태터데스크 관리자

도움말
닫기
적용하기   첫페이지 만들기

태터데스크 메시지

저장하였습니다.

Loading
힐러리 클린턴 국무부 장관이 어제 캐나다 퀘벡에서 열린 G8 외무장관 회담에서 북한이 핵무기를 보유한 국가라고
인정했습니다
'북한은 이미 핵무기를 보유한 망나니정권이다' 이정도의 언급이지만 핵보유국임을 인정한 것입니다
오늘 국무부 일일브리핑에서도 이 발언에 대한 질문이 있었습니다 [이 블로그 다른 페이지 참조]

아래 북핵발언 관련 부분입니다

We believe that the United States and Russia, being the largest nuclear arsenal states in the world, have a special obligation. But speaking for the United States, we recognize the new threats that are coming that are aimed at both of our countries, at Europe, at the Middle East and elsewhere from rogue regimes like North Korea that already has nuclear weapons, and regimes like that in Iran that are clearly seeking nuclear weapons.

동영상
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1705667530?bctid=74717472001

아래는 힐러리 국무장관 발언 전제 원문입니다 http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/139287.htm
FOREIGN MINISTER CANNON: We have just concluded what I would characterize as being a frank and productive discussion on the key issues affecting global security. Our dialogue has resulted in a strengthened G-8 consensus and renewed impetus for addressing critical security challenges, together with the rest of the international community in the months ahead.

We discussed three broad themes – nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, terrorism, and security vulnerabilities. Here are the highlights and tangible outcomes of the chairman’s statement, which I believe reflects the sense of the discussion and understood – as understood by myself.

We all agreed that the threat to global security from nuclear proliferation is grave, but in 2010, we have an opportunity to make progress and set the course for the future. The nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea were of very great concern to us all, as they both present serious challenges to global security. Iran’s actions raise serious doubts about the peaceful intention of its nuclear program. We agreed to remain open to dialogue, but also agree that it is time for the international community to take appropriate steps to persuade Iran to end its nuclear activities and return to the table.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs are destabilizing for the region and also a threat to global security. We agreed to do what we can to press North Korea to return to Six-Party Talks without preconditions and to fulfill its commitments. 2010 is an important year for nonproliferation. We agreed to work together to ensure the success of the upcoming review conference on the treaty and the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in the month of May. In this respect, all ministers warmly welcomed the new United States-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, further reducing their nuclear arsenals. This is an important step towards a world without nuclear weapons and will help create positive momentum for the review conference.

We also expressed our concern about terrorism. While our collaboration has significantly constrained the ability of terrorists to execute attacks, terrorists continue to seek new ways to achieve their goals.

(Speaking in French.)

We also discussed the efforts by the Government of Pakistan to address its domestic challenges, including strengthening its democratic institutions and welcome its actions to root out violent extremism, particularly in the border region with Afghanistan. We agreed that all well – that well-managed borders are important for stability and security in this region, as well as for long-term economic development.

Now, in this respect, we agreed to undertake an Afghan-Pakistan border region prosperity initiative, aimed at building trade and border infrastructure to foster economic development and local employment. We will be pursuing this initiative in partnership with the Government of Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have jointly identified their top priorities for the initiative, and also in partnership with the World Bank as well as the Asian Development Bank. Increased terrorist activity in the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa was also discussed – in particular, Yemen, Somalia, and the Sahel.

International – internal, I should say – conflict in and areas beyond effective government control create fertile ground for terrorists and have led to other problems such as piracy, kidnapping, illicit trafficking and drugs, people, and arms across this vast region. These problems are interconnected and there is a need for a broad regional approach and engagement with local governments to reinforce their capacity to deal with their security challenges, as well as address socioeconomic challenges. In particular, we discussed how the international community could support the Government of Yemen in its efforts to combat terrorism and implement a reform agenda.

(Speaking in French.)

We also spoke about the challenges faced by some countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, from transnational organized crime and illicit trafficking and drugs, and the increasingly widespread implications not only for the Americas, but also for Africa and Europe.

Now, with respect to the Middle East, we are all committed to see progress on the Roadmap and endorse the Quartet’s March 19th statement. The proximity talks can be an important step towards the resumption of bilateral negotiations.

And finally, we also discussed the upcoming elections in Burma and Sudan, which will be important milestones in both these countries. We agreed to meet next in New York in September 2010 on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly.

Merci. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Minister Cannon. (Speaking in French.) We will now take questions from the media. I would like to request only one question per media, and you can use microphone number one or number two. We’ll start by (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Speaking in French.)

So allow me to repeat in English, as I’d like especially Ms. Clinton to answer this question. As you know, Canada wants to make maternal health a priority of the G-8, and you probably are aware of – there’s a debate in Canada as to whether or not family planning, contraception, and even abortion is part of this initiative. So you’re probably aware, coming from the United States, that this has been a debate in your country. So --

MODERATOR: We’ll keep it to one question per (inaudible). Thank you.

QUESTION: Yes, so I want – same question. So I want to know, do you think that abortion and contraception should be part of this?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I’ve worked in this area for many years. And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.

Obviously, the extraordinary rate of maternal deaths that still occur in our world in countries where women do not have access to family planning remains a great tragedy. I’ve also been very involved in promoting family planning and contraception as a way to prevent abortion. If you are concerned about abortion, then women should have access to family planning.

And finally, I do not think governments should be involved in making these decisions. It is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion, or any other basis. But I’ve always believed that the government should not intervene in decisions of such intimacy. And we can see through history what happens when governments do. When governments have a policy of one child, as China has had, and where that policy is implemented by forced abortions, that is abhorrent. And when governments like the communist government in Romania had policies promoting five children per women, which denied women the opportunity to plan their own families, the result was a tragic problem with children being given up and being put into orphanages.

So this is an issue of great concern to me and to my government, and we are promoting a global health initiative that will emphasize maternal and child health, and we are promoting a greater access to contraception – both male and female contraception – and we are also looking for ways to make women’s choices so that they can avoid abortion – more realistic by providing support for them.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll go to the Italian media, (inaudible).

QUESTION: Good morning. I have a question for Italian Minister Mr. Frattini and for the USA Secretary of State Ms. Clinton. It’s about the drug traffic and its international demands. What do you think the G-8 can do for – to address this problem? Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER FRATTINI: Well, we’re talking about this very important issue, which is an issue that is becoming increasingly important, because for example, think about Latin America, Caribbeans, and Mexico – these region of origin of drug trafficking. And we have the institutional and, I would say, moral duty to help countries in that region to face, to prevent – to face and fight drug trafficking. Also, because it is in our own interests as Western countries, as European countries – United States, Europe, G-8 countries have an interest, for example, to block this Western road coming through Africa going north to Portugal, Spain, and Europe.

There is another region in the world which is a matter of serious concern on drug trafficking – yes, Afghanistan. Russia is cooperating as G-8 state, but we all have an interest to try to find a viable way to prevent and fight drug trafficking coming from Afghanistan, and how to replace poppy cultivation while not just destroying cultivation, but replacing in order to avoid people being desperate, people – because they lose their job as farmers, for example.

So on this point, we believe that it’s necessary that G-8 countries and regional organization – think about ECOWAS in Africa – have a stronger and closer cooperation in order to address together organized crime and drug trafficking, which is transnational crime. I also mention the importance that the 10th anniversary of the signature of the so-called Palermo Convention, which – UN convention against organized crime – we will take stock of the progress made on the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking, which is affecting all the G-8 state, but – not only G-8 state, but poorer states are increasingly affected by this crime.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would certainly agree with everything Franco said and just add the following points. We discussed this at some length during our meeting today, because there’s also linkage between the drug traffickers and the criminal cartels that support not only trafficking in drugs, but trafficking in arms and human beings and terrorism. In fact, there is growing evidence that terrorists obtain a certain funding stream from illicit activity like drug trafficking.

So the G-8 is going to be looking into this and exploring in greater detail what we can do to try to stand against the unfortunate consequences of the criminal drug cartels, because we’re not talking about occasional recreational drug use. We’re talking about well-armed, brutal gangs that prey on innocent people, prey on lawful authority, and challenge the writ of the state in a country like Mexico and Central America and now in West Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

So this has become a big security threat and we will be consulting during the course of this year in looking for ways that we can increase our cooperation and coordination in the effort against the drug cartels.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Campbell Clark, Globe and Mail.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. Mr. Cannon, I was wondering if you would answer this question in both English and French, but I’d also like to invite the other ministers here to respond as well. A number of you came to this conference speaking in very strong terms about Iran’s nuclear program, and Canada raised the prospect of the G-8 committing to collective sanctions as a group. But in your statements today, you haven’t used the word “sanctions.”

So I’m wondering if you would tell me what prevented you all agreeing on a call for sanctions here. Was it something between this group or is the elephant not in the room – the fact that China is not here – and you want to give them time to come along this road toward sanctions as well?

FOREIGN MINISTER CANNON: Well, let me take the first crack at that, Campbell. It wasn’t our intention as hosts of the G-8 to put together standalone statements in terms of sanctions that could be taken against Iran. This meeting offered us the opportunity to be able to take stock of where the discussions were. We were all praised of how those discussions are going. Needless to say, we do, as a group, feel that the United Nations Security Council is the premier forum for actions and we certainly will be following this – the situation as it evolves over the course of the coming weeks, indeed the coming months.

And maybe Secretary of State Clinton can add, and then Foreign Minister Lavrov.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that speaking for the United States, we did not expect to see any kind of statement along the lines of what you’re describing coming out of the G-8. The G-8 is not, as Lawrence said, the negotiating forum for the creation of a resolution that outlines the imposition of effective sanctions against Iran in response to their nuclear weapons program.

This was informational. We exchanged views. We discussed the importance of the international community addressing the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. And I, for one, was very satisfied by the results of that conversation. But I think it’s important to underscore that the negotiating forum that we are all focused on is the United Nations Security Council. Some of us are members, others of us are not, but all of us share a concern on behalf of the international community about what it would mean to regional and global stability, were Iran to pursue successfully their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.

So I think that Lawrence’s summary is exactly on point. We have a lot of work to do in the UN. We’re making slow but steady progress in making the case and in trying to do the drafting that will embody what it is we’re attempting to achieve with respect to sanctions. So I came away very heartened by the understanding and support of the G-8 countries.

QUESTION: Minister Lavrov.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Iran oil – that’s what – naturally why we exchanged our views. And this is all written down in the resolute that was written by our chairman. These are the results of our summit and I think it was useful in a way concerning other fora that are recognized by everyone concerning the Iran nuclear program – that is, first of all, it’s IAEA, the council of governors, the Security Council of the UN that has already adopted several resolutions to its support that (inaudible) of IAEA and the Group 3+3 that is represented here, including China. It’s part of it. So it wouldn’t be ethical for us during this meeting, which is not negotiation, to make a decision on Iran ahead of them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER MILIBAND: Well, thank you, Lawrence. I think it’s very important that you hear the message that the eight of us gave to each other during the talks yesterday and today. There was a very high degree of unity in respect of our mounting concern about the failure of Iran to respond in any kind of adequate way, both to the offer from the E3+3 that was first made in May 2008, and secondly the more recent IAEA offer in respect of the Tehran research reactor. That mounting concern is matched by a determined unity when it comes to our goal, which is to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state in contravention of its own commitments to the nonproliferation treaty.

There’s also a very high degree of unity around the strategy to achieve that goal. It’s a twin-track strategy which refuses to say that there is an alternative between engagement on the one hand and pressure on the other. The two go together. We have all, all eight of us, strongly welcomed the engagement that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have been arguing for since January the 20th, 2009. That offer of engagement remains on the table. But the parallel track, the adjoining track, is one of pressure.

And we know that the Iranian economy is in a state which is enfeebling a country. Remember, this is a country which in 1979 had the – a GDP the same as South Korea, and now it’s half of the level of South Korea. It’s a country blessed with massive gas reserves but is having to do very large importing of oil and gas. And so I think it’s – of refined products. So I think it’s very, very important that a clear message goes out about our determination to secure the end goal and to take forward the strategic tactics that will be necessary. This is not the forum in which they will be taking place, as both Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov have said. But the political unity, I think, is very important and very resounding.

MODERATOR: (Inaudible) Japan, NHK.

QUESTION: Thank you, (inaudible) from NHK TV Japan. My question is still about Iranian issue. Madam Secretary, Secretary Clinton, how much are you confident that the consonance that you have among the eight parties are strong enough now to convince China to get onboard in the Security Council discussions to add more sanctions against Tehran?

And a very quick follow-up to avoid confusion among the Japanese press. Yesterday, you had a meeting with the Japanese Minister Okada about (inaudible) air base matter. And can we – is it correct for us to understand that now you have the position different from previous ones, or do you still hold the opinion that the current relocation plan is the best solution to this matter? Thank you, Madam.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first on the latter question, we still hold the opinion that the original plan is preferable. But as I have told Minister Okada, we are ready to consider proposals that the Japanese Government may make to us. We are committed to the defense of Japan, our ally, our partner, our friend over many decades. And we hold a view as to what is the most effective way to pursue and implement that, but of course, we’re going to continue to listen to and consult with the Japanese Government.

With respect to Iran, I believe we are making progress. I think that the next weeks will be ones of intense negotiations in the Security Council among not only members of the Security Council but many interested countries, some of whom are here on the dais. We see a growing awareness on the part of many countries, including China, as to the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran to regional and global stability, to our oil supply, and we think that there will be a consensus reached as to the best way forward.

And to reiterate a point that Secretary Miliband made, sanctions are part of diplomacy. We chose a two-pronged strategy on engagement and on pressure should engagement not succeed. But sanctions are a form of the overall diplomatic approach that the United States and others have made on this issue. And we think that the work that President Obama and the Obama Administration has undertaken in the last 15 months to reach out to Iran, the people of Iran, the Government of Iran, demonstrates our sincerity and good faith efforts on engagement. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been the response forthcoming that would create the atmosphere in which we could actually discuss these matters with Iranian counterparts.

There have also been a number of developments, including the disclosure of a secret facility at Qom, the announcement of more facilities to be developed, the announcement of greater efforts at enrichment, the refusal of the joint Russian, French, and American proposal to reprocess and enrich the uranium needed for the Tehran research reactor, and on and on. So the last 15 months have demonstrated clearly the unwillingness of Iran to fulfill its international obligations, and that’s the basis on which I expressed my optimism that we’re going to have a consensus reached in the Security Council.

FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Just to follow up, I think, an important point, there’s one other thing which has changed in the last 15 months which is not directly about the nuclear question but is highly relevant to the world’s relations with Iran. That concerns the very large-scale protests on the streets of Iran about the presidential election result, about the counting of the result, and then the subsequent repression of those demonstrations. Not a single country on this platform believes it’s for us to choose the government of Iran. That is something for the Iranian people.

But when it comes to expressing solidarity with the people of Iran, people who are demanding that their most basic rights are respected, then the United Kingdom stands very strongly behind Lawrence Cannon’s summary which describes the widespread concern about the repression that has taken place. The truth is there are two Irans: One is fearful, close-minded and repressive; the other Iran is an educated, cultured, deeply civilized society which wants to be open and engaged with the world while retaining the characteristics of an Islamic republic. And the tragedy is that the regime seeks to obscure that second Iran. As far as we’re concerned, that adds to the complexity of negotiating and engaging with Iran, but it doubles or triples our commitment to do so, because this is a people who should be engaged with the international community, respecting their own traditions and their own beliefs, but part of the great social and economic mainstream, not separate from it.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) I would like to revisit the original issue raised by the Japanese (inaudible) concerning Iran. We don’t see many controversies inside the organization. One thing I would like to mention would be incorrect to formulate the issue in such a way that this group or any other group of organizations to convince China. China is an independent, self-contained country that pursues its own position. It’s a permanent member of the Security Council and it will retain its positions, taking into account the opinions of other countries. To portray the issue as for us to convince one individual country wouldn't be correct.

MODERATOR: AFP (inaudible).

QUESTION: My question is on Afghanistan. The G-8 issued a very strong statement urging President Karzai to do more on many issues. What can the G-8 do to ensure it will make these improvements, and when?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think the situation in Afghanistan about which we spoke at some length during our meeting in the last two days is cause for both optimism and caution. On the optimism side, I believe that we are employing a strategy that is working. It is working on both the military and the civilian front. The recent military action in Marjah, which was immediately followed by civilian development experts, reconstruction, governance, rule of law, agriculture, education, and so much more, is exactly the kind of combined approach that we believe has the best chance for success.

We also are well aware that, as we discussed at the London conference on Afghanistan, there has to be a political element that will lead to a resolution of the conflict, at least to some extent, by taking soldiers, Taliban fighters, off the battlefield and also looking for those political leaders who are willing to renounce violence and al-Qaida, follow the constitution of Afghanistan, and re-enter society.

The caution is, of course, for sustainable progress and development that leads to stability, the most important player in this is not any of us or other members of the international community, but the government and people of Afghanistan. I think we can look back over the last several months and see that the new government headed by a reelected President Karzai has done a number of things that had been promised and delivered on for the international community, but the jury is still out on other issues. So it’s like any complex situation; there are reasons to feel positive about our progress, and then there’s still a lot of work to be done. But certainly, the countries here in the G-8 are all committed to a peaceful, stable Afghanistan that can not only create a political environment that ends the ongoing insurgency that threatens beyond its borders, but also reaches a new status of being at peace with its neighbors in the region.

So we have a lot of work ahead of us, but we have reason to feel positive about the direction we’re headed.

FOREIGN MINISTER CANNON: I’d just add, if you may, that I do believe it is important to be able to ensure that we have, yes, the actions that are taking place on the ground; yes, the direct contact we do have with the Karzai government to be able to make sure that ultimately the Afghans themselves will be able to lead this country. But I am particularly proud as host of this meeting that we did buy into the Afghan-Pakistan Prosperity Initiative. We all feel around the table that it’s extremely important to be able to, if one wants to foster economic development and create those conditions that will stem global terrorism and terrorism in that region, we have to find opportunities where both these countries can indeed progress, and as well, countries in that region.

Secretary Clinton was talking to us this morning about a bumper year crop in terms of how the agricultural sector seems to be picking up. Of course, we have to look at it as a long process, not necessarily a process from one month to another, but to be able to look at what has been actually achieved and the direction that it’s taking. So we’re quite – I personally am very, very pleased with the outcome of what was discussed today, and also pleased with the progress that’s being made.

FOREIGN MINISTER OKADA: (Via interpreter) I would like to continue along the lines of what was just said. In the – at the London Afghanistan conference, really opened a new chapter, a new beginning, and this new beginning at the London conference had two complements. On the one hand, a very clear commitment by the Afghan Government for good governance, for reintegration, reconciliation, combating corruption, and reconstruction of the economy and social reconstruction. And at the same time, there was aid approved because those things are closely linked. The international community will stand by its commitments. Also, the countries that are represented here are very clear of their own commitments and obligations, and therefore it is very important that in Afghanistan we see very visible, concrete results. And this is necessary in the light of a future Afghanistan conference to be held in Kabul, and that is why the decisions reached here and the statement that was published is of utmost importance in the light of the need of having very concrete results so that the decisions taken in London are not swept away by the sand but really materialize in a very concrete manner in results. And therefore it is a matter of forging ahead and this London Afghanistan conference which we consider to be very important that also now reflect in concrete results.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll go to ARD Sterling, Michael Gottienberg, and then we’ll go the last question.

QUESTION: I’d like to come back to the Iranian issue, if I may. First of all, a question to Minister Westerwelle, which you can answer in German again, please. Considering that you are one of those openly calling for sanctions, new sanctions, are you satisfied with the signal sent to Iran today from here? Even though it’s not the UN, it would have been a possibility to send a strong signal.

And then I’d like to ask Minister Lavrov, if I may --

MODERATOR: We have one question per media (inaudible).

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) I’m very satisfied with the conclusions and the statement agreed by all of us. I’m satisfied because it sends a very clear signal as to the decisive opinion of countries represented here in terms of supporting nuclear nonproliferation. Disarmament and nonproliferation are two sides of the same coin or medal, and this is something that is highly visible in the statement issued.

Now regarding this issue of sanctions, Iran, of course, is entitled and has a right for peaceful use of atomic energy, but they’re also obliged to provide transparency and guarantee that no nuclear weapons will develop in Iran. And that would have a very destabilizing effect in the region, but also throughout the rest of the world. And that is why we are not a body that makes decisions, but rather we try to synchronize our postures. Decisions as such are made, as my colleague said, in the adequate and pertinent format at the national level and in the 3-plus format, and that is where decisions will come from.

For us, the situation is quite clear. We extend our hand in friendship. We want results through dialogue. But if Iran is not willing to cooperate and does not provide the transparency, we will be one of the states that will be in favor of sanctions.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll go to the last question, ITAR-TASS, Tatiana (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) So my question is for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, the President and – of the United States and Russia achieved on the START treaty. And I would like to hear the final U.S. position on how committed it is to the balance between strategic offensive and defensive weapons in view of the plans of the United States to deploy its weapons in Europe. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are very pleased that the treaty known as new START that has been negotiated will be signed next week in Prague by our two presidents, President Obama and President Medvedev. We think it’s a very strong signal of both of our countries’ commitment to the serious goal of decreasing our nuclear arsenals and standing against the proliferation of nuclear and other dangerous weapons. And we have also discussed over the course of this past year ways that we can better cooperate on other important matters, including exploring the potential cooperation around missile defense.

We believe that the United States and Russia, being the largest nuclear arsenal states in the world, have a special obligation. But speaking for the United States, we recognize the new threats that are coming that are aimed at both of our countries, at Europe, at the Middle East and elsewhere from rogue regimes like North Korea that already has nuclear weapons, and regimes like that in Iran that are clearly seeking nuclear weapons.

So we think there has to be a balance between offensive and defensive weapons, and that it would be in the world’s interests for the United States and Russia to cooperate on helping not only to protect ourselves, but protect other nations from the potential of attacks from either rogue states or terrorist networks. And we’re going to continue to discuss that in the future.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Of course, since this is a bilateral agreement, just – this treaty is legally binding, and in addition to very important issues related to unprecedented reduction in nuclear arsenals, and in addition to important agreements on verification which is built on increased confidence and trust, we have to find a balance between strategic defense and offensive weapons.

And this treaty has built for all the important mechanisms that ensure the rights of each side. How and in what ways do you ensure its security? Should this interrelationship be broken? And the work that Secretary Clinton has referred to on the nuclear missile defense, we have every reason to believe that this interrelationship is not going to be violated or broken. We have full confidence in our American colleagues.

And we made it clear to the Obama Administration that we wish to cooperate on nuclear nonproliferation, and the starting point would be to analyze all the existing risks, and then to take all the necessary steps to neutralize these risks. And we attach principal significance to this treaty and I’m sure that every effort will be made to ensure the integrity of this treaty.

MODERATOR: Thank you. So with this, this concludes the press conference. Thank you very much, everybody.


CURRENT ISSUE2009. 11. 25. 10:46
Loading

Skip to comments.

Bill Clinton owns a jewelry store in London and an offshore data company in India
Hillary Clinton Senate Financial Disclosure Form ^ | June 14, 2007 | HAL9000

Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:10:05 PM by HAL9000

Just looking through Hillary Clinton's financial disclosure papers, released today and available at this link -

http://tray.com/pfd/S07pfd/00001/00001217.pdf

Some interesting new developments -

Bill Clinton is the sole owner of "WJC International Investments LP, LLC" in New York, NY. It holds such interests as -

Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund, LP (investment partnership that invests in securities of corporations that conduct significant operations in foreign countries) (general partner is YGOF GP, Ltd, c/o 1930 W. Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90069)

Garrard Worldwide Holdings Ltd (retail jeweler with flagship store in London, England). Garrard is the Crown Jeweller, and appears to be connected to the Bronfman financial empire.

Easy Bill Limited (business service and transaction process company located in India) (Interest held in name of YGPF Mauritus Investments) (see www.easybillindia.com

The report also discloses that CNN's pollster, Vinod Gupta, granted stock options to Bill Clinton for 100,000 shares of InfoUSA, with an exercise price of $8.05, and those options expired on April 24, 2007 without being exercised.

And the report shows that Bill Clinton recieved "over $1,000" of non-employee compensation from Gupta's company. Some reports place the amount at $3.1 million.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Arkansas; US: Nebraska; US: New York
KEYWORDS: acludonors; britain; bronfman; burkle; clinton; clintonpropaganda; clintons; cnnpollster; easybill; garrard; hillaryscandals; india; infousa; london; moneylaundering; pearlnecklace; uk; vinodgupta; wjcinternational; yucaipa

1 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:10:08 PM by HAL9000

To: HAL9000
It's just his his personal Bimbo Bling! outlet?
2 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:12:16 PM by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my SUV with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)

To: HAL9000

Everyone knows the Clintons are ‘special’-only little people need pay taxes-the peons don’t you know. Those are not permitted to look Madame Clinton in the eye.


3 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:12:51 PM by nyconse

To: HAL9000

Lord only knows what BJC did in office to earn these kickbacks.


4 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:13:19 PM by gov_bean_ counter ( Who is the Democrat's George Galloway?)

To: HAL9000

Yucaipa is Ron Burkle’s holding company.


5 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:15:54 PM by oblomov

To: HAL9000

He “owns” Garrard the same way that I own Exxon-Mobil - by owning stock. My holdings of XOM are about 0.0000000001%


6 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:16:03 PM by CholeraJoe ("You just killed a helicopter with a car!" "I know. I was out of bullets.")

To: HAL9000

Do you think Hillary will be taking things away from Bill for the public good?


7 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:18:10 PM by Beckwith (dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)

To: gov_bean_ counter
Lord only knows what BJC did in office to earn these kickbacks.

It's odd how many go into "public service" with average net worth, and leave as multimillionaires...

8 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:20:33 PM by GOPJ (Open border Lobbies push for amnesty when borders leak like sieves? Why?(hint:12 million new dems))

To: HAL9000

That’s some legacy you got there Bill.


9 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:22:00 PM by Argus

To: HAL9000
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=2019

What kind of compensation has Bill Clinton been getting for all this? Mrs. Clinton’s Senate financial-disclosure form, which includes spousal income, reveals her husband in 2005 received “guaranteed” partnership payments from Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I LLC of “over $1,000.” That statistic doesn’t reveal a whole lot. But a spokesman for the ex-president indicated that Mr. Clinton owns one-third of fund assets. The two other funds – the Yucaipa American Fund and the Yucaipa Corporate Initiative Fund – aren’t listed on Mrs. Clinton’s disclosure form because Mr. Clinton hasn’t received actual monies from them. Observers say he could make millions from his Yucaipa connection, and thus provide key financing for Hillary.
10 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:25:00 PM by james500

To: LucyT; doug from upland

FYI


11 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:25:52 PM by Calpernia (Breederville.com)

To: HAL9000
WJC International Investments LP, LLC

That just sounds so...so 'un-liberal' to me. A good liberal should own companies with names like 'Ben & Jerrys' or 'Planned Parenthood'.
12 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:26:01 PM by reagan_fanatic (I'm Fred, White and Blue!)

To: HAL9000
...appears to be connected to the Bronfman financial empire.

Wonder if Hillary! knows about that? Isn't Mrs. Bronfman one of the babes whose neckline he was staring down a few months back?

Owning your own jewelry store has its advantages, however. There are no receipts in your wallet that wifey might discover.

13 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:26:56 PM by afraidfortherepublic

To: Beckwith
LOL!
14 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:27:35 PM by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)

To: abb; HAL9000

>>> Bill Clinton is the sole owner of “WJC International Investments LP, LLC” in New York, NY. It holds such interests as -

Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund, LP (investment partnership that invests in securities of corporations that conduct significant operations in foreign countries) (general partner is YGOF GP, Ltd, c/o 1930 W. Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90069) <<<<<

Is this related?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622561/posts
San Jose Guild Calls Emergency Meeting Over MediaNews Deal (DInosaur Media Union Thug Alert)

>>>>The guild wants to address many issues, including media concentration, but is also charging that Yucaipa Co. — the private equity firm that placed a bid on all 12 orphan Knight Ridder papers on behalf of the guild — did not get a fair shake in negotiations with McClatchy over the California papers.

The guild has “serious” concerns about whether Yucaipa received enough time for the due diligence process. <<<<

?????


15 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:29:01 PM by Calpernia (Breederville.com)

To: HAL9000
What kind of data company? FBI files?
16 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:29:44 PM by BMC1 (If the Hildabeast becomes Pres in 08, we can work for impeachment. First Bill then her.)

To: HAL9000

Wonder if any of these can be traced either directly or indirectly to Marc Rich ?


17 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:31:52 PM by enots

To: HAL9000

Did y’all MISS this ONE????

“Easy Bill Limited”


18 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:33:21 PM by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)

To: HAL9000

I thought Hillary had all of Bill’s jewels in her lockbox?!?!


19 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:33:47 PM by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum.)

To: HAL9000

Holy Cow, check out page 9! Somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 on two credit cards and they’re paying 18.24% interest on them. She’s not on the Budget committee is she?


20 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:33:57 PM by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)

To: oblomov
Yucaipa is Ron Burkle’s holding company.

Yes, he is a generous benefactor to the Clintons.

21 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:34:52 PM by HAL9000

To: HAL9000

Aw, these poor babies! It must have been tough not having money for all those years. Fortunately for them, they were able to go to the White House and become rich.


22 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:37:12 PM by popdonnelly (Our first responsibility is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)

To: HAL9000

An excellent example of how politicians serve themselves first and the country second.


23 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:38:24 PM by popdonnelly (Our first responsibility is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)

To: HAL9000

Whole lot of graft going on.


24 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:47:06 PM by freekitty

To: freekitty

Now, what did they not report?


25 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:47:50 PM by freekitty

To: gov_bean_ counter

As much as I despise the guy, let’s be honest. He gets a $200,000.00 pension. The bitch gets a $150,000.00 salary. She had two bestsellers. He gets $150,000.00+ to make a speech. The sponsor or his foundation (library, whatever) pays his travel expenses. For the first time in his life, he’s probably making honest money, and quite a lot of it.

It wouldn’t surprise me if he kisses a picture of George Bush every morning, and every time he calls Gore he says, “Hey Al, mah accountant just told me that I put an extra eighty grand in mah pocket last year because you didn’t get elected president, huh, huh, huh.”


26 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:49:04 PM by sig226 (Where did my tag line go?)

To: Calpernia; backhoe; WestCoastGal; Rushmore Rocks; Froufrou; blam; Smokin' Joe; nw_arizona_granny; ..

Thanks, Calpernia.

Pinging a few more...


27 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:53:48 PM by LucyT

To: LucyT

He just continues to ooze sleaze. And I will never, ever understand why some women find him sexy and irresistable. BLECH!!!!!!!!!!!

Wish we were rid of this worrisome beast.


28 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:04:04 PM by Rushmore Rocks

To: HAL9000

Keep leakin’ the gold. No pun intended


29 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:04:16 PM by wastedyears (Check my profile for links to anti-illegal immigration T-shirts.)

To: reagan_fanatic
A good liberal should own companies with names like 'Ben & Jerrys' or 'Planned Parenthood'.

Not to mention: "Carbon Credits R Us"

30 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:05:08 PM by Mr_Moonlight

To: Rushmore Rocks; Calpernia; WestCoastGal

LOL, he’ll never leave; after President Hillary there will be President Chelsea.


31 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:08:49 PM by LucyT

To: LucyT

Now that’s a frightening thought!


32 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:10:11 PM by Rushmore Rocks

To: HAL9000

Yucaipa Foods Corp is Ron Buckle’s corporation and he’s a big Clinton supporter and money man. I wonder what share of Yucaipa Global Partnership Ron has and how much of the money Clinton should have come up with Ron Buckle fronted as a “loan” when the Yucaipa Global Partnership was founded?


33 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:41:32 PM by airedale ( XZ)

To: airedale

I found the following at the National Legal and Policy Center at the following URL: http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=2010 Note the 3rd and 4th paragraphs. The rest is interesting. They’ve got a long history of investigating scandals starting in 1991 with the whitewash of the Keating 5 and then later did a lot of work exposing HRC’s Health Care Task Force.

“Information on America’s most corrupt & aggressive unions

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Billionaire Clinton Friend, Union Accused of Racketeering

Ron Burkle is a very wealthy man, with a net worth listed last year in Forbes magazine at $2.5 billion. He’s also a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. That relationship is now coming under greater scrutiny given the backdrop of Burkle’s now-successful attempt to buy out a major long-distance car-hauling company, with an able assist from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. On April 23, investors of Hawk Opportunity Fund sued Burkle’s private-equity company, Yucaipa Companies, in Atlanta federal court, charging Yucaipa and IBT leaders with racketeering in Yucaipa’s takeover of Allied Holdings, Inc., North America’s largest hauler. The plaintiff is demanding $200 million in damages, a figure that could triple under RICO statutes. Yucaipa thinks the case is groundless. “We think that this suit is totally without merit,” said company lawyer Robert Klyman. A Teamsters spokesperson likewise dismissed the suit as having no basis. But the surrounding facts notwithstanding provide a window to the ways in which Hillary Clinton will fund her bid to become the next U.S. President.

Car haulers are those behemoth trucks rolling down our highways ferrying automobiles to local dealerships around the country. Running a full-scale fleet of such vehicles can be expensive, especially in a time of high debt, rising fuel prices, high labor costs, and a soft domestic-car market. That combination was enough to put the Decatur, Ga.-based Allied Holdings, Inc. in the red, and eventually in federal bankruptcy court in July 2005. Ron Burkle, who’d made his original fortune in the supermarket business, recently had gained control of another bankrupt car hauler, Performance Transportation Services, Inc. By acquiring Allied, Burkle would have control over at least half of the entire industry. Last year he made his move. Two Yucaipa funds bought a combined $100 million in Allied debt, making Burkle the firm’s largest unsecured creditor. In return, he wanted to restructure the company, subject to approval by U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Atlanta. On Monday, May 14, the court, after a challenge from several parties, granted approval. Burkle’s plan to lift Allied out of Chapter 11 and restructure the company’s management and operations is set to go into effect by June 1, provided all closing conditions have been met.

To bring the deal off, Burkle needed help from two key sources. One was the Teamsters, which represents about 3,300 of Allied’s 5,500 workers. This past February, Teamster local leaders representing car haulers approved the plan, which would protect existing member benefits. The other source was former President Bill Clinton. Since 2002, Clinton has served as a senior adviser to Yucaipa for three of its funds. His function, in the firm’s words, is to “provide counsel” and “participate in events related to the funds and provide advice in the development of potential investments.” Clinton was attracted to Yucaipa because of its reputation for bringing jobs and investment into economically depressed regions of the U.S. More importantly, Burkle long has been a generous donor to the Democratic Party – and one of its most effective fundraisers. Recently, he raised about $2.5 million at his Beverly Hills mansion for the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

What kind of compensation has Bill Clinton been getting for all this? Mrs. Clinton’s Senate financial-disclosure form, which includes spousal income, reveals her husband in 2005 received “guaranteed” partnership payments from Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I LLC of “over $1,000.” That statistic doesn’t reveal a whole lot. But a spokesman for the ex-president indicated that Mr. Clinton owns one-third of fund assets. The two other funds – the Yucaipa American Fund and the Yucaipa Corporate Initiative Fund – aren’t listed on Mrs. Clinton’s disclosure form because Mr. Clinton hasn’t received actual monies from them. Observers say he could make millions from his Yucaipa connection, and thus provide key financing for Hillary.

The Allied deal required special intervention by the former president. Mr. Clinton reportedly brought Burkle and Hoffa together to remove labor-related obstacles. Clinton convinced Hoffa to work with Yucaipa as a union-friendly employer – something Burkle says he could not have pulled off on his own. Clinton, said his spokesman, believes in doing business “in a labor-friendly way.” Burkle took things over from there. Originally, negotiations involved the car-hauler as well as Yucaipa and the Teamsters. But somewhere along the line, Allied fell by the wayside. After Yucaipa bought $100 million of the troubled car hauler’s debt, Allied allowed Yucaipa to stay on in contract concessions with the Teamsters. Talks went on for months, but without progress. “We were getting conflicting proposals from Yucaipa and the company,” says Fred Zuckerman, director of the union’s car-hauling division. “We didn’t know who we were negotiating with.”

In early January of this year, Allied requested that Yucaipa management leave the negotiations. In February, Allied asked the federal bankruptcy court to void its Teamsters’ contract, which would have paved the way for deep wage cuts and a possible strike. That’s when Burkle, waiting in the wings, began negotiating with the Teamsters on his own. This time there was a breakthrough. The resulting reorganization plan contains several key features. First, Allied’s debt, including the portion held by Yucaipa, will be converted into common stock, with shares of the old stock to be cancelled. Current shareholders will not receive any distributions, but will have the option to buy, at a discount, up to 4 percent of the reorganized company’s stock. Second, several key Allied executives, including CEO Hugh Sawyer, will be dismissed. Third, Yucaipa wants to put its own people on the board of directors. In addition to a new CEO, there will be three other replacements, plus a fifth appointed by Allied’s creditor committee. The Teamsters, having observer status, will send a representative to board meetings. Finally, though the union may have grimaced while accepting, the deal calls for an across-the-board 15 percent wage cut in each over the next three years in an amount not to exceed $35 million a year.

Financial observers projected Burkle’s takeover will generate $20.3 million in profits this year, a figure that will rise to $42.2 million in 2008. Allied plans to pay back unsecured creditors, owed $196.9 million, with its new stock. But not everyone was happy with the proposed regime. Among them were two investor groups, Virtus Capital and the aforementioned Hawk Opportunity Fund, who held a combined 8.3 percent of Allied stock. Additionally opposed were three of Allied’s 10 board members, members of the company’s founding Rutland family (which owns about 30 percent of Allied stock), and several dissenting Teamsters. They filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to block the takeover-restructuring deal, a suit that became moot when the court approved the proposal. But the RICO suit, which is entirely separate, remains intact. Hawk Opportunity Fund is accusing Yucaipa of manipulating the deal. The fund says that Yucaipa extended the negotiation period until after Teamster President Hoffa’s re-election victory last November against perennial challenger Tom Leedham, misrepresented Allied’s position as insolvent as a pretext for excluding the company from negotiations, and had a conflict of interest, given that it now was owner of a major competitor in Performance Transportation Services.

Yucaipa believes none of these charges will stand up. The company said that it acted properly to break an “impasse” that could have led to the shutdown of Allied’s operations. Union leadership likewise defends the plan, despite the wage concessions. “The Yucaipa plan is not perfect, but it is the best way to make sure that our members’ futures remain secure,” said the Teamsters’ Zuckerman. The 15 percent wage reduction actually is somewhat smaller than the cut Allied management earlier had proposed. The RICO plaintiff, Hawk, might well accept cash and/or equity from Yucaipa in return for dropping its suit. But one way or another, it’s clear Teamster leaders were party to an unusual business deal. Being a “friend of Bill” has its rewards. (Financial Week, 3/19/07; Los Angeles Times, 4/28/07; Wall Street Journal 5/2/07; Associated Press, 5/14/07; other sources).


34 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:52:09 PM by airedale ( XZ)

To: HAL9000
Little Red Riding Hood said "MY! What a big offshore investment portfolio you have!"

...and the Big Bad Bill said, "The better to launder those ugly greenbacks with, my dear..."

35 posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:40:32 PM by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)

To: HAL9000

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph...I think I’m gonna throw up :(


36 posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 2:34:30 AM by TheSpottedOwl (Head Caterer for the FIRM)

To: LucyT; Calpernia; DAVEY CROCKETT; FARS; milford421; Founding Father

Bump and Ping.

And how does this fit in?

Clintons sell off stocks:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1817890/posts?page=5069#5069


37 posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 9:05:30 PM by nw_arizona_granny (When God spoke to the world, were you listening?)

To: HAL9000

Our Grifter-In-Chief


38 posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 9:07:45 PM by Tall_Texan (Global warming? Hell, in Texas, we just call that "summer".)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson