The political forum of Estoril, organized by the Institute of Political Studies and taking place from today to Wednesday, has as its theme “the restoration of democratic consensus and the celebration of the 650th anniversary of the Portuguese- British Alliance”. We are talking about the oldest alliance in the world. How has this alliance survived so many centuries and geopolitical changes?
This is one of the topics that will be discussed at our meeting, it is not for me to answer, in the sense that we do not have one. It is something I would like to underline. We have no official doctrine in this program. During the 30 years there was never. On the contrary, there was always the concern that it was not there. There are three obligations that define us. First, the defense of liberal democracy and the market economy. Secondly, the defense of the Euro-Atlantic alliance. The defense of the European Union is always in an Atlantic connection with the US. The Euro-Atlantic concept is fundamental to defending liberal democracy. It was created after the Second World War and was intended to express the alliance of democracies.
And the third?
The third is the commitment to the idea of the university, which originated in classical Athens and went through a long evolution. A pluralistic dialogue, not a single voice, in search of the truth, the good and the beautiful, as fundamental features of this idea of university. In these three unions, pluralism is always present. Liberal democracy is, by definition, based on the idea of freedom and pluralism. The Atlantic Alliance is the one that defends these values. But above all, the idea of freedom and Western pluralism has one of the most important roots in the foundation of the university. That it is not the place for propaganda, official doctrine, politically correct or incorrect.
I understand the basics of the forum, but I asked your opinion…
I am very Anglophile, I am considered a bit suspicious. I have an award from Queen Elizabeth II, it’s not my job to advertise on a subject people know I put a lot of effort into. And I’m not a historian. But the alliance is the oldest in the world, still in force, and it is indeed extraordinary how it has lasted for 650 years. Two independent countries, with a great connection around the sea, we would like to point out this maritime dimension. Karl Popper, the great author of The Open Society and its Enemies, considered a kind of second bible of western democracies – Bertrand Russell even called it the bible of western democracy – he defends Athens vehemently and almost vehemently criticizes Sparta. to collectivism, Sparta’s authoritarianism, Athens’ defense of freedom and pluralism. And he associates Athenian freedom with the sea and maritime trade. Popper emphasizes the importance of both trade and the sea in the gradual emergence of an open society from the tradition of closed societies. It has to do with the fact that trade brings different peoples, different cultures into contact with each other, and by making that contact, the preconception that each society’s views are the only possible, true, correct one is broken. Societies isolated on continents don’t have this contact with other cultures, so it’s easier to feed the dogma that it is and cannot be otherwise. From the moment there is maritime trade with other cultures, there has been a clash of cultures, but not in a negative sense. There is a dialogue and there is self-examination, of our culture and that of others.
Can this maritime dimension explain the longevity of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance?
The maritime dimension is a key factor in explaining the longevity of this alliance, with its ups and downs. People critical of the alliance often talk about the ultimatum, and I know there have been ultimatums and other disagreements. But in 650 years it would be very strange if there had not been differences and some collisions. The truth is that there were no violent conflicts. On the contrary. There was the sustainability of a strategic alliance.
And it was under this alliance that in World War II, Salazar allowed the British to use a base in the Azores…
Salazar didn’t want to at first. And Churchill tightened the alliance. Salazar didn’t want to because he was very anti-American, you weren’t even allowed to drink Coca-Cola, America was capitalism. But he respected the alliance with England and he respected English culture. Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer, explained to us a few years ago that Churchill sent an emissary to Lisbon at the beginning of the war. And it was he who, referring to the alliance, did not immediately want to ask Portugal to go to war, but thought it important for England that Portugal declared itself neutral and, above all, managed to convince Franco to remain neutral. The Nazis had supported Franco in the civil war. After that emissary arrives, Salazar marks the summit with Franco shortly afterwards and from that summit comes the two countries’ declaration of neutrality.
But it was the presence of the British that finally opened the door for the North Americans at the foot of Lajes and it is this North American presence that later justified Portugal eventually becoming one of the founding countries of NATO.
It is actually very curious, because Portugal was not a democracy, but was invited to participate in the creation of NATO. Churchill, who was no longer Prime Minister because he won the war and then lost the election… he who had been the undisputed leader of the war. But Churchill was in favor of Portugal joining NATO.
NATO focuses on the idea of deterrence, but in reality it has never been put into practice. Article 5, on mutual defense, was only used once after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.
Article 5 is of fundamental importance and constitutes an element of mutual protection and has a deterrent role in relation to threats from third parties. Hence Ukraine wants to enter these days, as it was the target of a ruthless invasion by Russia. It is very important for Finland, which has already joined, and Sweden, which also wants to join. Article 5 is a symbol of protection and security for countries most susceptible to attack. And it was very important during the Cold War. The Soviet Union never dared to attack any of the NATO member states, but occupied and occupied the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
But with the end of the Warsaw Pact and the fall of the Soviet Union, with the end of the communist threat, had it not been time to bet on peace and the dissolution of the military alliance? Instead, we find a broadening further and further east…
NATO was also created to defend liberal democracies that had faced not only communism, but also Nazism and fascism. The emergence of NATO is in defense of Western democracy. At that time the threat was communism, but it was also, it is important not to forget, Nazism and fascism. It is important to remember that in 1939, when the war started, it was because Poland was invaded by the Nazis and the Communists. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It was an agreement presented to the world as an agreement of peace and cooperation between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. And finally what they wanted was to invade Poland. We talked about Article 5. What happened then was that Poland had a treaty with France and England in which it had a kind of Article 5 of NATO. Whichever country was attacked, the others considered it an attack on themselves. And when France and England declared war, it was under that treaty.
Returning to the idea of the fall of the Soviet Union and a dissolution of NATO. All previous experiences showed NATO’s extraordinary success. Without ever firing a shot, it secured borders, guaranteed democracy, provided stability and security against an enemy that would overtake the US, the capitalist West, in the 1960s and 1970s. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall, all countries under Soviet occupation wanted to be democracies. And that is why their great ambition was to join the European Community and NATO. It wasn’t a plan devised in Washington… it was a movement from below, from the people who wanted it.
The point is that he talked about Poland, which had that bilateral agreement and it worked. Is NATO not in danger of imploding, becoming too big with successive enlargements?
So far it has worked beautifully and newcomers mainly wanted to get along peacefully because they know the value of extra protection. This is a bilateral agreement between everyone.
And how can this agreement be combined with others that have been made? I’m thinking of the recent AUKUS, between the US, UK and Australia…
This pact was widely discussed and criticized for being a maritime pact of three English-speaking powers, with a very strong democratic tradition. Australia is a great ancestral democracy, a great pluralistic tradition. Personally, I thought the pact was very important. And frankly, I don’t see any conflict between that pact and NATO. This pact is mainly due to the Pacific Ocean where the Chinese threat is growing every day. China’s threat, arrogance and rebelliousness.
Already after the invasion of Ukraine, NATO classified China as a “systemic challenge”. Is this turn to the east important?
I think so, but the future of NATO and the China issue will also be discussed in the forum. There is a perception within Atlantic values that China is emerging as a power… some 20 years ago we believed that trade, economic activity, a certain Chinese openness to the market, although always very conditioned, well, we , the West, with good will, we thought they would be important factors for a gradual opening of the political system. Based on the ancestral idea that trade promotes pluralism, freedom. We believed in it and we believed it well. There were signs of openness with Deng Xiaping. But those signs have been reversed by Xi Jinping.
Source: DN
