¹ Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Co-operation, 1990 Report, Paris: OECD, 1990, Tables 3–9 and 3–10. All dollar values represent United States currency, unless otherwise indicated.Google Scholar

² The literature on Eastern European aid during the Communist period is relatively sparse. Some recent contributions include Jürgen Bartsch, ‘Aid and Trade in East-South Relations’, The OECD Observer (October/November 1990); Lavigne, Marie (ed.), East-South Relations in the World Economy (Boulder & London: Westview Press, 1988);Google ScholarRadu, Michael (ed.), Eastern Europe and the Third World: East vs South (New York: Praeger, 1981).Google Scholar

³ For a history of Soviet and East European approaches to the Third World, see Valkenier, Elizabeth, The Soviet Union and the Third World: An Economic Bind (New York: Praeger, 1983);Google Scholar Janos Radvanyi, ‘Policy Patterns of Eastern European Socialist Countries Toward the Third World’, in Radu, (ed.); Eastern Europe and the Third World;Google ScholarRobert, & Bass, Elizabeth, ‘Eastern Europe’, in Brzezinski, Zbigniew (ed.), Africa and the Communist World (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1963).Google Scholar

⁴ Kaminski, Bartlomiej and Janes, Robert W., ‘Economic Rationale for Eastern Europe's Third World Policy’, Problems of Communism, Vol. 37 (03–04, 1988), pp. 26–7;Google ScholarKanet, Roger, ‘Patterns of Eastern European Economic Involvement in the Third World’, in Radu, (ed.), Eastern Europe and the Third World.Google Scholar

⁵ For a collection of essays by prominent Soviet academicians on relations with the developing world, in which the anti-imperialist leitmotif is preeminent, see Gupta, Bhanabi Sen (ed.) Soviet Perspectives of Contemporary Asia (New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 1984);Google ScholarClarkson, Stephen, The Soviet Theory of Development, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978), provides a Western scholarly perspective on Soviet theoretical approaches and policies in the developing world.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Academician Primakov, Y. M., ‘Asia in the Modern World’, in Gupta, Sen (ed.), Soviet Perspectives of Contemporary Asia, p. 5. Mr Primakov is at present head of the Russian Intelligence Service.Google Scholar

⁷ Clarkson, The Soviet Theory of Development, pp. 135–9.Google Scholar

⁸ Primakov, ‘Asia in the Modern World’, p. 5.Google Scholar

⁹ The Middle East Treaty Organization of 1955, also known as the Baghdad Pact, included Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey along with Great Britain in an alliance for mutual defence. Following the Iraqi revolution of 1958 and its withdrawal from the alliance, the remaining Pact members formed themselves into the Central Treaty Organization.Google Scholar

¹⁰ SEATO was established by treaty in 1954 and involved Australia, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. In addition the US established mutual security arrangements with Japan, South Korea, and Nationalist China on Taiwan, and acquired a military presence in South Vietnam.

¹¹ Primakov, ‘Asia in the Modern World’, p. 4.Google Scholar

¹² Documents and Resolutions, The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, 1981, p. 12.Google Scholar

¹³ Soviet bloc authors used to go to considerable lengths to disguise, or deny, any self-interest in their aid relations with developing countries. Vide. Academician Kulev, I. A., ‘Economic and Technical Cooperation of the USSR with Asian Countries. Results and Prospects,’ in Gupta, Sen (ed.), Soviet Perspectives of Contemporary Asia: ‘The Soviet Union has never been seeking any economic and other advantages for itself (from its development assistance effort)’ (p. 98).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Pechota, Vratislav, ‘Czechoslovakia and the Third World,’ in Radu, (ed.), Eastern Europe and the Third World, pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Marie Lavigne and François Renaudie, ‘A General View of the Third World,’ and Lavigne, Marie, ‘East-South Trade: Trends, Partners, Commodity Composition,’ both in Lavigne, Marie (ed.), East-South Relations in the World Economy.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 6.

¹⁷ Apart from aggregate figures on their respective development cooperation programs, which contain various items involving trade preferences and industrial cooperation not ordinarily identified as Official Development Assistance, the Soviet Union and other Eastern European donors (apart from East Germany) never released any data on their actual aid disbursements. See Development Co-operation, 1990 Report, p. 158.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Kulev, ‘Economic an Technical Cooperation of the USSR with Asian Countries,’ pp. 106–9 and Tables 4 and 5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ A notable exception to this terms of trade advantage was Soviet aid to Cuba, where oil was provided at below world market prices and sugar acquired at higher than world marker prices. Although information is scanty about most other aid relationships, there is evidence that the aid counter-trade element offered considerable price advantages to the donor countries concerned. In earlier days, it also provided them with access to strategic commodities like natural rubber, by-passing the trade controls on strategic materials imposed by the Western alliance under the ‘Cocom’ arrangement.

²⁰ Pechota, ‘Czechoslovakia and the Third World,’ esp. pp. 85–99, on that country's early experience as a donor.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., p. 91.

²² Balvany, Iris, ‘Hungary and the Third World: A Specific Approach,’ in Lavigne, (ed.), East-South Relations in the World Economy.Google Scholar

²³ Kanet, Roger, ‘Patterns of Eastern European Economic Involvement in the Third World,’ in Radu, (ed.), Eastern Europe and the Third World, pp. 311et passim.Google Scholar

²⁴ In 1972 the CMEA International Investment Bank set up a ‘special fund’ of one billion rubles ostensibly for multilateral development assistance. This initiative came to naught. cfLavigne, Marie, ‘Cooperation and Assistance: How Efficient and How Much?’, in Lavigne, East-South Relations in the World Economy, p. 107.Google Scholar

²⁵ There were a number of instances of tripartite arrangements involving the Soviet Union sub-contracting certain components of its aid program to other East European producers of specialized capital goods and equipment for transfer to a developing country; cf. ibid., pp. 98–9.

²⁶ For a review of guesstimates of Soviet and East European aid levels over the 1970s and early 1980s,Google Scholar

see ibid.

²⁷ Bartsch, Jürgen, ‘Aid and Trade in East–South Relations,’ p. 14.Google Scholar

²⁸ Development Co-operation, 1988 Report, p. 85.Google Scholar

²⁹ OECD, Development Co-operation, 1987 Report, p. 153. As indicated earlier, these amounts, even if actually implemented, would include resource flows not ordinarily defined as ODA.Google Scholar

³⁰ OECD, 1989 Report, Development Co-operation in the 1990s, Table 49, Section F.Google Scholar

³¹ OECD, Development Co-operation, 1987 Report, p. 153.Google Scholar

³² Ibid.

³³ Lavigne, East-South Relations in the World Economy, p. 6.Google Scholar

³⁴ I. A. Kulev has claimed that the ‘grant element’ applicable to Soviet loan aid to developing countries ranged between 38% and 58% but no details on actual interest rates, grace periods and maturity durations were provided. Kulev, ‘Economic and Technical Cooperation’, p. 205. Marie Lavigne states that interest rates were between 2.5 and 3% prior to the 1970s, but then increased to the 3–4% level and even up to 7%: ‘Cooperation and Assistance: How Efficient and How Much?’, p. 94.

³⁵ In a similar way, large numbers of Vietnamese and also North Korean workers were sent to the Soviet Union as well; Development Co-operation, 1990 Report, p. 159.Google Scholar

³⁶ It was often the case that the technologies embodied in East European capital goods and equipment transfers were obsolete, or of lower quality, than their Western counterparts; nevertheless, technology transfers were typically more complete and unrestricted; see Lavigne, ‘Cooperation and Assistance’, pp. 102–3.Google Scholar

³⁷ The effects of exchange rate premiums built in to Soviet aid are cited by Marie Lavigne in ibid., p. 108.

³⁸ Primakov, ‘Asia in the Modern World’, p. 15, differentiated between the ‘central’ and ‘outlying’ regions of the capitalist world, the latter being the developing countries with private sector, market based economic systems. For Academician Primakov, relations between the Soviet bloc and the developing countries in the ‘outlying’ capitalist world had an important role to play in furthering Soviet foreign policy objectives.

³⁹ Documents and Rtsolutions, The 26th Congress of he Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Kulev, , ‘Economic and Technical Cooperation’, pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Lavigne, , ‘Cooperation and Assistance’, p. 95.Google Scholar

⁴² Kanet, , ‘Patterns of Eastern European Economic Involvement’, p. 322.Google ScholarMcMillan, Carl H., Multinationals from the Second World: Growth of Foreign Investments by Soviet and East European State Enterprises. (London: Macmillan, 1987),CrossRefGoogle Scholarclaims that some 231 joint ventures were in place in the early 1980s, most of them partnered with Soviet state enterprises.Google Scholar

⁴³ Kanet, , ‘Patterns of Eastern European Economic Involvement’, p. 324.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ A 1983 study by the Hungarian National Academy stressed the importance of accessing imports from developing countries as part of Hungary's economic cooperation strategy; vide.Google ScholarBalvany, Iris, ‘Hungary and the Third World’, in Lavigne, (ed:), East–South Relations, p. 233.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Lavigne, ‘Cooperation and Assistance’, p. 97.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 103.

⁴⁷ In 1961, Czechoslovakia established a dedicated university for developing country students, the University of November 17th in Prague, which was closed down by 1972; Pechota, ‘Czechoslovakia and the Third World’, pp. 97–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Kaminski and Janes, ‘Economic Rationale for Eastern Europe's Third World Policy’, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Eastern Europe reportedly supplied some 86,000 of the 126,000 technical advisors and experts from CMEA countries dispatched to other countries in 1984,Google Scholar

Ibid.

⁵⁰ Lavigne, , ‘Cooperation and Assistance’, p. 102.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Schmidt-Streckenbach, Wolfgang, ‘Administrative Aid for Developing Countries: The Case of the German Democratic Republic’, Public Administration and Development, no. 4 (1985), pp. 339–51.Google Scholar

⁵² South, June, 1990, p. 33.Google Scholar

⁵³ Snitch, Thomas H., ‘East European Involvement in the World's Arms Markets’, in World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (Washington, DC: US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 04 1984).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Rudner, Martin, ‘Dépenses militaires et développement économique’, Etudes Internationales (juin 1987).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The Jerusalem Post, 8 May 1991.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Bartsch, ‘Aid and Trade in East-South Relations’, p. 13.Google Scholar