The Cold War spread beyond Europe, with the superpowers competing for influence in Africa and Latin America, shaping conflicts and regimes worldwide.
Soviet and Cuban Involvement in Angola
Following the Portuguese withdrawal from Angola in 1975, a brutal civil war erupted among rival factions. The Marxist MPLA (People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola) seized the capital, Luanda, and declared independence, facing fierce resistance from other groups.
Soviet Role: The USSR saw Angola as an opportunity to expand its ideological reach in Africa. It provided the MPLA with extensive military aid, advisers, and logistical support. Soviet arms shipments were crucial in enabling the MPLA to withstand its opponents.
Cuban Contribution: Cuba, under Fidel Castro, deployed a significant number of troops to Angola — estimates range up to 50,000 soldiers at the peak. Cuban forces played a decisive role in military campaigns, especially against South African incursions supporting the anti-MPLA factions (UNITA and FNLA).
Strategic Outcome: The Cuban and Soviet intervention ensured the MPLA’s survival, establishing a Marxist-oriented government. This deepened Cold War rivalries in Southern Africa and drew regional powers like South Africa into a prolonged conflict.
Soviet and Cuban Involvement in Ethiopia
In the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia underwent a revolutionary upheaval after Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown in 1974 by the Marxist Derg regime.
Soviet Engagement: Initially supporting Somalia under Siad Barre, the Soviets switched allegiance when Ethiopia, under Mengistu Haile Mariam, embraced Marxism. They provided Ethiopia with vast quantities of military equipment and advisers.
Cuban Troops: Around 17,000 Cuban troops were sent to bolster the Ethiopian army during the Ogaden War (1977–78), when Somalia attempted to annex the Ogaden region. Cuban and Soviet support was vital in repelling Somali forces.
Broader Implication: The shift in Soviet allegiance from Somalia to Ethiopia showcased the pragmatic, rather than purely ideological, nature of Soviet foreign policy. Ethiopia became the largest recipient of Soviet military aid in Africa during this period.
US Responses and Strategic Interests in Latin America
While the USSR and Cuba were active in Africa, the United States concentrated on Latin America, determined to contain any spread of communism within its perceived sphere of influence.
Chile
1973 Coup: The US, alarmed by the democratically elected Marxist president Salvador Allende, covertly supported opposition forces and the military. In 1973, General Augusto Pinochet led a coup, overthrowing Allende’s government.
US Involvement: The CIA provided funding and advice to anti-Allende groups. After the coup, the US offered diplomatic recognition and aid to the Pinochet regime, despite its human rights abuses, valuing anti-communism above democratic norms.
Grenada
1983 Invasion: The tiny Caribbean island of Grenada saw a Marxist faction seize power, aligning with Cuba and the USSR.
Operation Urgent Fury: President Ronald Reagan ordered a swift military invasion to topple the Marxist regime and restore a pro-US government. The justification included protecting American medical students and preventing the island from becoming a Soviet-Cuban foothold.
Nicaragua
Sandinista Government: In 1979, the Marxist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) overthrew the US-backed Somoza dictatorship.
Contra War: The Reagan administration covertly funded and armed the Contras, a counter-revolutionary force fighting to oust the Sandinistas. This covert action led to the infamous Iran-Contra scandal, where illegal arms sales to Iran funded the Contras.
Outcome: The prolonged conflict drained Nicaragua’s economy and intensified polarisation, highlighting the lengths to which the US would go to prevent perceived communist expansion in its backyard.
Broader Ideological Contests in Africa and Latin America
The superpowers’ activities in the Global South were driven by ideological rivalry but also shaped by local dynamics.
Africa as an Ideological Battleground: Many African liberation movements sought support from either the USSR or the US, aligning themselves accordingly. The Cold War thus intersected with decolonisation struggles.
Latin America’s Left-Wing Movements: Inspired by the Cuban Revolution, numerous guerrilla movements arose across Latin America — in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia. The US countered these through military aid, training, and covert operations to uphold right-wing regimes.
Proxy Wars: These conflicts were often proxy wars, with local groups receiving funding, arms, and training from either superpower. Civil wars and coups became instruments of superpower competition.
Importance of Strategic Resources and Influence
The competition in the Global South was not purely ideological; it also concerned vital economic and geopolitical interests.
Angola’s Oil and Diamonds: Angola’s rich reserves of oil and diamonds were significant prizes. Control over such resources bolstered the MPLA’s position and attracted Soviet investment.
Ethiopia’s Geopolitical Position: Situated near the Red Sea and shipping routes, Ethiopia held immense strategic value. Control over this region meant influence over maritime access between the Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal.
Latin American Resources: Latin America’s minerals, agriculture, and oil were vital to US industries. Ensuring these resources remained in friendly hands was a key motive behind US interventions.
Non-European Theatres: Influence in Africa and Latin America allowed both superpowers to project power globally, demonstrating their reach and reinforcing alliances in the developing world.
International Opinion and Legitimacy Concerns
Superpower actions in the Global South often attracted global scrutiny and affected their international reputations.
Soviet Criticism: The USSR’s military interventions contradicted its image as a champion of anti-imperialism. Critics, especially in the Non-Aligned Movement, saw Soviet behaviour in Angola and Ethiopia as neo-imperialist.
Cuban Reputation: While Cuba’s involvement won admiration among some Third World nations for supporting revolutionary causes, it also faced backlash for entangling itself in prolonged conflicts far from home.
US Hypocrisy: The US faced accusations of hypocrisy for backing authoritarian regimes and overthrowing democratically elected leaders in the name of anti-communism. Human rights violations by US-supported dictators undermined its claim to champion democracy.
United Nations and Global Response: Interventions in Grenada and covert operations in Nicaragua drew condemnation at the UN and strained relations with Western allies, who were uneasy about blatant US unilateralism.
Impact on Cold War Dynamics: These legitimacy concerns influenced domestic debates in both superpowers. Public dissent and the financial burden of sustaining foreign entanglements eventually contributed to changing attitudes towards interventionism, especially during the later stages of détente and under leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev.
This globalisation of Cold War conflict transformed regional disputes into theatres of ideological and strategic competition, intensifying local conflicts and shaping international relations for decades to come.
FAQ
Cuba’s extensive involvement in Africa stemmed from multiple motives beyond mere Soviet influence. Fidel Castro envisioned Cuba as a leader of revolutionary movements and an advocate for anti-imperialist struggles worldwide. Supporting African liberation movements and Marxist governments like the MPLA and the Ethiopian Derg reinforced Cuba’s image as a committed revolutionary state willing to assist oppressed peoples. This bolstered Havana’s prestige among Non-Aligned nations and African countries fighting colonial legacies. Additionally, Castro sought to prove Cuba’s independence from Moscow by acting decisively and often initiating deployments before Soviet approval. Militarily, African campaigns gave Cuban forces practical experience and tested the effectiveness of their doctrines. Economically, while costly, these adventures secured future political alliances and access to resources and trade agreements. Thus, Cuban intervention combined ideology, leadership ambitions in the developing world, strategic visibility, and a desire to shape global revolutionary politics far beyond its Caribbean sphere.
Regional African powers reacted variably to the Cold War superpower presence, often balancing relationships to serve national interests. Countries like South Africa and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) actively resisted Soviet influence. South Africa, governed by an apartheid regime, intervened militarily in Angola to weaken the MPLA and protect its borders from perceived communist threats. Zaire, under Mobutu Sese Seko, received US and Western aid to counter pro-Soviet movements in neighbouring Angola. Conversely, some leaders pragmatically leveraged superpower rivalries for aid and weapons; for instance, Ethiopia switched from US support to Soviet patronage when the Derg aligned with Marxism. Smaller states often joined regional alliances or the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to voice concerns over foreign meddling. Many African leaders condemned Cold War interventions, viewing them as a new form of neocolonialism exploiting local conflicts for external ideological battles. Ultimately, regional responses reflected a mix of resistance, opportunism, and diplomatic balancing.
US interventions in Latin America profoundly shaped political landscapes and societies, often with lasting negative repercussions. In Chile, the 1973 CIA-backed coup replaced a democratic government with Pinochet’s military dictatorship, resulting in widespread human rights abuses, torture, and suppression of political opposition for nearly two decades. In Nicaragua, US support for the Contras plunged the country into a prolonged civil war, devastating the economy, displacing communities, and polarising society. The 1983 invasion of Grenada restored a pro-Western government but set a precedent for US unilateral military action in the Caribbean. Overall, these interventions fostered mistrust of the US across Latin America, fuelling anti-American sentiment and strengthening leftist and nationalist movements that criticised US interference. Economically, many affected nations struggled with debt, instability, and corruption linked to regimes propped up by US support. Politically, the era left a legacy of fragile democracies, military influence in governance, and a deep scepticism of foreign intervention in domestic affairs.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), consisting mostly of newly independent nations from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, generally viewed superpower activities in the Global South with suspicion and disapproval. The NAM’s core principle was to remain independent of the Soviet-American rivalry, promoting peaceful coexistence, sovereignty, and non-interference. Many leaders, such as Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, criticised both blocs for treating developing nations as pawns in ideological and strategic contests. The Soviet military presence in Angola and Ethiopia was perceived as a betrayal of anti-colonial ideals, resembling a new form of imperial control. Similarly, US-backed coups and invasions violated NAM principles of self-determination and non-intervention. The Movement frequently voiced concerns at the UN and during summits, calling for the superpowers to respect local autonomy and focus instead on aiding economic development without political strings attached. Despite their stance, NAM states sometimes accepted aid from either side, creating contradictions in their neutrality.
Superpower involvement in the Global South influenced the global economy by altering trade flows, resource access, and development funding. For example, the USSR’s support for oil-rich Angola secured crucial resources for Soviet needs and impacted Western oil companies’ operations in the region. Control over strategic minerals, such as diamonds and uranium, also gave leverage to Soviet allies. In Latin America, US interventions safeguarded American corporate interests, especially in mining, agriculture, and oil. Securing friendly governments ensured continued exports of vital commodities at stable prices, protecting Western markets from leftist nationalisation policies. Moreover, military aid and covert funding diverted resources that could have been invested in local infrastructure or economic growth, contributing to persistent underdevelopment and debt crises in some regions. Cold War rivalries spurred massive arms spending by proxy states, distorting budgets away from health and education. Financially, the competition also affected global lending patterns, with the IMF and World Bank becoming tools for Western influence, linking loans to capitalist economic reforms.
Practice Questions
To what extent did Soviet and Cuban involvement in Angola and Ethiopia challenge the United States' global position during the Cold War?
Soviet and Cuban intervention in Angola and Ethiopia significantly challenged US global influence by expanding Marxist regimes into Africa, undermining US prestige. The MPLA’s survival in Angola and the Derg’s consolidation in Ethiopia demonstrated the USSR’s ability to project power beyond Europe. However, the US countered effectively in Latin America, ensuring its dominance in its own hemisphere. While these African ventures were symbolic Cold War victories for the USSR and Cuba, they overextended Soviet resources and did not decisively shift the overall global balance, which remained largely in America’s favour due to economic and military superiority.
How important were ideological concerns compared to strategic interests in superpower activity in the Global South?
Ideological rivalry motivated both superpowers to support regimes and movements aligned with their respective visions: socialism for the USSR and capitalism for the US. Yet, strategic interests often took precedence. Angola’s oil and diamonds, Ethiopia’s Red Sea proximity, and Latin America’s economic value and proximity to the US shaped decisions more than pure ideology. While ideological rhetoric justified interventions, securing resources, trade routes, and regional dominance were crucial goals. Therefore, although ideology drove initial commitments, sustaining influence in the Global South was fundamentally about tangible strategic and economic benefits for both superpowers.
