The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in Southern Africa: is there a conflict of interest?

Abstract

In the Autumn 1981 issue of International Affairs Christopher Coker argued that in looking at Soviet and East European manoeuvres in Southern Africa, Western analysts had over-emphasized Soviet strategic intentions and under-emphasized the possible conflicts between these intentions and East European interests. He then argued that 'Fundamental differences between the East Europeans and Moscow have been reflected in disputes over three main issues: the significance of Southern Africa's mineral resources; the extent to which planning should be integrated or commercial restrictions relaxed . . . and the wisdom of admitting Mozambique into the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance' (CMEA).1 This article argues that although Coker has raised an interesting subject, the evidence he produces to support his thesis of 'fundamental differences' is unconvincing. If by fundamental we mean primary, important, influential, then there is no substantial evidence of such differences. Nevertheless, although we can reject this 'strong' version of the thesis, we do find some evidence in favour of a weaker version: namely, although there are some conflicts of interest, they have made no significant difference to CMEA policies in Southern Africa. This article is divided into four sections. The first three follow Coker's divisions, and provide critical examinations of his three areas of 'fundamental differences'. The fourth summarizes the main arguments and assesses their implications for the analysis of events in Southern Africa.