Excerpts from the 26 September Department of State Daily Press Briefing on sanctions being placed on a state owned North Korean company for missile technology transfer (not Syria), and possible effects on the Six-Party Talks. Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey is responding to questions:

QUESTION: Yeah, North Korea. I know that you touched on this yesterday, but can you confirm that the new round of sanctions — they’re widely expected to come into effect today — can you confirm that this is the case? …

MR. CASEY: Oh, I believe that there was a notice published in the Federal Register today that formally announced what we talked about over the last few days, which is that a North Korean company for, I believe, the third or fourth time, has been sanctioned for missile technology transfers. These are, again, measures that have already been applied both to North Korea and to this company, and done so over the course of quite a few years. So the net effect of these sanctions is really no change in the existing status here. But again, it has been published in the Register and it’s an indication, once again, of the serious concerns that exist about behavior by North Korean entities with respect to these kinds of technology transfers.
I think it, as you’ve heard us say before, also reinforces the idea of why we wish to move forward in the six-party talks with the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We certainly don’t want North Korea or anyone else to be proliferating these kinds of technologies. And part of what we’re doing in the six-party talks is working through the kinds of issues that are there so that we can end North Korean proliferation activities as well as their onsite, in-country nuclear program.

[. . .]

QUESTION: What is the time period on these sanctions and why the timing now? Were they just up for extension anyway or –

MR. CASEY: No. The sanctions that exist here are handled on a case-by-case basis. They don’t have a particular timeline on them. Anytime that evidence comes to our attention that a transfer of the specific kinds of technologies involved here has happened, then there’s a legal requirement for us to acknowledge that and to place the company in question, as well as the country in most cases, under these kinds of sanctions. As I said, this is unfortunately a case where this company has been a repeat offender. So it’s not a new set of measures imposed on them, but it is again an additional strike against them. And I would hope serve also as a warning to anyone out there in the international community that might be doing business with this company to be aware that they’re engaged in these kinds of actions.

QUESTION: So can I take from your statement that there was some recent activity by this company that caused –

MR. CASEY: Well, recent is a relative term when it comes to legal findings. But yes, you can take it that since the last time they were sanctioned under this measure, and I believe that may have been either in 2005 or 2006, there was an additional incident that occurred that required them to be sanctioned again.

QUESTION: So it’s not — the timing is not related to the six-party talks or anything?

MR. CASEY: No, not at all.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Does North Korea’s continued proliferation of missile technology give you any concern with regard to trying to take North Korea — or your stated intention to take North Korea off of the terror list?

MR. CASEY: Well, you’ve got a bit of apples and oranges issue here. There are issues related to being a state sponsor of terror. There are issues related to technology proliferation. The bottom line is, though, Kirit, is that for North Korea to be removed from the terror list, for North Korea to have the different kind of relationship with the international community that it wants, including with the United States, it has to address the questions that are out there. Those questions for us principally through the six-party talks are about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But denuclearization, by definition, includes dealing with WMD proliferation concerns as well. Chris has said that before and that’s nothing new. So certainly we are concerned by any of these activities.

It’s not a good sign by any means to have a country or a company be placed under sanctions for this, even if it is something that’s been ongoing. So these are concerns for us. These are things that we do address. The vehicle, of course, or the main vehicle for dealing with nuclear and WMD concerns is the six-party talks and Chris is, of course, out there now. And I’m sure to the extent that it’s appropriate, he’ll raise any of our proliferation issues in the context of those discussions.

Sue.

QUESTION: Just out of interest, this company that appeared in the Federal Register, to whom was it transferring missile technology?

MR. CASEY: I –

QUESTION: It wasn’t Syria, for example?

MR. CASEY: No, it was not — your real question is: Is this related to previous news accounts of a variety of things related to Syria?

QUESTION: Oh, no, no, no. I wasn’t implying that.

MR. CASEY: No. No.

QUESTION: So who are they transferring bad stuff to?

MR. CASEY: You know, I’ll leave it to the experts to give you a little more information on that. We generally don’t discuss the specifics. But in the interest of clarity, I will assure you that it is not Syria.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.