So the president set out the policy guidance and said it had to take place in a multilateral fashion so that other countries in the region could be invested in the success of this process.
First of all, I think the situation today is different. We're in a different place than we were in '93, '94.
And so there has been a lot of diplomatic movement.
The format's better because it gives us a much stronger hand to play when going to the North Koreans unified, with our allies and partners in the region, all of us saying the same thing: telling them their current course is unacceptable.
But with lots of good ideas, implementation is the key, and so we need to keep our eye on the ball as we go forward and make sure that people honor their pledges in terms of financial commitments, and that we actually use this money so that it makes a real difference.
The nexus between terrorism and nuclear weapons, or even nuclear material, is obviously a current concern.
There is a different future that is available to North Korea, if they choose differently.
The other countries did not share the same concern the United States had in the early '90's - that North Korea actually had an ongoing nuclear weapons program.
Any agreement that you have isn't going to be based on North Korea's intentions or trust.
Now North Korea certainly is located in a different place geographically, but I think it faces the same type of strategic decision. Does it want a different future for its people?
Last Update: 11 May 2021
View the rest 25 Mitchell Reiss sayings