ABSTRACT
The persistence of Western debate about Soviet intentions in the Third World has been in some respects overtaken by the general consensus now prevalent that the USSR has, at a minimum and for the first time, achieved military parity with the West. The implications of this too are the subject of debate; some see military power today as too specific to translate into more general influence and see parity and a growing economic interdependence between East and West as a stimulus for conservatism on the part of the USSR. In this view the Soviet Union is becoming a status quo power with a stake in the international economic order. An acknowledgement of the USSR’s role as a superpower, and a recognition of economics as the primary determinant of its foreign policy 1 would, in this view, contribute to a ‘relaxation of tensions’. This school of thought tends to emphasise that Soviet policy is risk-averse, that it is constrained both by the limitations of the USSR in regard to forms of power (other than military) and to the complexities of regional politics and the dynamic nationalism of Third World states inherently resistant to the appeals of Communism and the lures of Moscow. It sees a world of complex interdependence, a detente coexisting with competition while the dynamics of regional and national politics stimulate uncertainty and instability in most of the Third World. Recognising the limits of the effectiveness of military power as a solution to these trends this school looks to a Western policy that promotes respect for certain inalienable principles, and to a search for areas of compatibility with local states. It seeks security multilaterally, with proven allies in Europe (and Asia) and by the encouragement of regional co-operation, formal and informal, elsewhere.
