This is essentially a three-dimensional analysis of interaction between the United States and the Soviet Union regarding their relations with Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan; and the manner and style of relations of these three states with the superpowers; and finally, as neighbors of the USSR, the conduct of their relations with the Soviet Union, with each other, and the exogenous power, the United States. Despite the obvious dissimilarities in their political systems, (where the United States stands committed to free enterprise, multiple party system, and human rights and the Soviet Union espouses with an equal passion socialism, one-party rule, and classless social order), both superpowers have developed remarkable similarities in the conduct of their foreign policies.1 Among the similarities or instrumentalities of foreign policy may be included economic and military aid, the right to articulate the strategic interests in other continents, and above all, the right to exercise intervention in the affairs of neighboring, as well as distant, states.


Foreign Policy Middle East Strategic Interest American Policy Afghan Refugee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    One scholar has singled out for scrutiny American and Soviet behavior in (1) aid relations with the Third World, (2) crisis management in the Middle East, and (3) nuclear non-proliferation. See Christer Jonnson Superpowers: Comparing American and Soviet Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984) p. 5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    William J. Taylor, Jr., Steven A. Maaranen, and Jerrit W. Gong, Strategic Responses to Conflict in the 1980s (Lexington, Mass.: DC Heath & Co., 1984), p. 517.Google Scholar
  3. See also, Prosser Gifford, Ed., The National Interests of the United States (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 1981) p. 188.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Nikolai I. Lebedev, Great October and Today’s World (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981), pp. 134–142.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Edward Vose Gulick, Europe’s Classical Balance of Power (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1955), pp. 62–65.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    This white paper contains more than 2000 pages of documents and statements of responsible officials of the US Government. See, Grenada Documents: An Overview and Selection (Washington, DC: Departments of State and Defense, 1984), p. 3. One study has expressed serious reservations about the ‘legality of the use of force’ in Grenada. William C. Gilmore, The Grenada Intervention: Analysis and Documentation (New York: Facts on File, 1984) p. 74.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    Hedley Bull, Ed., Intervention in World Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1984) p. 195.Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    Richard Bernstein, ‘Remaking Afghanistan in the Soviet Image’, The New York Times, 24 March 1985, p. 53.Google Scholar
  9. 15.
    Christina Dameyer, ‘In Campaign to Sovietize Afghanistan USSR Uses School Media and Ethnic Ties’, The Christian Science Monitor, 26 March 1985, p. 13.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    Selig Harrison, ‘Afghanistan Stalemate: Self-Determination and a Soviet Force Withdrawal’, Parameters (Journal of the US Army War College), Vol. XIV, #4, 1984, p. 36.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    Louis Dupree, Afghanistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980 edition), p. 662.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hafeez Malik 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hafeez Malik

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations