From the Wall Street Journal this morning.
Speaking at Prague's Castle Square, Mr. Obama told the audience his administration was committed "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
"We have to insist: 'Yes, we can,'" he said, reprising a campaign theme recognizable to a crowd a continent away from his election victory.
Sunday's speech followed a meeting Wednesday between Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, where the two leaders committed to conclude a new bilateral treaty that would reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals below the 1,700 to 2,200 deployed warheads agreed to in 2002.
Mr. Obama's strategy, however, also seeks to gain the support of developing nations by recognizing their right to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is specifically supporting the development of an international nuclear-fuel bank that aspiring nuclear-power states could tap to feed their reactors.
Such a system, say U.S. officials, would undercut demands of countries like North Korea and Iran that they need to develop their own infrastructure to produce nuclear fuel. Such technologies can be easily shifted into producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.
The President has a limited amount of political capital that he can use in both domestic and foreign affairs. Why he would choose to go into a former soviet Bloc country to call for an end to nuclear weapons in what amounts to not much more than a campaign speech is beyond me. The intention is good, but the steps to go about strengthening our position against Russian, Iranian and North Korean hegemony is not to pray for cats and dogs to live together in peace, but to take a substantiative stance against nuclear proliferation, including everything up to a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe as well as the possible use of force against those nations who would use nuclear capacity against there perceived enemies.
One thing that I have realized about the North Koreans is that they are willing to push the envelope but not to step to over the line. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors) In that regard, I believe that the President's response was appropriate. However, Iran is the big issue here. If this is a test, by proxy, of the President by the Iranians, unfortunately he came across in Carteresque fashion.