Nigeria Times

By Zhong Sheng, People’s Daily

On Sept. 18, air raid sirens were once again sounded across China to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the September 18 Incident.

Ninety-five years ago, Japanese militarists deliberately provoked the September 18 Incident and brazenly launched a war of aggression against China. The Chinese people rose up in resistance, marking the beginning of the eastern front of the World Anti-Fascist War. 

After 14 years of bitter struggle and enormous national sacrifice, the Chinese people won a great victory in which justice prevailed over evil, writing a momentous chapter in the history of the World Anti-Fascist War. 

Commemorating the September 18 Incident and remembering this history is by no means about perpetuating hatred. Rather, it is about safeguarding peace and creating a better future by drawing lessons from history and setting the record straight.

On the fundamental issue of historical understanding, Japan, as the perpetrator of the war of aggression, has never truly reflected on its past. Instead, it has gone further and further down the path of distorting history. 

Not long ago, the Sanae Takaichi administration issued its first major defense policy document, the Defense White Paper 2026. The white paper makes much of the issue of so-called cognitive warfare, applying blatant double standards throughout. 

On the one hand, it labels China’s normal explanations of its defense policies and legitimate articulation of its historical positions as “public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare.” It baselessly accuses China of infiltration and deliberately stoking confrontation, putting on a show of warning against so-called “external cognitive threats” while casting itself as a “victim” of information warfare.

On the other hand, it says nothing about Japan’s own record of systematically distorting the history of aggression and spreading false historical narratives, while instead identifying the development of cognitive-warfare capabilities as a priority for military expansion. Japan’s practice of reversing right and wrong and confusing truth with falsehood is, in essence, an attempt to pursue historical revisionism under the guise of “countering cognitive warfare.”

For years, right-wing forces in Japan have repeatedly crossed the line on historical issues, steadily eroding the consensus on historical justice and distorting Japanese society’s understanding of the past, with increasingly serious consequences. 

At the level of official narratives, Japan has repeatedly revised school textbooks to downplay its heinous acts of aggression, including the Nanjing Massacre. It has deliberately amplified narratives portraying Hiroshima and Nagasaki as victims of the atomic bombings in an attempt to obscure Japan’s own role as an aggressor. 

Japanese politicians have taken turns visiting the so-called Yasukuni Shrine, where Class-A war criminals are enshrined, rejecting the legal authority of the Tokyo Trials and promoting the claim that responsibility for the war remains unsettled, repeatedly challenging the bottom line of historical justice.

At the level of intergenerational indoctrination, Japan has for years published children’s editions of the Defense White Paper, packaging military-related content in confrontational terms as educational material and distributing it to thousands of elementary schools across the country. 

Recruitment messages for the Self-Defense Forces have also been incorporated into school activities, while external threats have been exaggerated, subtly instilling militaristic thinking in the minds of young people whose worldviews are still taking shape. 

At the level of public opinion manipulation, right-wing forces have used generative artificial intelligence to mass-produce false audio and video content that distorts the history of Japan’s aggression against China, while using crowdsourcing platforms to pay for the dissemination of falsehoods. 

According to publicly available budget data from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan has allocated more than 56 billion yen ($360 million) since 2015 under the heading of “overseas strategic information dissemination,” specifically for smearing others in public opinion and revising the historical narrative.

The Japanese right wing’s efforts to distort historical understanding are far more than isolated acts of manipulating public opinion. Their fundamental aim is to remove ideological obstacles and lay the groundwork for breaking through the postwar system and pursuing comprehensive remilitarization. 

A profound reflection on the history of aggression and the eradication of the roots of militarism should be a prerequisite and foundation for Japan to pursue peaceful development, as well as a key line of defense for upholding the postwar international order.

Today, however, Japan’s right-wing forces are moving in the opposite direction, systematically dismantling this line of defense for peace. 

Domestically, they seek to reduce public resistance to military expansion and war preparations, manufacturing so-called justification for a defense budget that has risen for 14 consecutive years and surpassed 9 trillion yen. 

Externally, they deliberately conceal the offensive nature of their military expansion, seeking to ease international opposition to a series of moves that break through the postwar framework, including the development and deployment of long-range offensive weapons, the reorganization of the Air Self-Defense Force into an “Air and Space Self-Defense Force,” and the relaxation of restrictions on exports of lethal weapons.

Japan is continually breaking through the constraints of the postwar framework, accelerating military loosening and the expansion of its military capabilities through multilateral military exercises, joining forces with countries outside the region in bloc confrontation, and deliberately creating tensions and instability in the region. Step by step, it is heading down the dangerous path toward neo-militarism.

When war criminals are put on a pedestal, lies are written into textbooks, children are taught hostility, and the bottom line for peace is repeatedly breached, Japan is gradually destroying its own future. 

The distortion of historical understanding is the ideological root of the growth of neo-militarism in Japan. Unless this root cause is eradicated, the lingering influence of militarism cannot be fully eliminated. Japan will be unable to win the trust and understanding of the international community, especially its Asian neighbors, and the foundation for peace and development in the region cannot be firmly consolidated.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trials. At this important historical juncture, Japan should face up to the history of its aggression, deeply reflect on its responsibility for the war, and fundamentally break with militarism. This is the right choice in the fundamental interests of the Japanese people.

(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

The U.S. National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Federal Bureau of Investigation recently issued a joint cybersecurity advisory, warning of China-based artificial intelligence (AI) companies targeting U.S. AI companies with “industrial-scale” knowledge distillation companies to acquire the capabilities of U.S. frontier models and proposing defensive measures to U.S. companies. 

The accusation is unfounded and has no legal basis. Essentially, it politicizes and instrumentalizes distillation, a normal technical and commercial practice in the industry, while applying double standards. This once again lays bare the U.S. approach of pursuing tech hegemony, monopolizing computing power, and suppressing competition in the AI sector. China firmly opposes such moves.

Distillation is a common practice in AI development, through which different models learn from one another. It is, in essence, a neutral technical means used by AI companies around the world, including U.S. companies. 

By using a high-performing “teacher model” to guide a more lightweight “student model,” distillation can improve the efficiency of model training and enable more effective use of human knowledge. It can help countries develop their AI industries, unlock technological potential, narrow development gaps, and make the benefits of AI more broadly accessible to developing countries and people around the world.

China encourages openness, cooperation, and sharing, and has made open-source models available to companies worldwide, including U.S. companies, facilitating the development of related models. 

Reports released by U.S. companies on their own model development have also disclosed extensive use of distillation techniques derived from Chinese models. By Washington’s logic, when U.S. companies use distillation, it is considered an “industry-wide practice,” yet when Chinese companies do the same, it constitutes an “attack.” Such an approach is nothing less than a blatant double standard.

By elevating a common industry practice into a national security issue, the United States is using the pretext of combating distillation to pursue an industrial monopoly. For years, certain U.S. AI companies have abused their dominant market positions, imposing overly broad geographic restrictions and other restrictive provisions in their user agreements in an attempt to exclude competitors from countries such as China from the global technology ecosystem and monopolize the benefits of AI development. 

The latest move by U.S. security agencies to issue an official advisory, tying the interests of individual companies and investors to national security, is tantamount to giving these restrictive practices the backing of the U.S. government.

For some time now, U.S. executive and legislative agencies have repeatedly threatened sanctions and other measures against Chinese companies, with restrictions expanding from chip controls and curbs on access to computing power to restrictions on access to AI models. The United States has gone so far as to mobilize state power to preserve its technological dominance and monopoly over computing resources. 

At the root of this approach lies a deep-seated anxiety about losing technological supremacy. It reflects a hegemonic logic that insists only the United States should prevail, rather than allowing humanity to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

However, efforts to contain and suppress technological development have never been able to stop the advance of science and technology. China’s advances in AI are the result of pursuing greater self-reliance and strength in science and technology, and it has also benefited from China’s consistent commitment to extensive consultation, joint contribution, shared benefits, as well as openness and cooperation. 

In recent years, Chinese AI companies have made solid progress in areas including foundational algorithms, computing-power infrastructure and application scenarios. Leveraging China’s complete industrial system and rich range of application scenarios, they have continuously lowered the barriers to developing and applying AI technologies. In doing so, they have broken through the high-cost barriers created by a handful of U.S. companies through massive investments in capital and computing power.

Dennis Simon, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that the United States should not view openness and security as a zero-sum game. Trying to maintain its technological lead by building walls will ultimately be counterproductive.

AI is a new frontier of human development. It is not the preserve of any major country, nor should it be turned into an arena for zero-sum rivalry. The global AI industry is currently at a critical stage of technological iteration, emerging risks, and continued growth. As major AI powers, China and the United States should address the challenges and risks in this field with a positive and responsible attitude. 

The two heads of state have agreed to launch an intergovernmental dialogue on AI. China is ready to engage with the United States in constructive and professional discussions, based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, and work together to promote the open, inclusive, accessible and beneficial development of AI.

China hopes that the United States will work in the same direction, managing risks through dialogue and communication, and helping to create an open, equal, fair, and non-discriminatory environment for AI development, so that AI technologies can benefit all humanity. However, if the United States uses combating distillation as a pretext to suppress Chinese AI companies and undermine China’s legitimate rights and interests, China will take resolute measures in response.

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

By Gong Ming, People’s Daily

Under the framework of the Global Development Initiative (GDI), China has worked with various parties to launch more than 2,000 cooperative projects, directly benefiting communities in more than 120 countries. These efforts are providing vital momentum toward achieving the goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In multiple provinces of Laos, China has collaborated with the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to implement child nutrition programs. Through early screening, standardized treatment, and preventive care, these initiatives have saved thousands of children suffering from severe wasting.

Similarly, in Ethiopia, a Luban Workshop launched in 2021 has been recognized by the African Union as a regional training hub for skilled professionals. Graduates trained in mechatronics, industrial robotics, and related fields are now playing key roles in advancing their nations’ industrial modernization.

Meanwhile, Uzbekistan has adopted China’s proven poverty-alleviation strategies in pilot regions, and Zimbabwe has established its second China-Zimbabwe agricultural cooperation demonstration village. Such targeted partnerships are proving instrumental in tackling the persistent global challenge of extreme poverty.

The GDI was conceived in 2021, when the world confronted unprecedented systemic shocks amid the ongoing pandemic, leaving international development efforts at a critical juncture. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s proposal placed sustainable development squarely on the global policy agenda, with its eight priority areas closely aligned with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the UN 2030 Agenda.

Today, the initiative enjoys broad international backing. More than 130 countries and global institutions have endorsed the GDI and engaged in framework-based cooperation, while nearly 100 partners have signed dedicated cooperation agreements with China. Additionally, 88 nations have joined the Group of Friends of the GDI, and the UN system’s task force on the initiative has drawn participation from over 20 development agencies.

What explains the GDI’s widespread appeal? Concrete results speak volumes.

China has increased the capital of the Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund to $4 billion. Collaborating with more than 20 international organizations, the fund has financed over 200 projects across 70 countries, improving the lives of more than 40 million people.

To date, the GDI has helped mobilize $23 billion in support for the Global South, covering major landmark projects such as the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as community-focused “small and beautiful” projects such as juncao cultivation and Luban Workshops. 

China has promoted the establishment of a demonstration center for China-Africa (Ethiopia)-UN (UNIDO) cooperation, while developing innovative platforms such as an innovation and training base for the Global Development Promotion Center, a home for young global development leaders, and a global women’s capacity-building center.

Looking ahead, China will roll out another 2,000 livelihood-oriented projects in developing countries over the next five years, expand human capacity-building programs, and continue contributing to the World Trade Organization’s China Program to help least-developed countries integrate into global trading systems. 

This year marks the final five-year stretch toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, making the GDI’s practical significance all the more evident.

Consistent with China’s longstanding commitment that no country or individual should be left behind, the initiative prioritizes inclusive growth.

Confronting pressing challenges such as climate change and the digital divide, China is deepening scientific and technological partnerships with other developing nations to ensure that development dividends reach the widest possible population.

For example, China’s MAZU (Multi-hazard, Alert, Zero-gap, and Universal) intelligent meteorological early warning solution has been deployed in seven countries, including Pakistan, Ethiopia and Solomon Islands, and has been made available on a cloud-based trial basis to more than 40 countries. 

China has proposed establishing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, with 38 countries becoming founding members, and announced a series of measures to further support global AI development and advance global AI capacity building.

The past five years prove that only by translating the shared commitment to making development a priority into concrete projects, and turning the vision of development for the benefit of all into tangible improvements in people’s lives, can the foundation of prosperity and stability be firmly established.

China will continue taking strong actions to advance global development, working with all parties to strengthen confidence and advance hand in hand toward more inclusive, more broadly beneficial and more resilient global development.

By Guo Jiping, People’s Daily

Chinese President Xi Jinping will pay a state visit to the United States from Sept. 23 to 25 at the invitation of U.S. President Donald Trump. The exchange of visits between the Chinese and U.S. heads of state within six months marks a historic milestone, and will provide strategic guidance for advancing a constructive relationship of strategic stability between the two countries.

In May this year, Xi held a landmark meeting with Trump in Beijing, where the two sides agreed on a new vision of building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability, which means positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay, healthy stability with competition within proper limits, constant stability with manageable differences, and lasting stability with expectable peace. Together, the two sides will explore the right way for major countries to coexist in the new era.

This vision rests on four interlinked dimensions. Positive stability, driven by cooperation, rejects confrontational logic and expands shared interests. Healthy stability, governed by disciplined competition, acknowledges the reality of great-power rivalry while insisting it remain rules-based, limited, and non-adversarial. Constant stability, achieved through manageable differences, accepts the long-term nature of bilateral divergences and prioritizes dialogue and risk containment to prevent escalation. Lasting stability, anchored in predictable peace, treats peaceful coexistence as a foundational commitment rather than a temporary arrangement. Together, these principles outline a responsible pathway for major powers to navigate coexistence in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

The new vision reflects the strategic foresight of China and the United States in understanding the evolution of their bilateral relationship, their profound insight into the underlying laws of history, and their sense of responsibility as major countries to the international community. 

It represents an unprecedented path of exploration undertaken by the two countries with a sense of responsibility to history, their peoples, and the world. It will have a profound impact on the evolution of the international landscape and inject precious certainty into a world marked by turbulence and uncertainty.

Since the meeting between the two heads of state in Beijing, China-U.S. relations have entered a new phase with resilience and set out anew through cooperation, with positive factors in bilateral interactions continuing to grow. 

The two sides have maintained communication in areas including economy and trade, diplomacy, militaries, counternarcotics, law enforcement, artificial intelligence (AI), and people-to-people exchanges. 

Communication mechanisms have continued to improve, while exchanges among local governments, businesses, and civil society groups have become more frequent, bringing many highlights to people-to-people exchanges. 

The strategic blueprint laid out by the two heads of state is being translated into institutional mechanisms and concrete actions through practical progress across multiple areas.

Building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability requires first and foremost getting the strategic understanding right — the “first button” that must be fastened properly. 

Looking back at the history of China-U.S. relations, whether the two countries can uphold mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation is key to whether their relationship can develop in a stable manner. 

Building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability carries forward this valuable experience. It answers the fundamental question of whether China and the United States are rivals or partners, and explicitly rejects the flawed logic of defining China-U.S. relations by strategic competition.

It serves to reaffirm, consolidate, and reshape the endeavor to foster a strategically oriented, constructive, and stable China-U.S. relationship going forward.

The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U.S. relations, and developments concerning it can have far-reaching consequences for the entire bilateral relationship. If it is handled properly, China-U.S. relations can remain generally stable. Otherwise, the two countries could run into confrontation or even conflict, pushing the entire relationship into an extremely dangerous situation. 

The one-China principle is the political foundation of China-U.S. relations. “Taiwan independence” separatist forces are a common enemy of China and the United States, and containing them is a key part of building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability. The U.S. side must exercise the utmost prudence in handling the Taiwan question and take concrete actions to safeguard the stable development of China-U.S. relations as well as peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

The strength of a major country lies in its vision, and even more in its sense of responsibility. At a time when the international situation is marked by intertwined turbulence and changes, the strategic value of China-U.S. relations is becoming increasingly prominent. 

Fostering a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability is itself a valuable global public good. It will have a profound impact on the evolution of the global balance of power and help shape the direction of the international order in the future, generating broad positive effects. 

Both countries share substantial common ground in critical areas such as supply-chain resilience, energy transition, and the digital economy. Enhanced practical cooperation across these domains offers a concrete pathway to modernize and strengthen multilateral governance frameworks.

As a new wave of scientific and technological innovation accelerates, artificial intelligence presents both unprecedented opportunities and complex risks — a dual challenge that demands coordinated global response.

As leading innovators in AI, China and the United States bear a shared responsibility to deepen dialogue, forge consensus, and ensure that AI advances for good and for the benefit of humanity. Fulfilling this commitment not only operationalizes the agreements reached by the two heads of state but also establishes a practical model for global digital governance.

To realize this potential, both sides should fully leverage existing intergovernmental AI dialogues, engage the private sector as a key driver of innovation, and reduce regulatory and market barriers across technology, trade, and industry. Doing so will unlock the productive potential of mutually beneficial collaboration. Through such efforts, AI can emerge as a cornerstone of China-U.S. cooperation and a catalyst for broader human progress.

Building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability begins top-level consensus, depends on practical implementation, succeeds through steadfast commitment by both sides, and benefits both countries and the world. 

China stands ready to work with the United States to implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, advance a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability toward steady and sustained progress, and continue injecting stability and positive energy into a turbulent and changing world.