Nigeria Times

By Zhong Sheng, People’s Daily

Recent pro-nuclear remarks by senior Japanese officials have drawn intense international attention. 

A senior official at the Prime Minister’s Office of Japan first claimed that Japan should possess nuclear weapons. This was followed by the Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary’s refusal to clarify the statement, while the Defense Minister publicly stated that revising the Three Non-Nuclear Principles was not off the table. 

Such pro-nuclear rhetoric constitutes an open provocation against the postwar international order and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, once again exposing Japan’s accelerated “re-militarization” and posing a threat to regional and international peace and stability.

What do nuclear weapons mean for Japan? 

As the only country to have suffered nuclear attacks, Japan carries profound lessons about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons. This historical experience should instill a unique understanding of their devastating impact.

The Three Non-Nuclear Principles, not possessing, not producing, and not allowing introduction of nuclear weapons into Japanese territory, were formally adopted by the Japanese Diet as national policy in 1971. 

For decades, adherence to these principles has served as a critical measure of Japan’s genuine commitment to peaceful development in the eyes of the international community.

Paradoxically, certain right-wing politicians now view Three Non-Nuclear Principles as obstacles. While actively promoting Japan’s identity as a “peace-loving nation” and advocating for global nuclear disarmament through narratives of nuclear victimhood, they simultaneously test international boundaries by seeking to abandon these very principles.

Since the formation of the Sanae Takaichi-led government, the pro-nuclear trend has become increasingly explicit: hints of abandoning the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, media reports of plans to revise the principle of not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons, and now open clamor from figures close to the prime minister that Japan should possess nuclear weapons. 

Such fallacies by Japanese officials are clearly at odds with the peace-oriented ideals Japan proclaims to the outside world, once again laying bare Japan’s hypocritical stance on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

The pro-nuclear remarks by Japanese officials also exposed their disregard for obligations under international law. According to internationally binding documents such as the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan is required to “be completely disarmed” and must not “maintain industries that would enable it to rearm.”

As a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Japan must strictly abide by the provisions prohibiting the acceptance, manufacture, possession, and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any pro-nuclear statements by Japanese officials constitute a challenge to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

These pro-nuclear remarks are not isolated incidents. In recent years, Japan has taken a series of steps to adjust its security policy, including loosening restrictions on the exercise of “collective self-defense,” expanding the scope of activities of the Self-Defense Forces, developing medium- and long-range offensive weapons, increasing troop deployments, and restructuring command systems. 

Since taking office, the Takaichi administration has hyped up so-called “survival-threatening situation” and peddled security anxiety to accelerate military expansion and force buildup, and achieve two years ahead of schedule the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. 

It has also claimed that the introduction of nuclear-powered submarines is not ruled out, while taking frequent actions such as relaxing restrictions on arms exports, strengthening “extended deterrence,” advancing revisions to the three national security documents including the National Security Strategy, and discussing changes to the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. 

Taken together with the recent nuclear-related remarks, these developments indicate that Japan’s right-wing forces — deeply dissatisfied with the postwar international arrangements — are eager to break free from existing constraints and return to the old and misguided path of military expansion.

Japan is widely regarded by experts as a “threshold nuclear state,” having already mastered key technologies and materials required to manufacture nuclear weapons, and having long produced and stockpiled plutonium far in excess of civilian nuclear energy needs. 

Precisely for this reason, any loosening of Japan’s nuclear policy would have a severe impact on the regional security landscape and would also create serious security dilemmas for Japan itself. 

Recently, many rational voices in Japan have stressed the need for the country to uphold the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. Former Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba stated that possessing nuclear weapons would by no means be beneficial for Japan, and Former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda called for the swift replacement of officials who advocate Japan’s possession of nuclear weapons. The Hiroshima Prefectural Assembly unanimously adopted a statement urging the Japanese government to adhere to the Three Non-Nuclear Principles.

The international nuclear non-proliferation regime is an important pillar of the postwar international order. Firmly safeguarding this regime is tantamount to protecting the hard-won outcomes of victory in World War II. China will work with all peace-loving countries to remain highly vigilant against Japan’s dangerous moves on the nuclear issue and resolutely prevent the resurgence of militarism in Japan.

(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

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.)