The CPC´s 100 Year Endeavour and the Other Meanings

One hundred years since the birth of a person, the beginning or end of a war or the founding of a political party is an anniversary that encourages us to remember history and look at the present, so that on this basis one can form an idea or image of the future. In my address I would not refer to some specific achievements of the CPC I mentioned in my introductory remarks. And also in my recent book 100 Years of the CPC which seems to find its way step by step to readers who agree, are willing and even able to support the idea of human society and the building of a global community with a shared future for the sake of peace and well-being of the people also in societies governed and led by the cognitive capitalism led by a few TNC(Transnational Company). Many of us know that the cognitive capitalism removes the person from the processes of production, sale, receipt and investment. Its program of actions and goals is voiced in the form of a book called The Big Reset, in the establishment of The Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican and in calls of Governments of any type and colour to prepare ourselves for dramatic changes. These include digitalization, cybernetization, distant education, diagnostics and many more. All is packed in words of freedom and the protection of human rights, although nearly everybody knows that the freedom is not a ready-made state. Therefore world politics has become quite startling and has acquired features of tragic farce, increasingly fanciful. Classical times, even those of confrontation, can only be reminisced about. The environment has become extremely contradictory: everything and everybody are very closely interconnected, but at the same time do not trust and fear each other. All is strange and it is unclear how to pursue a consistent policy. Such a transformation of international practices has different consequences; one of them is the emasculation (up to the complete loss of any sense) of political expert dialogue among international relations specialists, whose discussions have always accompanied official negotiations. As I was among such pundits in the past allow me a few words in regard to new challenges in international relations influenced by technologies and competing foreign policy models. You, the reader, diplomats and academicians may wish to consider them in your work together with the achievements, failure and experience gained within and over a period of 100 years of communist movements in a number of countries, incl. the PRC.

General Trends in Foreign Policy

There is evidence that the foreign policy actions are increasingly determined by momentary internal objectives, a rational discussion of a possible detente becomes almost impossible. This primacy of the internal over the external becomes more and more obvious and persistent and it stands for a complex challenge. As the attempts to maintain international dialogue would not stop and we are going to observe two models, known from the recent past. The first one feeds off the legacy of the period immediately after the Cold War. The period characterizes the belief that cooperation is possible only on the basis of a certain set of values, and compliance with them was regarded as a criterion of success. This is primarily the European approach. The second one revives the Cold War approach. Whatever the differences, there is a common responsibility of the USA and the RF for strategic stability and therefore they must find areas for meaningful interactions. The efficacy of the first model is quite obvious. A dialogue on an ideological basis was possible (but not productive) when all of its participants recognized the (human made) universal principles. The problem in the current dialogue between the Russia, the PRC and other states with European partners is that they are following this track by inertia, although no one any longer believes that it will lead somewhere or to a better future. There is no and won't be any other option in the foreseeable future, since the possibility of rethinking in Europe is blocked by the confusion within the EU itself. This explains why there is such an astonishingly scarce variety of policy measures. Threat of sanctions, eventually comes up with purely symbolic measures. They are symbolic because a real confrontation is still problematic due to economic dependence and the lack of consensus within the EU itself. The situation with the second model is slightly more complex. The sober-minded part of the political establishment in the West and the East naturally understands that some topics require a purely practical approach, not an ideological one. In fact, relations in the field of nuclear weapons and other ways of inflicting serious military damages upon each other need a pragmatic approach. The military remains sensible in this respect, but there is no such a guarantee when it comes to politics. Internal political turmoil can intervene at any time. We could observe it by the previous USA administration which held foreign policy hostage to the internal struggle. The present US administration seems to be more traditional in this regard, but the threat of ideological factors spoiling things does not disappear even for a second. The pandemic has reduced personal communication, but when it does happen, one can hardly notice any freshness or pleasure from it. It seems that both the narratives and the tools need to be changed, but no one has the will to do so. The West by introducing its concept of a rules-based world order still aims to divert discussions on key topics into formats convenient for it, where the dissent is not invited.

But with all the changes in the world it seems that a real meaningful dialogue with Chinese colleagues is not only possible and desirable, but that it is already being conducted. Previously, they always wore the mask of politeness, evading the discussion of problems, but now the situation forces all to talk to the point. Practical issues are already discussed without unnecessary formalities. There is a search underway for topics and forms of dialogue which can hardly go on without very concrete discussions and dialogues. This does not mean that these are always pleasant or easy. But they serve the understanding of different cultures, values and perceptions.

Technology, International Relations and Diplomacy

Technology has become one of the most important spheres in the race for power in the 21st century. The two main technology ecosystems - the US and the Chinese, both derived from the IT industry, have clearly taken shape at the end of the second decade of this century. A dilemma for EU and Russia in this regard is whether to join one of the existing ecosystems or develop one of its own or became a cooperating partner. The global digital revolution has triggered just as radical a transformation in the technological and economic order as it did in social relations and lifestyles, therefore inevitably drive international relations. The companies and the states that master the best ideas, services, and practices across these lines set the tone for the rest of the World. Those who fail to meet the challenge, eventually fall under the influence of the leaders or into the modern slavery. China's significant financial and human resources allow its digital ecosystem to feed on huge resources allocated to the technology areas that the CPC Politburo deems most promising. The Chinese were the first in the world to create an autonomous area of the Internet, building the Great Firewall of China and at the same time playing a waiting game and not reacting to provocations. It is just a matter of time before the PRC reaches a market position comparable with that of the USA. It is unlikely that the USA will be able to stop this trend and therefore an increasing number of America's allies, including those in the EU, might welcome China's proposals for digital cooperation. Such cooperation could be possible once the questions of ethics and moral in digitalized and centrally controlled societies have been considered and answered.

Measuring the Impact of Technology on International Relations

The influence of science and technology on international relations has always been in the focus of scholars and practitioners. The already known impacts and patterns set a broad analytical framework that helps distinguish the many roles of science and technology in the international arena and identify areas for further studies as they are analytically distinct and not mutually exclusive. The impact of a particular technology may display different patterns at different times. For instance, the issues it presents may begin as a new crisis and evolve into an obstinate problem needing adequate management. From the many other topics with relevance to the achievement and experience gained in the West and the East, the PRC could be considered for an international cooperation which I would mention the following three:

1) Global trends in the development of the digital environment

As the continuing blurring of lines between the virtual and the real world and between facts and fakes leads to greater anarchy in international relations, the absence of a common clear-cut framework of categories and binding international law concepts in this area is aggravating differences and disputes.

2) Nation states in the digital world of the future The attempts of states to protect themselves against foreign digital interferences have a number of consequences which indicate that within the next few years national states will be faced with two important challenges: The first one is their ability to guarantee the viability of their critical information infrastructures under threat of cyberwarfare and growth of network piracy. The second one is how well the governments understand the principles and methods of ensuring the security of personal data and how they will regulate the turnover of depersonalized big data. If another state obtains such data it will be able to create an authentic picture of the economic and industrial development within the state in question, its agricultural vulnerabilities, its epidemiological situation and consumption patterns. In short: it would enable to adjust its own political, military or economic strategy accordingly.

3) The importance of the film industry for world politics Any concept for political power and cultural influence in the 21st century should cover the film industry, a field of activity with a plethora of intertwined economic, political, and cultural factors. Cinema as an industry that produces meanings is coupled with the concept of strategic narratives. In this regards the EU and Russia failed. The dramatic influence of digital transformation on modern cinematography and the opportunities it opens up for China in creating a new, global streaming services market could enhance and increase the cooperation at least with some states of the EU and also with Russia. For information: 1) While in 2005 Chinese cinema theaters sold 157.2 million tickets, in 2017 ticket sales were already up to above 1.62 billion (UIS Statistics, 2021b). Thanks to the huge volume of the domestic market, Chinese film companies can independently produce big-budget blockbusters for promotion abroad. In this regard, the main tasks are creating a distribution system and infrastructure for film screening which can be implemented, for example, in conjunction with the One Belt One Road Initiative and marketing activities. 2) China is probably the World's only power capable of offering an alternative to Western streaming services (Netflix and others). This is possible thanks to the presence of large-scale domestic digital media markets and government control over the use of the Internet in the country. The key challenge for the mentioned international cooperation represents a few contradictions within the cognitive capitalism system which needs to be considered and resolved before one can embark on cooperation. By introducing its concept of a rules-based world order, the West aims to divert discussions on key topics into formats convenient for it, where dissent is not invited.

Russian-Chinese Relations in 2021

For the above mentioned relations the year 2021 is twice a year of anniversaries. First, it is the centenary of the CPC. In order to understand the significance of this anniversary of the party for the whole world and especially for Russia, it is necessary to go back in history and recall the prophetic words of Stalin. His speech at the 19th Congress which renamed the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in the Communist Party he said following (the fragment is author´s own translation) and which allows better understanding the essence of what is happening in the world today In the past, the bourgeoisie allowed itself to be liberal, defended bourgeois-democratic freedoms, and thus established popularity among the people. Now there is no trace of liberalism left. There is no longer the so-called freedom of the individual - individual rights are now recognized only for those who have capital, and all other citizens are considered raw human material suitable only for exploitation. The principle of equality of peoples and nations has been trampled on, replaced by the principle of the full rights of the exploiting minority and the lack of rights of the exploited majority of citizens. The banner of bourgeois democratic freedoms was thrown overboard. I think that you, the representatives of the Communist and Democratic parties, will have to raise and move this banner if you want to gather most of the people around you. No one else can answer. In the past, the bourgeoisie was considered the head of the nation, defending the rights and independence of the nation and building them "above all." Now there is not a trace of the "national principle". Now the bourgeoisie is selling the rights and independence of the nation for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty was thrown overboard. There is no doubt that you, the representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be the patriots of your country, if you want to become the leading force of the nation. There is no one else to do it. The CPC became the leading force of the Chinese people and gained respect and authority around the world precisely because it raised the high banner of national independence and national sovereignty, as demanded by Stalin. The CP of USSR and now the Russian Federation failed to gain the respect and authority precisely because it betrayed its own ideals and allowed to lose national independence and national sovereignty. Secondly, less than three weeks remain until the Russian-Chinese Treaty of Good Neighborhood, Friendship and Cooperation would be recalled. The treaty was signed on 16 July 2001 by the leaders of both countries, Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin. In February to March this year, both sides, RF and PRC widely announced an extension of the agreement which was signed by presidents Putin and Xi. The extended treaty allows a significant expansion of borderless cooperation areas. At a time when Moscow and Beijing are jointly defending historical memory and opposing attempts to establish a global hegemony of the US-led collective West, close coordination of both countries' foreign and defense policies is protecting not only the signatories countries, but also the whole non-western world. Serving as a periphery for the system of cognitive capitalism, its solution as consumers and instruments provoking RF and PRC this part of the world may become an example of modern slavery.

The mentioned treaty secured the global balance by overcoming the legacy of the 1990s, when the West after the collapse of the USSR thought that everything was possible for it and no one can respond. Now everyone knows that, without the treaty, the fate of humanity could have been much more difficult today. Some people may not like it, some can't accept it, but in reality they can't refuse to accept and live with it as a matter of fact. One such a fact represents a large on-line international conference - China and Russia: Cooperation in a New Era. The conference was held in both Moscow and Beijing at the beginning of June. The organizers of this event were the Russian Council for International Affairs (RCIA) and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The conference was chaired by former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Chinese economist and politician Xie Fuzhan. The speakers discussed all major trends, not only in bilateral but also in international relations of fundamental importance for the political and social sciences of both countries. I would mention just three: 1) Russia and China, an example of new-type power relations; 2) Priority areas of Russian-Chinese interaction in the post-pandemic world; 3) Trade, new technologies and finance and think tank cooperation, a new driving force for cooperation between Russia and China. The conference confirmed that thanks to the treaty both countries have not only reached a qualitatively new level of interaction, successfully defended their interests and the interests of their allies and partners, but also have been directly participating in the formation of a modern world order. It should be once again made clear that the cognitive capitalism with its heart located in the USA and its circulatory system made up of the UK outside the EU and Germany inside the EU and peripheries supporting the system with consumers, instruments and resources has sought to build a new world order without Russia and China at their expense. It became clear during the final stage of the presidential election in the USA and around its inauguration in January this year that the rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing would not be already a tactical, but truly strategic one. It has been moving forward in the interest of the vast majority of humanity which does not belong to either the golden billion or the 100% platinum. Russia and China although both entertaining and modifying the cognitive capitalism system represent an alternative solution to the Western model. With its repeated statement all the time that there can´t be an alternative to it (the Western system), as there is no one outside (the West) who would ever be able to create new one, the West proves that it is a prisoner himself and that its model feeds off the legacy of the period immediately after the Cold War. The most significant test of the strength of ties between Russia and China, as reported, was the corona virus pandemic. In addition, Moscow and Beijing have demonstrated real international solidarity by providing assistance to many other countries, including parts of the west, such as Italy. One of the speakers, the Russian sinologist Sergei Luzyanin, drawing attention to the global and regional balance provided by bilateral interaction emphasized that this balance creates opportunities for equal development for all countries and nations which have been participating in the development of EAEU, BRICS, OBOR and other projects uniting Greater Eurasia. Sun Zhuangzhi, director of the Chinese Institute for Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, noted the high stability of the interactions. The stability was achieved through broad coverage and serious considerations of a number of key areas in economic, scientific, technological, cultural, security and defense issues. The culmination of the international conference was the presentation of a set of articles by authors from both countries dedicated to the twentieth anniversary of the 2001 Treaty, compiled jointly by Russian Council for International Affairs (RCIA) and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The collection, published in Russian and Chinese contains not only a general analysis of the experience gained, but also a look into the future of Eurasia and the world, touching on the main aspects of the historical perspectives that awaits us.

The Summits in Cornwall, Brussels and Geneva

A series of summits of the G7, NATO and the US-EU marked the return of the US to Europe and the restoration of the consolidation of the Old World under the wing of the new US administration. The majority of NATO and EU members accepted such a turn with relief. The ideological basis for the reunification of the Western family was the declaration of liberal values as a lodestar of human development. Washington and Brussels, without false modesty, called themselves anchors of democracy, peace and security as opposed to authoritarianism in all its forms, declaring, in particular, their intention to increase the use of sanctions in the interests of supporting democracy around the world. The aim is to implement for this purpose the American idea of convening a summit for democracy. It is not concealed that the USA will select the participants for such a summit itself and will itself determine the tasks facing them, with which few of the specially selected invitees would want to argue. In the documents of Cornwall and Brussels, the promotion of the concept of a world order based on rules is enshrined, as opposed to the universal principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter. For instance, the new Anglo-American Atlantic Charter, which was presented as an updated version of the document with the same name signed by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1941, which then played an important role in the search for the contours of the post-war world order does not include a word about the key historical fact: the USSR and a number of European governments in exile joined the "initial" charter 80 years ago, thanks to which it subsequently became one of the programmatic foundations of the anti-Hitler coalition and is considered one of the legal "prototypes" of the UN Charter. The new Atlantic Charter is also conceived as a kind of starting point for building a world order, but exclusively according to Western rules. Its editorial board is ideologically charged with deepening the divide between liberal democracies and all other states, and is called upon to legitimize an order based on rules.

At the same time the West carefully avoids deciphering its rules, as well as questions about why they are needed, if there are thousands of instruments of international law, to which everyone has signed and which contains clear obligations of states and transparent mechanisms for verifying their implementation. The charm of Western rules is precisely in the absence of specifics: as soon as someone acts against the will of the West, he would be instantly declared as breaking the rules (without presenting facts) and someone would then claim his right to punish the offender. The Russian minister of foreign affairs, Sergey Lavrov said after the summit in Geneva: That is, the less specifics, the more hands are untied for arbitrariness - in the interests of deterring competitors by unscrupulous methods. In Russia of the "dashing nineties" it was called "acting according to concepts. Russia and China were identified as carriers of authoritarianism as the main obstacle to the implementation of the course announced at the June summits. Generally, two groups of claims were put forward - conditionally external and internal. Beijing is charged with promoting its economic interests too aggressively (the OBOR Project), building up its military and technological might in general to increase its influence. Russia is accused of aggressive policy in a number of regions, in fact, passing off as such Moscow's line of opposing ultra-radical and neo-Nazi trends in the policies of neighboring countries, which suppress the rights of Russians, uproot the Russian language, education, and culture. And yet, the main pathos of the announced approaches of the West is concentrated on the internal structure of non-democratic countries and on the determination to change them according to their own patterns so that they would correspond to the vision of democracy promoted by Washington and Brussels.

General Conclusions

At the dawn of the 21st century, when the strategic partnership between Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China was just being established, many in the world expressed doubts that the partnership and humanity would have such a perspective. The doubters, the majority of globalizers over humanity, and their plans and ambitions are too technical, completely devoid of spiritual and humanistic content. The scroll of this iron monster seemed to have nothing to defend itself from. Today, as we have already noted, the situation is the opposite, it differs. The forces that are trying to enslave humanity and globalize it are still strong, but far from as strong as they were in the past. The Russian-Chinese alternative born twenty years ago is rooted in bilateral relations and has already irreversibly entered the outside World. It lives its own life, inspiring the sympathy and hopes for a peaceful future of many who have not had a chance to develop otherwise. Perhaps this global component of the upcoming anniversary is the most important in it. It allows to hope that in the textbooks of the future our descendants would learn that peace, humanism and progress in the first quarter of the 21st century were saved thanks to Russia, China and their strategic rapprochement in the face of universal challenges and threats caused by the cognitive capitalism and the appearance of a new set of values.

The USA urgently needs to acknowledge the new reality and accept the dialogue and the invitation for cooperation and co-living as the only solution, otherwise it will lose a lot. Similar to Cross-Cultural Agenda The CPC's 100 Year Endeavour and the Other Meanings 9

the loss in Afghanistan and now in Syria. The USA and its allies did not perceive the significance of the political - military defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, they persist in lying and interpreting these great conflicts, involving more states than World War II, as civil wars and wars against terrorism in small and distant countries. The actions of various Washington special envoys suggest that the Biden administration has already decided to restore the bipolarity of the Cold War. That's the only way for Washington to avoid a war against the Russian-Chinese alliance. This could mean that Washington might be committed to defend the integrity of Russian Siberia against China, and that Moscow reciprocally would defend US bases and assets located in China's zone of influence. This possibility assumes that Washington recognizes China's economic leadership in the world. However, it leaves her the opportunity to be politically a Middle Kingdom so that it never becomes a world power in its full sense. Also the United Kingdom, the former realm in which the sun never sets no longer has the military and political means to fulfill its ambitions. As it still has an exceptional know-how and inexhaustible cynicism (The Treacherous Albion) it would participate in any agreement as long as it guarantees payments and it would follow the American administration using and utilizing their common culture and strong networks of influence. Russia, which is not a USSR where few leaders were Russians，does not seek the triumph of ideology. Its current foreign policy is not based on a vague geopolitical theory, but on a projection of its strong leader and personality. President Putin is not prepared to deny himself. China has come a long way without owing to anyone, and especially not to those who destroyed it in the early 20th century. Above all, it intends to renew its regional influence and trade with the rest of the world. The PRC knows how to wait and therefore is not ready to make any concessions. Today is PRC an ally of RF, both enjoy the historical memory. For me it remains the question, whether the PRC did give up or not its territorial claims to eastern Siberia. At the societal level we know that we cannot live in a society without rules. If they are unjust, as these are also in a system governed by the cognitive capitalism we could and probably would revolt and change them. This is inevitable, because what sometimes seems right may not be right at other times. In any case, we need order, but not based on Western rules and disciplines, otherwise everyone will become everyone's enemy. What applies to individuals also applies to nations. It is important to realize that the main obstacles for the USA and its allies are mental and the belief that instability works in their favor.