Nigeria Times

By Zhong Sheng, People’s Daily

As the year-end holiday season approached, U.S. media outlets have recently advised consumers to plan ahead when decorating their homes, warning of potential shortages in common holiday decorations such as artificial Christmas trees, string lights, and wreaths. Trade tensions and tariffs have tightened the supply of Christmas goods in the U.S. market and driven up prices, prompting many Americans to revise their holiday budgets.

In 2025, a wave of tariffs emanating from the eastern shores of the Pacific has negatively impacted global well-being, including that of the American public. This once again underscores a fundamental reality in today’s interconnected world that zero-sum competition is counterproductive, while mutual benefit and win-win cooperation represent the right path forward.

Persistent zero-sum thinking within segments of the U.S. political establishment has been a major source of repeated disruptions in China-U.S. economic and trade relations. Actions such as disregarding international economic and trade rules, unilaterally imposing tariffs, provoking trade frictions, overstretching national security concerns, and enforcing stringent technology controls all reflect an outdated mindset rooted in the belief that one side’s gain must come at the other’s expense.

In an era defined by globalization, attempting to dim others’ prospects does not brighten one’s own, nor does impeding others’ progress lead to genuine advancement. Waging zero-sum games under the pretense of “reciprocity” and “fairness” ultimately harms others without benefiting oneself. The indiscriminate imposition of tariffs by the United States has not solved its merchandise trade deficit or bolstered its industrial competitiveness; instead, it has imposed heavy costs on U.S. businesses and consumers alike. 

From logistics bottlenecks at U.S. ports caused by policy swings on tariffs, to massive losses suffered by U.S. tech firms restricted from accessing the Chinese market, the consequences are visible. U.S. business communities on the front lines of trade have repeatedly called for the removal of additional tariffs and the stabilization of industrial and supply chains.

A telling example of the mutual benefit inherent in China-U.S. trade is a recent viral video by a U.S. TikTok content creator recommending a solar-powered fan hat from Yiwu, China, as a Father’s Day gift. With more than 9 million views and a surge in purchases, the case illustrates how trade enhances people’s well-being.

The essence of China-U.S. economic and trade relations is mutual benefit and win-win outcomes, not zero-sum competition. After over four decades of development, the two economies have become highly complementary, with deeply intertwined interests. Bilateral trade accounts for about one fifth of global trade, with industrial and supply chains forming a highly interdependent pattern that ties the future of both sides together.

At the 8th China International Import Expo, U.S. companies have secured the largest exhibition area for the seventh consecutive year, an expression of continued confidence by the U.S. business community in the Chinese market. 

Artificially severing such mutually beneficial cooperation is neither feasible nor advisable; it would only lead to losses for both sides. The so-called Thucydides’s trap is not a historical inevitability. One of the most pressing challenges of our time is for China and the United States to jointly forge a new model of major-country relations unprecedented in history. 

The key to advancing China-U.S. relations lies in adopting sound strategic perceptions and discarding the outdated mindset of zero-sum competition. China neither challenges nor seeks to replace the United States, and welcomes a prosperous and thriving America. 

In fact, China’s development and progress present opportunities for the United States, and bilateral cooperation can support the U.S. in addressing its own challenges. Voices from various sectors, including among U.S. policymakers, acknowledge that trade with China helps alleviate inflationary pressures and enhances the well-being of the American people. 

Over the past period, under the guidance of the consensus reached by the two heads of state, the economic and trade teams of both countries have conducted five rounds of negotiations, with clear pathways emerging to address mutual concerns. This demonstrates that, by moving beyond zero-sum thinking and adhering to principles of equal consultation, China and the United States can effectively manage differences and broaden areas of cooperation.

Winner-takes-all and zero-sum competition do not align with the trajectory of human progress. By shedding narrow perspectives, greater opportunities for cooperation become visible. China and the United States should firmly choose dialogue over confrontation, pursue mutually beneficial cooperation rather than zero-sum games, and ensure that China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation serves as a stabilizing “ballast stone,” not a stumbling block, for the bilateral relationship.

(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy and international affairs.)

By Zhong Sheng, People’s Daily

A recent poll released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that 53 percent of Americans believe the United States should undertake friendly cooperation and engagement with China. Some media outlets noted that this marked the first time since 2019 that a majority of U.S. people have preferred a policy of cooperation and engagement toward China. 

This shift suggests that, despite ongoing complexities in China-U.S. relations, more rational and pragmatic perspectives are gradually taking shape as both sides manage their differences with increasing caution and responsibility.

The ability of major countries to properly handle differences directly impacts world peace and stability. From historical lessons in European balance-of-power dynamics to bipolar confrontation during the Cold War, international relations have consistently demonstrated both the risks of confrontation and the value of cooperation.

Today, as the world’s largest developing and developed countries respectively, China and the United States differ in history and culture, social systems, and development paths. How the two sides interpret and address these differences will be critical in shaping a path toward peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation — an endeavor with both immediate and long-term global significance.

Understanding and managing differences, especially in economic and trade relations, requires a sober and realistic perspective. As the world’s largest two economies, China and the United States are bound by vast and wide-ranging economic and trade ties. Diverging interests, competition, and occasional frictions are natural. What matters is to maintain a strategic view, focusing on the broader relationship rather than allowing isolated disputes to overshadow the overall benefits of cooperation. Exaggerating conflicts risks creating a self-reinforcing cycle of antagonism.

Grounded in the present and oriented toward the future, both countries should prioritize strategic, long-term interests and ensure the healthy, stable, and sustainable development of bilateral economic and trade relations, which serve the fundamental interests of both countries and contribute positively to global economic stability.

Effective management of differences hinges on principled dialogue. In 2025, following consensus reached by the two heads of state, China-U.S. economic and trade interactions returned to the right track of equal dialogue, demonstrating that dialogue is preferable to confrontation. 

However, dialogue must be grounded in firm principles. Mutual respect and equality are fundamental to the effective management of differences. The two sides should respect each other’s core interests and major concerns, as well as the independent choices each has made regarding its development path. When these boundaries are breached through coercion or pressure, the basis for meaningful dialogue is significantly undermined.

For dialogue to deliver tangible outcomes, it must be constructive and solution-oriented. From Geneva to Kuala Lumpur, the two countries have held five rounds of negotiations. Despite challenges, both sides have consistently recognized the value of the China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism and have made joint efforts to resolve problems. 

Each round of talks has produced positive signals that energized businesses in both countries and bolstered confidence in global markets. The two sides should cherish the outcomes achieved so far, implement agreed-upon outcomes, and continue advancing dialogue based on equality, mutual respect, and shared benefit, thus steadily narrowing the list of problems while expanding areas of cooperation.

Managing differences requires not only responsive mechanisms during times of tension but also proactive bridge-building during periods of stability to foster mutual understanding and cooperation.

Recently, China and the United States have jointly facilitated a series of business and commercial exchanges. These in-person engagements have strengthened mutual trust, deepened practical cooperation, and received positive responses from the business communities of both countries. 

People-to-people bonds remain a resilient pillar of China-U.S. relations. The two sides should focus on cultivating greater mutual understanding by promoting people-to-people and cultural exchanges, amplifying authentic voices to dispel misperceptions, and nurturing respect and consensus through sustained interpersonal interaction. In doing so, they can “plant more flowers and fewer thorns,” reinforcing the human foundation of bilateral ties.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that there are no insurmountable obstacles or unresolvable problems between China and the United States. With mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and a commitment to win-win cooperation, the two countries can build a stable, sustainable, and constructive bilateral relationship. 

From a long-term perspective, China’s development and national rejuvenation are not incompatible with the United States’ pursuit of being “great again.” By embracing the principle of seeking common ground while shelving differences, replacing confrontation with dialogue, resolving differences through cooperation, and maintaining a strategic focus on the broader relationship, the two countries can achieve mutual success and shared prosperity.

(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy and international affairs.)

By Zhong Sheng, People’s Daily

During this past year of shifting global dynamics, China-US economic and trade interactions have consistently drawn worldwide attention. 

From initial trade tensions to renewed negotiations, and from apparent impasses to the restoration of equal-footing dialogue, the trajectory of bilateral economic relations offers profound insights into how the world’s two largest economies should navigate their relationship amid shifting global currents.

International relations are inherently complex.Navigating turbulent waters requires wisdom and responsibility; maintaining strategic stability during periods of global uncertainty demands visionary leadership.  

A big-picture perspective is indispensable–details naturally align when viewed through this broader lens. China has consistently approached U.S. relations with this forward-looking, responsibility-driven framework.

When trade tensions threatened global economic stability, head-of-state diplomacy between China and the United States played a pivotal role as a stabilizing anchor, helping recalibrate the direction of bilateral relations. 

Through phone calls and in-person meetings, the two leaders engaged in in-depth exchanges and reached important consensus on managing differences and resolving disputes. This provided strategic direction while injecting much-needed certainty into an unstable international landscape.

Guided by these high-level agreements, working teams from both sides conducted five rounds of consultations, gradually building shared understanding and advancing problem-solving. Experience has demonstrated that framing China-U.S. relations solely through the lens of “competition” or “confrontation” represents both a misinterpretation of bilateral dynamics and a departure from reality. Such narratives not only hinder issue resolution but risk creating more serious challenges for both countries and the world at large.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. In that life-and-death struggle over the future of humanity, China and the United States once fought side by side, making major contributions to the defense of peace and justice and helping save human civilization in its darkest hour. History offers a clear lesson: for shared responsibilities and a shared future, China and the United States can and should work together.

As the times evolve, the weight of China-US cooperation has only deepened. The relationship between the two countries not only shapes the global strategic landscape, but also affects the pulse of the world economy and the livelihoods of people across nations. 

The dynamics of China-U.S. trade vividly demonstrate how bilateral relations create international ripple effects. Even subtle changes in China-US economic and trade relations can send ripples through the world economy, spreading rapidly across borders — from production lines in Southeast Asia to traders in Latin America, and from international financial markets to global industrial and supply chains.

Beneath these ripples lies a fundamental question about our era’s trajectory: Will we accumulate risks through confrontation or build consensus through dialogue? Will we deepen divisions amid turmoil or achieve shared prosperity through cooperation?

How China and the United States manage their relationship will directly determine humanity’s collective future. This defining question of our age demands responsible statesmanship from both nations—a reality that continues to underscore its vital importance.

At this pivotal historical juncture, the world expects China and the United States to make responsible choices that promote global peace and development. 

When meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Busan in October this year, Chinese President Xi Jinping noted that the world today is confronted with many tough problems, and China and the United States can jointly shoulder their responsibility as major countries, and work together to accomplish more great and concrete things for the good of the two countries and the whole world. Trump also said that the two countries can get many great things done for the world.

As two major countries with extensive shared interests, China and the United States can continue to deliver benefits for each other and the world by properly managing differences and focusing on cooperation.

China has always responded to people’s concerns, and pursued the larger interests of all countries. The recommendations for formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan(2026-2030) clearly call for opening China wider to the outside world, promoting the innovative development of trade, and expanding two-way investment cooperation.

These measures will open up broader prospects for win-win cooperation between China and all partners, including the United States. It is hoped that the US side will move in the same direction with China, shoulder the responsibilities of a major country through concrete actions, and bring greater confidence in development to the international community.

When China and the United States cooperate, the world enjoys stability; when they confront each other, the world suffers uncertainty. Major countries should act in a manner befitting their status, demonstrating broad-mindedness and a strong sense of responsibility.

In the face of new circumstances and challenges, both sides should prioritize the interests of their peoples and the long-term well-being of the world. By opening their doors wider, broadening the path of cooperation, sending clearer signals of stability, and working together, they can contribute stronger, more constructive impetus to global efforts addressing shared challenges.

(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy and international affairs.)

By Huan Yuping, People’s Daily

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. Japan, as a defeated nation in World War II, should have engaged in deep reflection on the grave crimes committed by militarism. 

Yet some individuals and forces in Japan continue to intensify efforts to distort historical facts, whitewash wartime atrocities, and even overturn established judgments on Japan’s war of aggression. More alarmingly, there are attempts to rehabilitate militarist ideologies. 

Such actions directly contradict the international community’s shared understanding of history, gravely violate international consensus and human conscience, seriously endanger regional and global peace and stability, and challengethe postwar international order.

In early November, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi publicly claimed during a Diet session that a so-called “Taiwan contingency” could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” allowing Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense. 

This marks the first time since Japan’s defeat in 1945 that a sitting leader has formally advanced the notion that “a contingency for Taiwan is a contingency for Japan” while linking it to the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.

It is also the first time Japan has expressed ambitions to intervene militarily in the Taiwan question and the first time Japan has issued a threat of force against China.

The term “survival-threatening situation” evokes historical rhetoric used by Japanese militarism. Historically, when pursuing expansion, Japanese militarists habitually portrayed Japan as an oppressed nation with no alternative, distorting facts to mobilize domestic support. Once conditions permitted, they launched wars without regard for opponents, consequences, declarations, or means. Militarist mindset continues to enable reckless statements and actions by Japan’s current leadership.

Japanese militarism drove Japan’s wars of aggression and remains the ideological foundation for postwar right-wing forces. 

Since modern times, toxic elements of emperor-centered nationalism, Bushido, and Shinto were systematically exploited and reshaped by Japanese ruling class. This was further combined with problematic Western ideologies like social Darwinism to serve militarist ambitions.

Given militarism’s devastating legacy, postwar arrangements explicitly deprived Japan of war-making rights and sought to institutionally eliminate foundations for renewed aggression. 

However, Japan never conducted a thorough reckoning with its militarist past. Over eight decades, right-wing politicians have cloaked militarism as “democracy,” “rule of law,” and “security,” fabricating a self-contradictory logic of “new militarism.” 

Politically, they have steadily hollowed out the Pacifist Constitution and accelerated the rightward drift of society. Militarily, under the pretext of “self-defense,” they have pursued unchecked arms expansion. Culturally, they have promoted historical revisionism, attempting to indoctrinate younger generations through distorted education. Diplomatically, while posturing as a “regional security guardian,” they have repeatedly stirred up disputes.

This so-called “new militarism” has severely damaged China-Japan relations, undermined regional stability, and caused tangible harm to Japan and its citizens. 

Japan bears heavy and undeniable historical responsibility regarding the Taiwan question. Through the four political documents between China and japan, Japan has made clear political commitments on Taiwan. The remarks and actions of Takaichi disregard these established commitments and seriously erode the political foundation of mutual trust between China and Japan. 

Sergei Shoigu, secretary of the Russian Federation Security Council, pointed out that Takaichi’s adherence to historical revisionism contradicts Japan’s stated desire to normalize relations with Russia, given its repeated anti-Russian rhetoric. As Japan’s defense budget hits new highs for 2026, Japanese citizens have angrily labeled the resulting tax hikes and cuts to social spending as a “life-shortening military expansion.”

The erroneous remarks and actions by Takaichi and others are by no means isolated incidents. In recent years, Japan has increased its defense spending for thirteen consecutive years, loosened restrictions on the exercise of collective self-defense, repeatedly eased controls on arms exports, pursued so-called “counterstrike capabilities,” and even sought to revise the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. 

Step by step, these moves hollow out the provisions concerning Japan set forth in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, while violating commitments enshrined in Japan’s constitution. “New militarism” is posing a real and growing threat to global peace and development.

If such conduct is not corrected, it risks setting a dangerous precedent for other countries, potentially encouraging other actors to challenge established international rules and order. This would fundamentally undermine global governance structures and erode core principles of international relations such as sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs, with far-reaching consequences for regional and global stability.

The “lingering specter” of Japanese militarism is a real and urgent danger. Should Japan persist on this misguided path, all countries and peoples committed to justice have the right to re-examine Japan’s historical crimes and the responsibility to firmly prevent the revival of militarism. This is a shared bottom line for the international community in safeguarding the postwar international order and a fundamental test of whether Japan itself can sustain peaceful development.