Political, commercial and nuptial unions are often broken by death, divorce and greed. When made between nation states, such alliances are rarely symmetrical. Their defined obligations and responsibilities are subject, like all relationships, to fluctuations caused by the vicissitudes of time´s good or bad fortunes.

This has been the case with the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 as ratified by the Treaty of Windsor in 1386 and several subsequent agreements. Until 1580, when Portugal united with Spain, the provisions of the treaty were equitably observed but during the next sixty years it was suspended. Indeed, as an ally of Spain, it was the Lisbon squadron of a dozen warships which was in the vanguard of the great Spanish Armada and its ill-fated attempt to invade England.

From 1640 the Treaty was restored but with an increasing dominance over Portugal due to its inferior sea power and need for protection from predatory nations of Europe and the Americas. In return, Britain gained wealth from its favoured status as the preferred trading partner of Portugal and its overseas possessions.

Crises were to come in 1890 when a final Ultimatum was delivered by London to Lisbon which insisted on the relinquishment by the latter of a large chunk of African territory and in WW1 when British generals criticized the morale and fighting ability of Portuguese troops at the battle of Lys. The resultant cooling of diplomatic relations was notable during the administration of the Estado Novo. Before and during WW2 the dictator Salazar played a skilful game of cat and mouse with both sides but was eventually forced to cede to the Allies the strategic islands of the Azores as a military base to control the shipping routes of the North Atlantic.

Following the cessation of hostilities, diplomatic relations deteriorated but links to commerce, industry and tourism between the two countries remained strong and caused Portugal to side with Britain by joining EFTA. This led inevitably to provisional membership of the EEC but with a caution which was fully justified much later when Britain made the extraordinary decision to quit the EU; but not NATO.

Since Brexit, the British have become more isolated from their continental brethren but have also been disappointed to find that the “special relationship” which supposedly existed with the U.S.A. has become a myth. Instead, the realisation has dawned that Britain has become the largest of many vassal states where 25% of the nation´s GDP is drawn from the direct sales of more than one thousand U.S. multinationals. They have wheedled from successive governments a plethora of tax breaks and concessions which have not only encouraged the expansion of their trades but also have enabled the capital acquisition of many brilliant companies in the fields of technology.

Nearly USD13 billion was spent in 2024 in buying out the start-ups, spin-offs and specialist AI techs of Cambridge University. The lavishly equipped (Larry) Ellison Institute is now poised to follow suit in Oxford. It is ironic to recall that in 1968 an eccentric U.S. businessman paid only USD 2,460,000 for London Bridge and moved all 10,000 tons of it to Arizona!

Throughout the 20th century the U.S kept an eagle eye open for any opportunity to take advantage of Old World distrust and disputes and formed the new concept of an empire based upon global commercial exploitation supported by a military and monetary supremacy.

Credits: Supplied Image; Author: Al-Jazeera;

The recent indication by President Trump that the U.S.A. wishes to expand its territory northwards by possessing both Greenland and Canada is unsurprising. A glance at a polar map shows all of the strategic reasons while a reading of recent mining surveys reveals the vast wealth of mineral assets which are being revealed by the rapidly retreating ice cap. Neither is it a new concept. NATO flying schools were established in Canada in the 1950s with mainly British aircrew being trained to man the Valiant, Vulcan and Victor nuclear bombers for polar navigation towards Russia - the erstwhile ally now turned enemy.

The only memory of Portugal´s ambitions in this region is the history of the expedition initiated in 1501 by D. Manuel 1 who financed the unsuccessful search made by Gaspar Corte-Real for a North-West passage to Asia. But one must draw comparison to the threat of the use of force made in 1944 by the U.S.A. for the capture of the Azores islands and the present situation in Greenland where a population of 60,000 mainly Inuit people are incapable of defending a homeland of more than two million km2. In the first case no help to resist aggression could be expected from Britain under the treaty of 1373 and in the second we have the pathetic situation of the U.S.A. being at loggerheads with most of its NATO allies.

The withdrawal of the U.S.A. and Canada from NATO is probably inevitable. The return of Britain to the EU will not be welcomed. Russia, China and countries of the East will reinvent themselves as allies.

Portugal´s only diplomatic refuge must be as a republic within a democratic United States of Europe - not as a vassal of the omnipotent but omnivorous U.S.A.

-----------------------------

For more detailed information concerning Azores please refer to my essay published in TPN on 24 May 2023: The Strategic Importance of the Azores in WW2.

by Roberto Cavaleiro Tomar 13 January, 2025