, 29 October 1986, (S7.E9.P8/60569), p. 1, AHDMNE. Expresso, “Abstenção de Portugal na ONU decepciona Brasil,” Expresso, 22 November 1986: 5.

⁶⁶ Telegram from Brasília to the Brazilian Embassy in Lisbon no. 684, 1.

⁶⁷ Between 1985 and 1987, Portugal and the US became embroiled in a dispute over the slow implementation of the 1983 Lajes airbase renewal agreement, in the Azores – so much so that formal bilateral consultations had to be convened, with Cavaco Silva advocating a hard-line stance: ‘The US should understand Portugal was a trusted ally but not [a] subservient [one].’ Aníbal Cavaco Silva, Autobiografia Política – Tomo I (Camarate: Círculo dos Leitores, 2002), 249.

⁶⁸ Telegram from Lisbon to the Permanent Representation to the UN no. 470, 11 November 1987 (P.2.15/152717), 1–2, AHDMNE.

⁶⁹ Service Information, “XLIV Quarterly Meeting of the North Atlantic Political Committee with Disarmament Experts on 1–2 October,” 7 October 1987, (P.2.15/152717), 6–7, AHDMNE.

⁷⁰ Telegram from Lisbon to the Permanent Representation to the UN no. 470, pp. 1–2.

⁷¹ For the Western ad principio stance on this kind of denuclearisation proposals see Lykourgos Kourkouvelas, “Denuclearization on NATO’s Southern Front: Allied Reactions to Soviet Proposals, 1957–1963,” Journal of Cold War Studies 14, no. 4 (2012): 197–215; and James Stocker, “Accepting Regional Zero: Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, U.S. Nonproliferation Policy and Global Security, 1957–1968,” Journal of Cold War Studies 17, no. 2 (2015): 36–72.

⁷² See, for example, Service information, “Extraordinary meeting of the Working Group UN-Disarmament on April 1st,” 6 April 1987, (P.2.15/152717), 2–3, AHDMNE; Service Information, “Meeting of the Working Group UN-Disarmament on 21–22 September,” 24 September 1987 (P.2.15/152717),2, AHDMNE.

⁷³ Telegram from Lisbon to the Permanent Representation to the UN no. 470, pp. 1–2. Portuguese diplomats found particular solace that similar concerns were circulated in think-tank circles. The Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI), for instance, classified the resolution on ZOPACAS as an ‘abstruse document’ and urged Argentina and Brazil to join the NPT, or at least to become fully fledged parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco in order to ‘demonstrate seriousness of intent to “shield” the South Atlantic from the arms race and especially from the presence of nuclear arms’. SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 1987 (Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 1987), 405–6.

⁷⁴ Assessment by the Directorate of Defence, Security and Disarmament Services, 3.

⁷⁵ Marlise Simons, “Radiation Accident in Brazil Stirs Misgivings Over Nuclear Program,” The New York Times, 13 October 1987, 14. The fact that the Brazilian Navy continued to advocate for a nuclear submarine also did little to sway concerns over the civilian oversight of these activities. Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, “A nebulosidade da política nuclear,” Folha de S. Paulo, 31 December 1986, 3; Roberto Godoy, “Presidente aprova a construção do submarino atômico brasileiro,” Estado de S. Paulo, 12 April 1987, 9.

⁷⁶ Service information, “Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic,” 31 August 1988 (P.2.15/152717), 1–5, AHDMNE.

⁷⁷ Telegram from the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the UN to Lisbon no. 5274, 4 November 1987 (P.2.15/152717), 1, AHDMNE.

⁷⁸ UN General Assembly, “Forty-second Session of the General Assembly – Provisional Verbatim Record of the Sixty-third Meeting,” 10 November 1987, A/42/PV.63, 10 http://www.un.org/documents.

⁷⁹ Telegram from Lisbon to the Permanent Representation to the UN no. 470, p. 1.

⁸⁰ Marcelo Jardim, A Zona de Paz e Cooperação do Atlântico Sul (Brasília: Instituto Rio Branco, 1991): 5.13.

⁸¹ Service information, “Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic,” 1–5.

⁸² Telegram from Lisbon to the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the UN no. 545, 17 October 1988 (P.2.15/152717), 1–2, AHDMNE.

⁸³ Álvaro de Vasconcelos, “Conclusion,” in Portuguese Defence and Foreign Policy since Democratisation, ed. Kenneth Maxwell (New York: Camões Centre for the Study of the Portuguese-Speaking World, 1991), 80–92 at 90.

⁸⁴ Telegram from Lisbon to the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the UN no. 545, p. 2.

⁸⁵ See, for example, Côrtes, A Política Externa do Governo Sarney.

⁸⁶ Carvalho, “Identidade de Ânimos”; Cervo and Calvet de Magalhães, Depois das Caravelas.

⁸⁷ Marcello Duarte Mathias, Os Dias e os Anos – diário 1970–1993 (Alfragide: D. Quixote, 2010), 72.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under grant SFRH/BPD/116700/2016 as well as with a Nuclear Security Fellowship by the School of International Relations-Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV RI), São Paulo (Brazil).

Notes on contributors

Pedro Seabra

Pedro Seabra is a Research Fellow at the Center for International Studies (CEI-IUL), a Guest Assistant Professor at the University Institute of Lisbon (Iscte-IUL), and a Researcher at the National Defense Institute (IDN). He holds a PhD in Political Science from the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (ICS, ULisboa). His research interests focus on regional security governance, South Atlantic geopolitics and security-capacity building in Africa.