The Chinese have not taken kindly to Washington's call for a probe into alleged voting irregularities in the December 2 Russian parliamentary elections, which the Putin-led United Russia party won by a landslide.
The Chinese press attributed United Russia's victory to the potent combination of Putin's effective leadership, popular support, and skillful campaign tactics. People's Daily proclaimed that the win by United Russia is, in fact, the triumph of "Putinism."
The Russian president is portrayed not as a politician seeking to cling to power, but instead as a leader committed to rebuilding his country according to the "Putin Plan," the full implementation of which is expected to take 15-20 years.
The official Xinhua news agency ran on December 6 a commentary titled "Is democracy an 'obedient child'?" The piece, published the same day in Shanghai's Oriental Morning Post, asks rhetorically:
Is it possible that a leader--even a duly elected one--is regarded as undemocratic simply because he does not comply with the strategic interests of the United States?"
Russia's democratic transformation, the article contends, had essentially followed a formula advocated by the West, including the use of shock therapy in its economic reforms:
Indeed, "shock therapy" put the Russian economy in a state of shock for more than 10 years. Under Putin's leadership, however, Russia has come out of a state of weakness, its economy has witnessed accelerated growth, its citizens are better off, and the national spirit has been invigorated. This has led the United States and Westerners to feel that Russia is straying from their idea of democracy.
A recurring theme in Chinese press coverage of the elections is that the United States has lost its ability to influence Russian politics, and that the "Putin course" has led the country on the "road to a renaissance" by departing from a "right-turn" policy modeled after the West.
The question arises, then, whether America's ability is equal to its ambitions. The decline in its international clout and "soft power," suggests People's Daily, is why America has been frustrated in its attempt to "manage" world affairs from Iraq to Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, Sudan and Pakistan. Moreover, "domestic factors" have adversely impacted America's ability to "interfere externally" because public trust in the government has declined as a result of "unilateralism advocated by the neoconservatives." That having been said, the report concludes that, for the foreseeable future, the United States has no equal in "hard power," and for this reason the newly elected leaders of France and Germany have actively sought to improve ties with Washington.
The ebb and flow of America's soft power has been a favorite topic in the Chinese media. Only last Saturday, People's Daily commented on the recent call by defense secretary Robert Gates, "a symbol of American 'hard power,'" for increased funding to develop "soft power" tools. Secretary Gates' call was described as a PR move aimed at "fostering more favorable public opinion" domestically and "transforming America's image as a bully" internationally.
Whether U.S. efforts to shift its mix of soft- and hard-power tools will prove successful is viewed with some skepticism, as noted in the article's conclusion:
Objectively speaking, America is not weak in "soft power." It's just that it is so strong when it comes to "hard" power that its "soft" power seems inadequate by comparison. And with each passing war and economic sanction, its "soft" power seems increasingly anemic. Unless it abandons its efforts to dominate, it will not be able to win hearts and minds--regardless how much makeup it applies.
