Mitchell Reiss British Novelist Quotations

We are hopeful that the North Koreans can show a little bit more realism, a little bit more flexibility.

What we can do is to explain as clearly as possible what the benefits would be of him going down one path, and what the potential consequences would be if he chooses another path.

So, in a sense, the verification piece is irrelevant to the format issue.

We have a model that we're following, and it's the Libya model.

We need to do a lot more thinking about how the regime is going to evolve, how the bad guys are going to adapt their tactics, and what measures we're going to need in order to go forward.

First of all we have to recognize that despite all the problems - and in some cases failures - that this regime has been much more successful, much more resilient, than people had anticipated.

First of all, I think the situation today is different. We're in a different place than we were in '93, '94.

Sometimes we tend to focus more on the personalities and the conflicts, and it really caricatures the issues.

Or perhaps they didn't share it at all, but they were happy that the United States wanted to go ahead and deal with North Korea, that was fine.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group is one area the president highlighted in his speech that's extremely important and that needs to be improved.

It's up to Kim Jong Il to make that decision, and we can't make that for him.

Then the final thing is enforcement. What happens when we actually catch somebody who has violated international law, rules, and regulations?

Everyone I have spoken with so far recognises the need for the IRA to respond positively and every has said sooner is better than later and I think there is some concern if it does continue to delay much longer that the situation isn't going to remain the same.

It's time for the IRA to go out of business.

They would rather the United States play the bad cop, and they could play the good cop - let the United States do all the heavy lifting here.

Again, I think we have much greater diplomatic weight by having all of us sit on the same side of the table wanting the same thing, and putting it to the North Koreans.

I'm not sure you can do anything quickly or easily with the North.

And it's not surprising that there should be disagreement - it'd be a little surprising if there was complete consensus on any foreign policy issue.

And I think they realize that the other five countries are lined up against them, because all five are opposed to North Korea having nuclear weapons.

And so there has been a lot of diplomatic movement.

And it has to do with having no inventory or stockpiles on the shelf, but items arrive as you need to build your product. What that means is that it's much more difficult to actually find stockpiles of already built weapons.

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.