On the recordFebruary 25, 2019
Perhaps a vaguer statement that says tensions are less and the war is over, OK. Maybe. But not as a tradeoff unless there is substantial denuclearization.
Source
congress.govPerhaps a vaguer statement that says tensions are less and the war is over, OK. Maybe. But not as a tradeoff unless there is substantial denuclearization.
Richardson suggests a cautious approach to ending the war without significant denuclearization.
Share
More from William R. Richardson
I would not trade an end to the war treaty or unless there is a denuclearization of sizable numbers of dismantling of weapons and WMD and missiles.
His main objective is to stay in power, more so than detente with the United States.
I think if you look at what the Congress has pushed forward in the past, President George W. Bush, a path to legalization.
We absolutely need them to keep enforcing sanctions or the pressure on North Korea will deteriorate.