2R - The ending of Cold War tensions in Asia: Afghanistan
Learn why the retreat of superpower rivalry produced different regional outcomes, how Malta and German reunification changed Europe, and why the USSR itself disappeared in 1991.
Soviet withdrawal ended an intervention, not Afghanistan's war
Gorbachev inherited an Afghan war that consumed lives and resources without establishing a secure, broadly accepted government. Continuing indefinitely conflicted with his priorities of economic reform and improved international relations. Withdrawal was therefore an important practical expression of new thinking: preserving Soviet prestige through permanent military commitment became less important than escaping an expensive conflict.
The Geneva Accords of April 1988 provided a framework for withdrawal. Afghanistan and Pakistan were parties, with the USA and USSR acting as guarantors; the UN monitored implementation. Soviet forces completed withdrawal on 15 February 1989. This removed the direct Soviet military intervention that had helped destroy détente a decade earlier. UN Security Council's record of the withdrawal and remaining problems.
It did not reconcile Afghanistan's competing political forces. The resistance had not joined the Geneva settlement as a party, and the Soviet-backed Najibullah government continued to fight after Soviet troops left. Moscow continued supporting it, while opponents retained their own supporters and objectives. An international agreement concerning intervention could therefore succeed without settling who should govern the country.
This distinction matters when judging the ending of Cold War tensions. Superpower military involvement diminished, but the local causes of war survived. Afghanistan illustrates both Gorbachev's willingness to reverse an inherited commitment and the limits of what improved US–Soviet relations could achieve.
Central American settlements contrasted with Cuba's survival
In Central America, years of fighting encouraged negotiation, while the changing superpower relationship weakened the argument that every compromise would benefit the enemy. Regional leaders also mattered. The Esquipulas peace initiative of 1987, associated particularly with Costa Rica's Oscar Arias, promoted political reform and an end to outside support for armed opposition. It preceded the Soviet collapse: regional diplomacy and exhaustion were active causes, rather than automatic consequences of an event in Moscow.
In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas and Contras reached a ceasefire agreement at Sapoá in 1988. The Sandinistas lost the February 1990 election to an opposition coalition led by Violeta Chamorro, and the subsequent transfer of power and Contra demobilisation changed the conflict from armed struggle towards political competition. War damage, economic difficulties and the prospect of ending American pressure influenced voters. The Sandinistas' acceptance of the result was crucial: an election could contribute to peace because the losing leadership relinquished government. US Office of the Historian's account of Central American diplomacy.
In El Salvador, the US-backed government and the left-wing FMLN had fought a destructive civil war rooted in domestic inequalities, exclusion and repression. Neither superpower cooperation nor battlefield pressure alone resolved those issues. UN-mediated negotiations addressed human rights, the armed forces, policing and political participation. ONUSAL began work in 1991, and the Act of New York of 31 December 1991 completed the main negotiations. The final Chapultepec Peace Agreement was signed on 16 January 1992, just beyond this course's endpoint. It is inaccurate to treat the Salvadoran war as already fully ended in 1989. UN account of the negotiations and agreements.
Cuba followed a different path. The weakening and eventual disappearance of Soviet economic support and favourable trading arrangements brought severe hardship, but Fidel Castro's communist government survived. The US embargo and political hostility continued. Contemporary Congressional debate over restrictions on Cuba shows that the ending of US–Soviet confrontation did not automatically produce US–Cuban reconciliation. Congressional Record, 30 October 1991.
African conflicts lost outside support at different speeds
In Angola, Cuban intervention had helped preserve the MPLA government, while South Africa and other outside powers supported its opponents. By the late 1980s, military costs and diplomatic opportunities encouraged a linked regional settlement. The December 1988 agreements connected Cuban withdrawal from Angola with the implementation of the UN plan for Namibian independence and the departure of South African forces from Angola. American mediation and Soviet participation helped make concessions possible, alongside decisions by Angola, Cuba and South Africa themselves.
UN observers verified that Cuban troop withdrawal was completed by 25 May 1991. The removal of competing foreign military commitments reduced the international dimension of the conflict. The Bicesse agreements of May 1991, between the Angolan government and UNITA, then sought a domestic ceasefire and political settlement. These were related but distinct processes: removing Cuban troops did not itself reconcile Angolan rivals or guarantee lasting civil peace. UN Security Council's account of UNAVEM I and II.
In Ethiopia, Mengistu's government faced longstanding rebellions in Eritrea and Tigray, economic disruption, famine and the consequences of coercive rule. Reduced Soviet willingness to sustain its military commitments weakened the regime's supply position and confidence. Cuban military involvement also diminished. These changes helped insurgents advance, but did not create the domestic opposition: it had its own political and national objectives. Contemporary-era Library of Congress country study on foreign military relations.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account