Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing an international assembly as Prime Minister of Portugal. And, as the President has just pointed out, my presence here follows closely on the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Council of Europe member countries in Lisbon on 10 April.

This meeting was of great importance for Portugal, for it bore witness to the support shown by the member countries of the Council of Europe for democratic Portugal.

It was also an opportunity to demonstrate, through the presence of almost all the Foreign Ministers, that the Council of Europe was capable of bringing these Ministers together in the capital of a member state to take decisions of paramount importance for the future of a European policy co-ordinated not only in terms of Europe, Atlantic partnership and democratic solidarity, but also as a means of facing up together to the risks that threaten countries sharing the same values of culture and civilisation.

I am therefore most glad of the opportunity given to me today; but I must remind you that this is not the first time the voice of democratic Portugal has been heard in the Council of Europe. In 1977, Mr Mario Soares, then Prime Minister, made democratic Portugal’s voice heard within these walls when he expounded our country’s European plans.

I am also glad, as newly-elected Prime Minister, to observe that these views on Portugal’s European option are widely shared; for despite political and ideological divergences and differences of programme, Portugal’s socialist governments have succeeded in establishing a consensus on European policy, a consensus which at present allows a continuity in European terms – I would even say Atlantic terms – to be expressed. There is no difficulty on this point.

However, and I say so most sincerely, Mr Soares and his governments did not succeed in establishing the same consensus in internal affairs. It would be hypocritical of me to say that I regret this failure, because if Mr Soares had achieved this same consensus in domestic policy, it would have been he, not I, who had the opportunity of addressing the Council of Europe today.

The fact that all Portuguese parties have shared the same, clear-cut European option ever since the beginning of Portugal’s present democratic period represents a great asset to the cause of peace and to the cause of a united Europe.

I must confess, however, that this European option is a source of some problems for us, because we reject the idea of Portugal entering the European Economic Community with the status of a less-developed country possessing, admittedly, a privileged climate and fine beaches but lagging behind other European countries in its development.

Portugal’s integration into Europe means that European solidarity must work in our favour to help us bridge this tremendous development gap. This at least is what we hope, because there is no question of our joining the Common Market blindfold. The terms must be favourable, and Common Market membership must help to set Portugal rapidly on the road to development.

I shall quote just two figures from which you will appreciate the scale of our economic and cultural backwardness: our annual output per inhabitant is 2 000 dollars, and we have an adult illiteracy rate of about 30%.

Within the Council of Europe we have already been assisted by the other member nations. To achieve rapid development our country will be relying heavily on similar support for some highly practical projects, for such assistance should be provided not only in the short term but also for wider-ranging plans.

What are these plans? Among our priority aims is one which forms the cornerstone of our foreign policy: preserving peace and building security through co-operation. The policy which stems from this objective is probably common to all West European countries.

First, an observation: in the present circumstances the major threat to peace, co-operation and security comes from imperialism, from hegemonism – the expansionist hegemonism and imperialism of the Soviet Union. This is the foremost risk faced by our generation.

A second risk results from non-observance of the rules of the international community.

Two recent events prove that both these dangers are real ones; they should prompt us to immediate demonstrations of solidarity. These two events are the invasion of Afghanistan and the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Teheran.

The invasion of Afghanistan has turned into the wholesale massacre of a peaceful people, to which the international community should not remain indifferent. Immediately my government was formed on 3 January 1980, I solemnly and firmly condemned the Afghanistan invasion. My government was the first to recall its ambassador for consultations. We took concrete steps by denouncing, in particular, the cultural agreement between Portugal and the Soviet Union. When human rights are trampled upon in this fashion it is no longer possible to maintain such cultural agreements after they have been made valueless by the Soviet power’s violation of the Afghan people’s rights – amid, incidentally, the greatest indifference. We trust that the West European community will condemn this invasion in a pragmatic manner so as to be really heard by this hegemonic power.

Another source of anxiety is the hostages affair, which has already been emulated in Latin America and elsewhere. This affair is a grave breach of international and diplomatic laws. And unless it gives rise to a reaction, the international community will be in danger of being transformed into a jungle where might is right.

Unless nations’ rights, the laws of the international community and human rights are respected, peace will not be possible. And if we are to live in peace, we must create security through co-operation. That is why Portugal’s European option, with its Atlantic vocation and policy, is a major asset and should form part of a joint European policy.

Political co-operation in Europe possesses, in the form of this Assembly, a privileged means of action. Here there are no economic problems, no budgetary obstacles, no disputes about mutton. It is our duty, as members of this Council, to make full use of the instruments at our disposal in order to build a joint European policy. Solidarity between members of the Council of Europe and among the whole European community means adopting joint positions on such important and tragic events as those I have mentioned – the invasion and massacre in Afghanistan and the Teheran hostages affair.

We believe – and this is the basis of certain priorities in our foreign policy – that this European solidarity, in order to be truly Western, should be co-ordinated with the policy of the United States. It is in Europe’s best interest to co-ordinate its policy with the transatlantic countries – the United States, Canada and certain Latin American countries such as Brazil and Venezuela.

During these times of such gravity for our nations, the United States Government is not in need of our criticism, even if it is well-founded, but of our support. It is for this reason that my own government, without awaiting the joint resolution of the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers, decided to show support for the United States with regard to the economic sanctions to be imposed on Iran.

Although Portugal is a small, impoverished and dependent country, we believe that for solidarity’s sake our own economic interests must be sacrificed.

That is why, last Thursday, we decided to impose a total embargo on Iran. (Applause)

Today peace is at stake throughout the world: numerous events are taking place, simultaneously, all over the globe. We can no longer afford to hide our heads in the sand and go on living as before. Peace is in jeopardy in many parts of the world. Only co-operation between Europe, the Atlantic countries, Africa, the Middle East and the Far East can succeed in establishing worldwide solidarity to face up to the risk of hegemony and imperialism.

This is the reason why Portugal is simultaneously developing preferential contacts with Europe and the European Economic Community, with the United States, with Latin American countries, with Africa, with Middle East countries and with China. It is our belief that this is not only in our interests as a small country, but also an international requirement. The only way to build a sound peace is to found it not on constant concessions and retreats but on firm measures; the surest way to avoid another cataclysm is not to move backwards into war but resolutely to combat, even with strong measures, the threats to peaceful coexistence which are springing up in certain regions in every continent.

It is not an easy task, but it is, if I may say so, our generation’s “job”. When one sees world leaders discussing whether the present situation is more like the situation that preceded the 1914-18 world war or the Second World War, it is impossible not to be deeply concerned, because between two such alternatives of war no choice is possible. No, one must seek a different alternative, based on a theme for which the Council of Europe has played and will always play a vital role: that of human rights and the development of nations. The principles of representative democracy, the rule of law, solidarity and shared responsibility should be brought into play not only for the developed countries but for all countries.

And here we find a further cause for concern. The economic and social situation of the developing countries, of the third world countries, is worsening dramatically because of the increase in oil prices and hence in the prices of manufactured goods. The less developed countries are today in a worse situation than three or five years ago. A head of steam is building up, tremendous pressure is being exerted, and if nothing is done it will blow the fragile lid off the enormous international community boiler with its internal tension.

It is up to us, and above all up to you, the more developed countries – although you should at the same time heed the words of less developed or developing countries – to make a point in this North-South dialogue of going beyond a mere dialogue, for a dialogue is words, and what is needed is solidarity translated into concrete terms. When one sees, for example, the great concern felt by certain developed countries at the prospect of losing export markets in the Soviet Union that were acquired during the so-called détente, one dares hope that replacement markets will be found. The third world countries could provide such an alternative outlet; but the terms should be favourable to them rather than to the exporting countries so as to promote the third world countries’ economic development, on which international peace and survival depend.

Present-day democracy signifies not only liberty and representative democracy, but also social justice, a social justice which the developed countries have created for their own peoples inside their own borders, but which they have yet to pass on to the less developed countries, which still make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.

Because of these preoccupations, my government, as I stated earlier, does not limit its foreign policy to the European context. Portugal would lose one of her most important dimensions if she gave up her interest in Africa, an interest which is of course of an entirely different kind from that shown before the Revolution of 25 April 1974. Today, co-operation with the young African republics, Portugal’s former colonies, is being conducted on a basis of mutual dignity, non-interference, respect and co-operation.

It is also our desire to broaden the scope of our foreign action to the Middle East countries and, if possible, contribute to the best of our ability to resolving the Palestinian problem, which is casting a shadow on the whole Middle East area and jeopardising its future.

The Palestinians’ right to a homeland is undeniable, but so is the right of the Israeli people, of the State of Israel, to secure frontiers and to survival as a nation. It is to be feared that, despite the avenues opened up, which should be further explored, certain powers may do their utmost to prevent a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem.

Turning now to Africa, one sees hopeful signs, concrete events which lead us to believe that in Africa, south of the Sahara, a reconciliation is possible. I am referring to the solution of the Zimbabwe problem and the moderation shown by Mugabe. The success of this policy is vital, not only for the future of Zimbabwe but also for co-operation between Southern African states; for I hope that, if granted a certain period, the Republic of South Africa will accept a similar solution for Namibia and that, internally, South Africa will eventually evolve towards a less questionable form of government than at present.

In the final analysis, all the Western countries are faced with a challenge in conjunction with the Middle East and Far East countries. It is a challenge of generations, as I said earlier, a challenge which lays tremendous responsibility on our shoulders, and it is disturbing to note the widening gap between public opinion in the United States and in the European countries. This development, to my mind indisputable, is a recent trend, and is very harmful to European stability and the cause of peace.

It is for this reason that we have endeavoured to clear up this misunderstanding, and we thus hope that the Europe of the Nine will rapidly take decisions showing the American nation and its public opinion that the Atlantic alliance, the alliance between Europe and the United States, is not a hollow concept and that Europe does not want to leave the task of providing a deterrent to the United States in order to benefit alone from détente.

Showing solidarity means courageously bringing alliances into play, accepting the risks involved and above all putting principles before economic and short-term interests.

Europe and the West – even the East – can no longer live from day to day. They must think ahead to the medium and long terms in order to avoid the catastrophes which would otherwise occur and which would be more dire, destructive and dangerous for the human race than the conflicts of 1914-18 and 1939-45.

Before drawing to a close, I should like to raise a point of great importance to Portugal, that of emigration. From 5 to 8 May the Council will be holding a conference, the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Migration Affairs. We attach the greatest importance to this subject, and I hope – indeed, I am sure – that this conference will not be a mere formality but will enable joint policies to be drawn up. For, at present, European economies are largely dependent on the contribution of migrant workers; and one of the foremost workforces, without which Europe’s present prosperity would be non-existent, is the Portuguese one.

Portugal is now a small country of 90 000 square kilometres, plus the Atlantic islands. Yet she is much more than that, and is trying to organise herself as a nation on this small territory, but with an immense people scattered over all the continents, whose major workforce is here in Europe.

Other countries are in a similar situation. These situations call for joint policies designed to ensure that migrant workers’ social rights are fully respected and that the work they perform in favour of countries other than their own is given proper consideration.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have already mentioned human rights and the Council of Europe’s fundamental task of furthering them. Human rights form the foundation of our civilisation, a personalised civilisation which accepts the human individual as its underlying philosophy, as a basis for all its action and as its ultimate aim.

I shall conclude with a quotation which seems to me to put the problem of human rights in a nutshell. Let me quote Benjamin Constant who said:

“Real beings are sacrificed to the abstract Being, and the holocaust of individuals is offered up to the people en masse.”