Obama Tarnishes the Nobel Peace Prize

In 2009, only eight months after taking office, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy of a nuclear weapon-free world. However, one year later, the U.S. Department of Energy confirmed that on Sept. 15, 2010, the U.S. initiated a “subcritical nuclear test” at a Nevada testing site. Even though there was no nuclear test explosion, this subcritical nuclear test by the U.S. is the equivalent of Obama going back on his word and thereby tarnishing the Nobel Peace Prize.

The distinguishing feature of a subcritical nuclear test is that the experiment ends just as the nuclear fission material is on the verge of reaching the “critical mass” for a nuclear chain fission reaction. Even though subcritical nuclear tests will not lead to a nuclear explosion, the goal of this test is the same as the goal of any typical nuclear test: to research and develop nuclear weapons. This subcritical nuclear test, which Obama approved, has already provoked the fierce denunciation of anti-nuclear activists all over the world.

Among them, the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have gathered in protest. The governor of the Nagasaki Prefecture, Hodo Nakamura, and the mayor of the city of Nagasaki, Tomihisa Taue, spoke out in protest against the U.S. about this nuclear test. Governor Nakamura issued the following statement on his webpage: “The experiment is a reversal from an international trend for a world without nuclear weapons. I feel extreme regret.”*

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama in 2009 incited the global media to question: How is it that a recently elected U.S. president, after only eight months in office and without having made the least contribution, is qualified to receive the Nobel Peace Prize? The Nobel Committee argued that it was because Obama advocated for a world free of nuclear weapons and that he had an anti-war election platform. … But now smooth-talking Obama — who loves to tell lies — has already revealed his treacherous nature, and his act still continues.

While the so-called Iraq War seems to have come to an end, tens of thousands of soldiers still have not left Iraq, and the conflict in Afghanistan is still underway. Now U.S. authorities are also preparing for a new war — a war waged on Iran. If war were to break out between the U.S. and Iran, Obama would become a warmonger, just like George W. Bush. If so, the Nobel Committee members would truly feel sick with regret; the world will just have to wait and see.

Recently, on Oct. 5, America’s National Journal Magazine ran the article, “Feldstein, Krugman Agree: Another War Would Help,” which expounded on the point of view that the United States needs another war to rescue its economy. Of these two famous American economists, one, Paul Krugman, is a Nobel Prize winner in economics who is currently a special columnist for The New York Times. The other is Harvard’s Martin Feldstein, the former chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors. They said, “America’s economic outlook is so grim, and political solutions are so utterly absent, that only another large-scale war might be enough to lift the nation out of chronic high unemployment and slow growth.”**

One of them is conservative, the other liberal, but at a Washington forum discussing the future of the economy, the two reached agreement, sharing the perspective that war could be used to rescue the economy. Goldman Sachs’ chief economist Jan Hatzius also shared this point of view. It shocks the world that all three of them are members of U.S. government think tanks.

Over the last few months, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has revealed that America has already drawn up a strategic plan of attack for Iran. With two more years left in office, Obama is losing every scrap of his reputation: The U.S. economy is sluggish, the unemployment rate has reached 9.6 percent, and the economic crisis is far from over. It could be that — out of desperation, and in order to distract the electorate from domestic contradictions, and in the struggle to gain another term in office — Obama might start a large-scale war. Therefore, the world must be vigilant. China should raise its vigilance to an even higher level and make preparations in advance as early as possible. The U.S. might also use war to provoke China — preparedness averts peril; while living in peace, one should make provisions for war.

The U.S. has already sharpened its weapons, and Obama has already thrown away the honor brought to him by the Nobel Peace Prize. What path will the U.S. take? History will just provide the answer.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, incorrectly attributed to Governor Nakamura, is actually derived from the webpage of Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue.

**Editor’s Note: This quote refers to writer Michael Hirsh’s paraphrase of the statement made by Paul Krugman and Martin Feldstein in the article mentioned.