Indo - Russian _US Bermuda Triangle

Indo - Russian _US Bermuda Triangle

Indian Holocaust My father`s life and time - SEVENTY One

Palash Biswas

It is International racial war against the poor and underclasses of the third world countries that Ruling classes worldwide have developed corporate globalisation to annihilate the indigenous production system and culture. INDO _ Russia _ US Nuclear triangle enters the scene to destroy Man, Nature and specifically Rural India. This is going to prove a Bermuda triangle.

Since Independence the Ruling classes in India trying its best to pose a secular democratic welfare state. Mrs Indira Gandhi was the first prime minister to launch a poverty eradication programme adapting to soviet model of development. With disintegration of Soviet Union, the dominant culture of Catse Hindu Nazi ruling classes in India represented by Nara Simha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Dr Manmohan Singh rejected the soviet model and the policy of open market and liberalisation in a global world shaped well. Even when 25 thousand peasants have committed suicide and the nation faces a civil war on Special Economic Zone (SEZ) well represented by Nandi Gram and Singur the ruling classes represented by Left as well as right do not fail to speak on poverty eradication.The multilateral crusaders against poverty seem remarkably unconcerned about the fact that their past poverty reduction efforts have had little effect in reducing absolute or even relative poverty. On the contrary, most development and poverty reduction programmes continue to push rapid economic growth and free market reforms as solutions to poverty, which have resulted in increased debt and greater impoverishment among a significant proportion of the beneficiaries.
The solution to past indebtedness appears to be more debt, since poor countries need to “grow” themselves out of poverty and in order to do so, they must import technology and know-how that they do not posses in order to expand productivity for export markets that they cannot control. Today, the poor are sending more money to the rich than the other way around, and all in the name of poverty eradication! The struggle is going on, from Seattle to Doha, in different forms but with the same content: the solidarity of developing countries. This solidarity may be their sole weapon in the striving for a common goal of fair trade, for the sake of an inclusive development, the development of all people. The developing countries wish this round to be a Round of Development. However, this can only be achieved when they themselves unite and struggle.

New Delhi always forget that Indian constitution defines India as a Union of states. We are not a nation but we strife to be a nation all these years rejecting all nationalities, identities and languages. Ruling classes always tried to deprive the eighty five percent of majority population consisting of SC, ST, OBC, OBC and minorities.We simply forget the destiny of Soviet Disintegration as USSR was itself a federation of nationality.

Brahaminical Hindutva has converted the majority non Brahmin population slaves of politicalised religion without bloodshed and that is an example of NON Violence advocated by Bapu.

Reminiscent of Indo Soviet Relations during intense Cold War period Russian President arrived in New Delhi.President Vladimir Putin sealed an agreement Thursday in New Delhi for Russia to build at least four more nuclear reactors in India, a project potentially worth up to 8 billion euros ($10.35 billion). But Russia will only be able to pull it off if India is freed from international restrictions on nuclear cooperation. And if the restrictions are lifted, the United States and France are likely to compete with Russia for a share of the vast nuclear energy market in India's booming economy. Mind you, Indo US nuclear deal finalised recently has not been implemented as yet. It seems Indo - Russian diplomatic ploy targets to challenge the unipolar global market just sake of existence.We remember how a cartoon by R.K. Laxman that derides the deflated U.S. ego and failed foreign policy of US President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger (seen in crashed car) for supporting the Pakistani military Relations between India and the United States came to an all-time low during the early 1970s. Despite reports of atrocities in East Pakistan, and despite being told—most notably in the Blood telegram—of 'genocidal' activities being perpetrated by Pakistani forces, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and U.S. President Richard Nixon did nothing to discourage then Pakistani President Yahya Khan and the Pakistan Army. Kissinger was particularly concerned about Soviet expansion into South Asia as a result of a treaty of friendship that had recently been signed between India and the Soviet Union, and sought to demonstrate to the People's Republic of China the value of a tacit alliance with the United States.

Complying with US interests, India has actively participated in several UN peacekeeping missions. India is currently the largest troop contributor to the UN and currently seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

But this statement by a Russian diplomat sounds something different.

Yesipova, the Atomstroiexport spokeswoman, would not name a price for the new reactors in India but said they would cost approximately the same as similar reactors to be built in Bulgaria. The company won a tender last year to build two reactors in Bulgaria for 4 billion euros ($5.18 billion), she said.
"The Indian economy is growing rapidly. The country is choking from a lack of energy resources. Four reactors is a drop in the ocean," Pikayev said. "The Americans will get a portion of the contracts as gratitude for the lifting of the restrictions. The Americans will get a lot."

Prafulla Bidwai writes: `After signing the "New Framework" defence deal, which virtually turns
India into the United States' subordinate ally, New Delhi has reached
a nuclear cooperation agreement with Washington, which mocks India's
stated policy. The UPA's Common Minimum Programme explicitly said
India would take "leadership" in "promoting universal nuclear
disarmament." Instead, India has joined the Nuclear Club, and
abandoned disarmament. For decades, India condemned the present Club-dominated global
nuclear order as "atomic apartheid." It has joined that very
apartheid regime. This knocks India's credibility and exposes her
colossal hypocrisy in hiding her nuclear ambitions behind high
moral posturing -- at least since 1988 when Rajiv Gandhi
made a thoughtful global disarmament proposal.’


Boosting trade ties and securing energy deals was a crucial part of the agenda on the first day of talks Thursday during the Russian president's two-day visit to India. A joint statement adopted following the talks said the parties were working on increasing bilateral commodity turnover to $10 billion from the current $3 billion by 2010. "By preliminary estimates, [commodity turnover] grew 20% in 2006, and our task is to expand business interaction and look for new effective models of cooperation," Russian leader Vladimir Putin said after meeting with Manmohan Singh.
The nine documents signed by India and Russia Thursday are as follows. Russia agreed to build four more nuclear reactors for India's Kudankulam nuclear power plant in the southern province of Tamil Nadu and other plants, in addition to the two units already under construction. India's National Thermal Power Corporation and a Russian-Indian consortium signed an agreement on the technical and commercial terms of a contract to build hydropower facilities in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

Instead of acknowledging the failures and traps of trade, the trade ministers of big capitalist countries keep on urging the application of free trade principles in all fields of global trade, in rich and poor countries alike, leaving too little room for national strategies and putting aside such important social issues as environment and labour. Furthermore, they no longer respect the commitments they themselves previously made to ending their economic protection policies. They intentionally ignore the promises of giving special and differential treatment to poor countries. Obviously the increasing financial, investment and trade integration is demanding an equal and democratic form of economic management in the whole world.

A recent report by the World Bank itself reveals the catastrophes on the globe. Rwanda’s maternal mortality rate is 1/40, 200 times higher than that of rich countries. Within the past decade, the life expectancy of Ugandan has reduced by 5 years, and that of South Africa fallen by as many as 14 years. This is caused by HIV-AIDS. The continent's AIDS victims cannot afford the medicines by the pharmaceutical TNCs enjoying production and distribution monopolies under the umbrella of the WTO's rules on intellectual property rights. This partiality raises doubts about the legality and legitimacy of the WTO.

An Oxfam's report on Fair Trade in April 2002 reveals that over 40% of the world's population live in of low-income countries, but these 40% occupy exactly 3% of the world trade. Within the past decade, 5% of the world's poorest have lost nearly a quarter of their real income, while 5% of the world's richest risen by 12%. Out of every US$ 100 brought about by world export, US$ 97 flow to high-income countries, leaving on average only US$ 3 for low-income countries. For every 1 assistance dollar to poor countries, they rob back US$ 2 through unfair trade. Unfair trade takes US$ 100 from poor countries every year. If Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America each could increase by 1% in the world trade, 128 million people would escape poverty. One more per-cent of Africa's volume in the world's trade could generate US$ 70 billion, which is 5 times bigger than the amount of assistance and debt reduction given to this continent.

Poverty rhetoric has supplied institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and many of the U.N agencies with an effective set of tools by which they can not only deflect increasing public scrutiny of their actions, but also, they can build consensus among their potential detractors by claiming a shared and common higher purpose, and by finding new ways to channel financial resources to these would-be detractors, in pursuit of their assumed, higher, common goals. In 1998-1999, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) declared their respective renewed commitments towards poverty reduction, ie., continuing neo-liberal reforms and enhanced structural adjustment under the new names of the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) and the Poverty Growth Reduction Facility (PRGF). An additional joint World Bank- IMF instrument was created: the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) to enhance Bank-Fund collaborations, especially in countries considered eligible for the enhanced HIPC intitiative. rlier, the World Bank had already forged alliances with the UNDP in developing poverty reduction strategies, and setting indicators for monitoring the progress of poverty reduction goals and targets.

During the Cold War, India adopted a foreign policy of not aligning itself with any major power bloc. However, India developed close ties with the Soviet Union and received extensive military support from the U.S.S.R.. The end of the Cold War significantly affected Indian foreign policy, as it did for much of the world. The country now seeks to strengthen its diplomatic and economic ties with the United States, the People's Republic of China, European Union, Japan, Israel, Latin America, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. India also has close ties with the African Union, the Commonwealth states and the Arab World. India continues to have strong a military relationship with Russia.The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for Indian foreign policy. Substantial trade with the former Soviet Union plummeted after the Soviet collapse and has yet to recover. Longstanding military supply relationships were similarly disrupted due to questions over financing, although Russia continues to be India's largest supplier of military systems and spare parts.

The BrahMos supersonic cruise missile is jointly developed by India and the Russian Federation.Russia and India have decided not to renew the 1971 Indo-Soviet Peace and Friendship Treaty and have sought to follow what both describe as a more pragmatic, less ideological relationship. Russian President Yeltsin's visit to India in January 1993 helped cement this new relationship. Ties have grown stronger with President Vladimir Putin's 2004 visit. The pace of high-level visits has since increased, as has discussion of major defence purchases.

With Russian President Vladimir Putin the chief guest, India Friday showcased the cutting edge Russian weaponry in its arsenal as it celebrated its 58th Republic Day with a grand parade that seamlessly blended military might with an impressive display of cultural diversity.It had the desired effect as Putin repeatedly nodded his as the jointly developed BrahMos supersonic cruise missile and the T-72 main battle tanks that have been purchased from Russia rolled down Rajpath during the two-hour parade.In fact, such was the keenness with which Putin watched the proceedings that President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who took the salute, repeatedly turned to him to point out the finer points of the pageant - whether relating to weaponry, the uniforms of the marching contingents, or the diversity depicted through the many tableaux on view. In the past, there has often been criticism that the Republic Day parade is not so much a display of India's military prowess but more of its foreign shopping list. It was just the opposite this time around, with the only foreign equipment on view, besides the T-72 tanks, being an unmanned aerial vehicle -.Instead, the parade, commanded by Maj. Gen. P.C. Bhardwaj, featured a vast array of indigenously developed equipment like missiles, radars for locating hostile weapons and aircraft, bridge-laying tanks, a battlefield communication system based on cellular technology, a mobile decontamination facility for a nuclear, chemical and biological - environment, and an infantry combat vehicle -.

Much of all this has been contributed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation -, whose functioning is now being probed by a government panel after criticism that its projects were suffering from time and cost overruns.


Since the end of the Cold War era, India-US relations have improved dramatically. This has largely been fostered by the fact that the US and India are both democracies and have a large and growing trade relationship.During the Gulf War, the economy of India went through an extremely difficult phase. The Government of India liberalized the Indian economy. After the break up of the Soviet Union, India started looking for new allies and tried improving diplomatic relations with the members of the NATO particularly the United States, Canada, France and Germany. In 1992, India established formal diplomatic relations with Israel.In the mid-1990s, India tried to attract world attention towards the Pakistan backed terrorism in Kashmir. The Kargil War resulted in a major diplomatic victory for India. The United States and European Union recognized the fact that Pakistani military had illegally infiltrated into Indian territory and pressurized Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil. Several anti-India terrorist groups based in Pakistan were labelled as terrorist groups by the United States and European Union.In 1998, India tested nuclear weapons which resulted in several U.S., Japanese and European sanctions on India.

Putin met Thursday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The letter of intent was signed in their presence by Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko and his Indian counterpart, Anil Kakodka.

Under the agreement, Russia would build four reactors for the Kundankulam nuclear power station on the Indian Ocean where it is already building two similar 1,000-megawatt reactors, the Federal Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement. The agreement also would give Russia an option to build more reactors at other sites, the agency said.

At a news conference after the talks, Singh thanked Russia for its assistance in developing the nuclear energy sector and support in the efforts to lift the international restrictions. "Energy security is the most important of the emerging dimensions of our strategic partnership," Singh said, Reuters reported. "We look forward to a long-term partnership with Russia in this vital field."

The Nuclear Suppliers Group -- a body of 45 countries that possess nuclear technology and regulate international trade in the field -- banned sales of nuclear fuel, reactors and other technology to India in 1992 in an effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Since then, India has successfully produced its own nuclear bombs.Russia's deal to build the two reactors was signed in 1988, before international restrictions were imposed, said Irina Yesipova, a spokeswoman for Atomstroiexport, the state-controlled company carrying out the construction.This contract could give Russia an edge over possible future competitors. The "nuclear power station Kundakulam ... is an example of fruitful cooperation between India and Russia and gives both sides a priceless experience of interaction," Kiriyenko said in New Delhi, his agency's press service reported.

In 2000 and 2001, Russia and France attempted to convince the Nuclear Suppliers Group that the restrictions were pointless, said Anton Khlopkov, deputy director of PIR Center, a nongovernmental organization that monitors nuclear policy.

The United States blocked the proposal at the time, but last month U.S. President George W. Bush signed a bill allowing civilian nuclear trade with India. The United States will now seek a decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to remove the Indian trade restrictions, said Alexander Pikayev, a nuclear issues expert at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations.

Kiriyenko said India deserved to have the restrictions lifted. "This country has an impeccable reputation in terms of nonproliferation," he said.

Pikayev said the restrictions could be lifted this spring, while Khlopkov predicted it was more likely to happen later in the year.

"Everything will depend on the U.S. readiness to cooperate with India," Khlopkov said. "I do not rule out that the U.S. will not hurry a decision until it has chosen sites for its own construction and discussed, at least verbally, the types of reactors."

All 45 countries have to agree for the restrictions to be lifted, Pikayev said. Opponents of nuclear trade with India include Japan and a number of European countries that do not have nuclear weapons, he said. "It is vexing for non-nuclear countries that they had to refuse the possession of nuclear weapons in exchange for the opportunity to develop nuclear energy," he said. "They sacrificed an important prospect for their national security and India didn't."

China, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are also among the opponents, Khlopkov said.

In other energy deals, Rosneft signed a memorandum of understanding with India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation to expand cooperation in Russia and India. The companies have 20 percent each in the Sakhalin-1 project.

Sergei Ivanov, defense minister and deputy prime minister, who was in India earlier in the week, said Russia would also welcome Indian investment into Sakhalin-3.


After the World War II, the three revolutionary upsurges, namely the three movements of world socialism, national liberation in colonised countries and workers' struggle in developed capitalist countries, constituted a synthesized and direct attack to both the stronghold and the backyard of capitalism. The struggle between capitalism and socialism, between the capitalist road and the non-capitalist road became the major contents of the transitional time from capitalism to socialism all over the world. In response, the US, Britain and other capitalist countries sought to establish a new capitalist system to obtain global domination - the ambition the German and Japanese fascists once had failed to realise through war. The new capitalist system was to fulfil these three essential tasks - consolidating and reinforcing the capitalist countries' alliance, of which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation played the pivotal role; taming the Third World countries and bringing them back under the control of imperialism; and terminating the socialist system - the greatest menace to the survival of capitalism. To maintain disparity, no sooner had the war ended than the US and Britain gave birth to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), usually known as the World Band, and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), or the World Trade Organisation (WTO) since 1995. These are the three major instruments for capitalism to establish its global economic-financial and trade dominance. The delayed inception of the WTO is due to the inability to form a single market, given the existence, alongside the capitalist system, of the socialist system with totally different sets of rules and modes of production and exchange. Consequently, the US proposed to create a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) instead of an International Trade Organisation (ITO). GATT would constitute a set of rules that covered tariffs reduction, non-tariffs barriers removal and strictly limited room for Government's intervention in private economy and trade. They argued that fast economic growth could only be achieved in such free trade.

From today's vantage point, globalization appears to have been not a new, higher phase in the development of capitalism but a response to the underlying structural crisis of this system of production. Fifteen years since it was trumpeted as the wave of the future, globalization seems to have been less a "brave new phase" of the capitalist adventure than a desperate effort by global capital to escape the stagnation and disequilibria overtaking the global economy in the 1970s and 1980s. The collapse of the centralized socialist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe deflected people's attention from this reality in the early 1990s.Many in progressive circles still think that the task at hand is to "humanize" globalization. Globalization, however, is a spent force. Today's multiplying economic and political conflicts resemble, if anything, the period following the end of what historians refer to as the first era of globalization, which extended from 1815 to the eruption of World War I in 1914. The urgent task is not to steer corporate-driven globalization in a "social democratic" direction but to manage its retreat so that it does not bring about the same chaos and runaway conflicts that marked its demise in that earlier era.

While corporate-driven globalization may be down, it is not out. Though discredited, many pro-globalization neoliberal policies remain in place in many economies, for lack of credible alternative policies in the eyes of technocrats. With things not moving at the WTO, the big trading powers are emphasizing free trade agreements (FTAs) and economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with developing countries. These agreements are in many ways more dangerous than the multilateral negotiations at the WTO since they often require greater concessions in terms of market access and tighter enforcement of intellectual property rights. When it first became part of the English vocabulary in the early 1990s, globalization was supposed to be the wave of the future. Fifteen years later, despite runaway shops and outsourcing, what passes for an international economy remains a collection of national economies. These economies are interdependent no doubt, but domestic factors still largely determine their dynamics. A decade ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was born, joining the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the pillars of the system of international economic governance in the era of globalization. With a triumphalist air, officials of the three organizations meeting in Singapore during the first ministerial gathering of the WTO in December 1996 saw the remaining task of "global governance" as the achievement of "coherence," that is, the coordination of the neoliberal policies of the three institutions in order to ensure the smooth, technocratic integration of the global economy.
During globalization's heyday, we were told that state policies no longer mattered and that corporations would soon dwarf states. In fact, states still do matter. The European Union, the U.S. government, and the Chinese state are stronger economic actors today than they were a decade ago. In China, for instance, transnational corporations (TNCs) march to the tune of the state rather than the other way around.Moreover, state policies that interfere with the market in order to build up industrial structures or protect employment still make a difference. Indeed, over the last ten years, interventionist government policies have spelled the difference between development and underdevelopment, prosperity and poverty. Malaysia's imposition of capital controls during the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98 prevented it from unraveling like Thailand or Indonesia. Strict capital controls also insulated China from the economic collapse engulfing its neighbors.

But now Sebastian Mallaby, the influential pro-globalization commentator of the Washington Post, complains that "trade liberalization has stalled, aid is less coherent than it should be, and the next financial conflagration will be managed by an injured fireman." In fact, the situation is worse than he describes. The IMF is practically defunct. Knowing how the Fund precipitated and worsened the Asian financial crisis, more and more of the advanced developing countries are refusing to borrow from it or are paying ahead of schedule, with some declaring their intention never to borrow again. These include Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil, and Argentina. Since the Fund's budget greatly depends on debt repayments from these big borrowers, this boycott is translating into what one expert describes as "a huge squeeze on the budget of the organization." The World Bank may seem to be in better health than the Fund. But having been central to the debacle of structural adjustment policies that left most developing and transitional economies that implemented them in greater poverty, with greater inequality, and in a state of stagnation, the Bank is also suffering a crisis of legitimacy. This can only be worsened by the recent finding of an official high-level expert panel headed by former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff that the Bank has been systematically manipulating its data to advance its pro-globalization position and conceal globalization's adverse effects.


The retreat from neoliberal globalization is most marked in Latin America. Long exploited by foreign energy giants, Bolivia under President Evo Morales has nationalized its energy resources. Nestor Kirchner of Argentina gave an example of how developing country governments can face down finance capital when he forced northern bondholders to accept only 25 cents of every dollar Argentina owed them. Hugo Chavez has launched an ambitious plan for regional integration, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), based on genuine economic cooperation instead of free trade, with little or no participation by northern TNCs, and driven by what Chavez himself describes as a "logic beyond capitalism."


Following two days of discussions at the Conference on People's Foreign Policy on 7-8 December 2006, Mumbai attended by delegates from trade unions, social movements, resistance movements, students organisations, women's organisations from Bangladesh, India, Lebanon, Burma , Nepal, , Pakistan, Palestine, Sri Lanka and regions of Kashmir and Tibet along with academicians and social critics,

We note that:

In the first four decades of independence, India made efforts to chart an economic policy based on the principle of self-reliance. It also acquired a degree of manoeuvrability in foreign policy based on principles of non-alignment;



Following the shift in India's economic policy in favour of an accelerated neo-liberal agenda since the early 1990s, the foreign policy has come to be aligned closely with the US while assuming a misplaced sense of power as a nuclear weapon state and its quest for emerging as a regional power;

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has come to be dominated by the United States that has extended its domination by suppressing all forms of resistance to US policy and has following 9/11 sought to divided the world between those 'for us' and 'against us', directed in substantial measure against the countries and peoples of West Asia;

India's acceptance of the global domination of the US is reflected in 18 July 2005 agreement on nuclear policy with the US, its recent conduct in the WTO, cooperation with the US agenda for India on genetically modified foods, its growing relationship with Israel including military relations, its complete reversal on its support for Iran and virtually pulling out of the Indo-Pak-Iran gas pipeline deal and its willingness to be part of the 'global war against terror';

India's policy in South Asian is based on a principle of domination and inequality; and as a consequence, continuing to suppress the democratic aspirations of the people of Kashmir, while it has sought to prove to the world that Pakistan is a primary site for spawning global terror; and further claiming to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka while providing these states with military, political and financial support to suppress these very struggles;

Through the deployment of armed forces in Kashmir and the North-East is to large extent for suppressing the peoples movement, the projected threat perception along the borders has provided the Indian state with the rational to justify an enormous defence budget that otherwise cannot be justified by any acceptable measure of force requirement for self defence and standards of public spending for a country that is home to the largest number of the worlds poor;

The Indian foreign policy assessment of a unipolar global order dominated by the US fails to fully understand or estimate the balance of power globally of the EU, Russia and China and the perceived lack of space for an intervention for changing the balance of force by an independent foreign policy is invalidated by the course adopted by some countries in Latin America and West Asia where struggles of people has changed the nature of the foreign policy;

The major victory against Israeli aggression in Lebanon by Hezbollah led Lebanese National resistance, the strengthening of the National resistance in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and the world wide opposition and protests against war and occupation is forcing US imperialism into a defensive position

Foreign policy is very much a reflection and outcome of the policies pursued by government at home and thus has a direct impact on the daily lives of citizens.

We believe that foreign policy, like any other policy, must be rooted in the democratic aspirations of citizens. It must be rooted in building a society that is based on economic, social and political equality and is free from all forms of discrimination where people are free to chart their own destinies without internal or external force or coercion. Such a policy must seek to defend and advance the right to independence and self-determination of nations and towards this end promote a multi-polar world order. Indian foreign policy is out of sync with these aspirations.

Laying the foundation for such a policy needs us to ground our aspirations with a sense of realism so that we successfully evolve strategies for struggles for a people's foreign policy.