• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

..........................

QUESTION: I forget which official said it, but it was a senior Russian official, and he's on record - suggested that, in light of the sanctions and then the threat yesterday of more sanctions, that Russia might be better off to align itself with Iran rather than the West in its future relations.

MR. RUBIN: I saw that; I didn't read it that way -- at all. Let me simply say that we took the steps that the US Government took, because we think they were extremely well thought out, and based upon compelling evidence against the three Russian entities. We informed the Government of Russia last month that we would have no alternative but to take such steps, if the flow of sensitive nuclear and missile technology was not halted.

We are committed to working with the Russians to facilitate implementation of vigorous export controls. We believe it is in Russia's interest to work with the United States and other countries, to prevent the spread of missile and nuclear technology, regardless of the financial consequences; that it is in their national security interests, as it is in ours, that these missiles and nuclear technology efforts be stopped, because it will be a more dangerous world for Russia, for the United States and for all if additional countries get long-range missile or nuclear capabilities.

In addition to that, I think the word threat - I know it was used, but it certainly wasn't used by me. I was merely pointing out the fact that the quota will expire, and that we have said here from this podium last month that we would have to take into account Russian cooperation on missile technology and missile non-proliferation in any decision to increase the quota, and that that increase, if it didn't happen, could mean lost revenue for the Russians in this area. I don't consider that a sanction. I know the word "sanction" gets thrown around a lot, but I wouldn't see it that way.

QUESTION: Is there any relationship between the actual launches themselves and the missile technology that might be --

MR. RUBIN: No, we're talking here about a program that is -- a program that we weigh the benefit to our companies, the need for them to get satellites in orbit - and we've talked about this in the China context -- against the non-proliferation risks. So far, we've made the judgment that 15 launches -- the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If we don't see a Russia that is committed to non-proliferation intensively, that changes our calculation about the risks, and might then change the calculation about the quota.

QUESTION: If I could sharpen the question, is there evidence that technology or information or expertise they acquired through these satellite launches -

MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm saying that's not the issue. There are these three entities that are not entities that, to my knowledge, are launching satellites. They tend to be research institutes of some kind or another. In the case of missiles, we're only talking about one. They are technical and research entities. Then there is the Russian launch program, the booster program, the missile program. It is those programs that benefit from receiving hard currency from American companies by launching their satellites.

QUESTION: None of those three have anything to do with the missile launch program?

MR. RUBIN: Not to my knowledge.

(The briefing concluded at 1:40 P.M.)

[end of document]