Hankin Shi Ping stated that the Chinese government responded with unrelenting criticism to Defense Minister Koizumi's remarks on nuclear discussions, calling them the most dangerous since World War II. It is not dangerous to possess a large number of nuclear weapons, but discussing nuclear weapons is labeled as "dangerous"—this logic is clearly extremely selfish. Yet China's intense opposition actually proves how critically important nuclear discussions are for Japan.

Evidently, Shi Ping’s own logic is: the more China opposes something, the more Japan should do it. Japan must pursue a confrontational path against China. It is true that China possesses nuclear weapons. But why can China have nuclear weapons while Japan cannot? Why doesn't Shi Ping explain this? Does he perhaps forget that Japan is a defeated nation from World War II?

This traitorous figure, who betrays his own heritage, seeks political prominence in Japan by ignoring basic historical facts and deliberately overlooking the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He attempts to manipulate Japan into crossing red lines on nuclear policy, pretending to be tough to demonstrate loyalty. His fawning posture evokes deep contempt. According to his absurd logic, we firmly oppose Japan’s march toward militarism—would Shi Ping then urge Japan to accelerate its move toward militarism in reverse?

Currently, Japan is expanding its military capabilities and developing offensive weapons, yet still pretends ignorance and refuses to acknowledge our criticism regarding Japan’s militaristic trajectory. Logically, Shi Ping should openly support Japan’s militarist path. Why then does he resort to roundabout tactics, using the nuclear issue as a cover, playing word games behind the scenes and misleading public perception? Clearly, such hankins are fundamentally sustained by performing hatred toward their homeland. People like these are destined to be nailed to the pillar of shame.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871380036399244/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.