Written by Jake Beecroft
By the mid-1960s, Portugal was the last European power to maintain de jure colonial holdings in Africa, including Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau. Under the dictator Antonio Salazar, the Portuguese government viewed the colonies as economically indispensable and symbolically crucial to maintaining its status as a colonial empire and world power. By the 1960s, the Portuguese economy had stagnated behind much of Western Europe, with Lisbon relying on cheap colonial labour to supply domestic industries. This political stance placed Portugal at odds with international decolonisation trends that had already swept across much of Asia and Africa, giving rise to a wide range of postcolonial nation states. The international shift in attitude away from colonial empires left the Portuguese state in a precarious situation. The rise of both the Soviet Union and America as dual superpowers in the wake of the post-war era added an ideological complexity to rising nationalist movements. With the world almost divided between the two great powers, Lisbon faced a new dimension in the colonial project as the rise of grassroots nationalism in the colonies took on an international dimension.
Severe economic exploitation and racial segregation were hallmarks of Portuguese colonial rule, which incited widespread discontent among the African population. Lisbon showed little interest in devolving governance or granting autonomy to the colonies, which in the post-colonial era prompted widespread frustration and anger amongst the politically educated classes. Nationalist groups such as the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), and the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) emerged in response, advocating for independence and seeing armed struggle as the only viable means of achieving this. The ideological diversity of these groups—ranging from socialist to pan-Africanist—provided the conditions for international involvement that escalated the colonial conflict to an ideological battle between Western-backed Portugal, including NATO, and apartheid South Africa against the Soviet Union to the East and anti-imperialist allies such as Cuba and the Warsaw Pact.
The Soviet Union’s involvement in Portuguese Africa can be traced to the strategic shift under Nikita Khrushchev, who prioritised support for anti-colonial movements as part of a broader effort to contest Western dominance in the ‘Third World.’ Soviet backing for African liberation movements was multifaceted, including arms supplies, training programs, and political guidance. Leaders like Agostinho Neto (MPLA), Samora Machel (FRELIMO), and Amílcar Cabral (PAIGC) forged strong connections with Moscow, leveraging Soviet support to sustain prolonged guerilla campaigns against Portuguese forces. The GRU and the KGB both offered assistance in eliminating rival candidates, providing information, but also ensuring that Soviet influence prevailed. Cuban involvement, facilitated by Soviet alliances, played an even more direct role, particularly in Angola. Cuban troops and advisors provided essential manpower and logistical support to the MPLA during the Angolan War of Independence. These partnerships extended the ideological framework of the Cold War into Africa, with the Soviet bloc portraying its involvement as a moral and strategic commitment to anti-imperialism, largely in response to NATO’s influence in the region.
Conversely, while publicly endorsing decolonisation, the United States and its NATO allies supported Portugal due to Cold War strategic priorities. Lisbon’s narrative of defending against ‘Soviet-backed insurgencies’ resonated with Western fears of communist expansion in Southern Africa, a region already destabilised by apartheid regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. Portugal used its position within NATO to drive a narrative of fear that influenced the decision of many Western governments to act. NATO provided Portugal with military assistance and diplomatic backing, despite widespread criticism of its colonial policies. France was one of the largest providers of military equipment and supplies within NATO, with the government defending the actions of Lisbon and its claims of the colonies as ‘overseas provinces,’ reminiscent of the claims made by Paris regarding Algeria as an integral part of France a decade earlier. This support prolonged Portugal’s ability to resist decolonisation, intensifying the conflicts and their human cost.
The US, in particular, faced a dilemma. Washington condemned colonialism in principle and actively pushed both Britain and France towards decolonising in favour of self-determination. The Portuguese case, however, was different, as control of the Azores hung over successive American presidents, who sought the use of the Portuguese-Atlantic islands as a major US air force base. The desire to obtain access to these islands is reflected in the dramatic shifts in American foreign policy towards the Portuguese. The Eisenhower and successive Kennedy administrations had initially called on the UN General Assembly resolution to allow for self-determination. This policy, however, was later considered a mistake after a study of American foreign policy found that challenging colonialism had actually strained crucial relations with Western Europe. This prompted later US administrations to take on a less confrontational role, instead choosing to step back, alongside providing Lisbon with millions of dollars for the Azores base. These radical shifts in US policy, which initially prioritised the containment of communism out of fear that a Soviet-aligned Angola or Mozambique could destabilise the region and trigger a domino effect similar to what was feared in Asia, reveal the moral ambiguities of US foreign policy. This approach often subordinated democratic ideals to geopolitical strategy, demonstrating the tension between promoting self-determination and countering perceived threats to global stability.
The wars of Portuguese-colonial liberation highlight the profound impact Cold War alliances and ideology had on African liberation movements. Soviet and Cuban support empowered and prolonged nationalist groups like the MPLA, FRELIMO, and PAIGC, framing their struggles as part of a broader anti-imperialist and anti-western agenda. Meanwhile, NATO’s cautious alignment with Portugal, even after many NATO members had already decolonised, was driven by fears of communist expansion in Southern Africa and strategic interests like the Azores, which prolonged the conflicts and revealed the contradictions of Western foreign policy. These wars exemplify how Cold War alliances simultaneously advanced and hindered decolonisation, subordinating local aspirations to ideological and international alliances at the cost of political instability and human lives.
Bibliography
Schmidt, Elizabeth. “War and Decolonization in Portugal’s African Empire, 1961–1975.” Chapter. In Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror, 78–101. New Approaches to African History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Gleijeses, Piero. Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Chapel Hill, N.C; University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
Barroso, Luís. “Portugal’s Resistance to Decolonization and the “White Redoubt” (1950–1974).” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. 17 Dec, 2020.
Cardina, Miguel. “Portugal, Colonial Aphasia and the Public Memory of War.” Routledge EBooks, 2023.
Telepneva, Natalia, Project Muse. distributor., and Project Muse. distributor. Cold War Liberation The Soviet Union and the Collapse of the Portuguese Empire in Africa, 1961-1975. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021.
Telepneva, Natalia, Project Muse. distributor., and Project Muse. distributor. Cold War Liberation The Soviet Union and the Collapse of the Portuguese Empire in Africa, 1961-1975. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021.
De Meneses, Filipe Ribeiro, and Robert McNamara. The White Redoubt, the Great Powers and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1960–1980. 1st ed. 2018. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2018.
Cunha, Alice, and Baldur Thorhallsson. Small States and Big Powers : Portugal and Iceland’s Foreign Relations. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG, 2023.
Lopes, R. West Germany and the Portuguese Dictatorship, 1968–1974: Between Cold War and Colonialism. 1st ed. 2014. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014.
Retrospect Journal 