Swiss minister to meet Clinton ahead of UBS deadline

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters

ZURICH (Reuters) - The Swiss foreign minister is due to meet U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 31, just days before a deadline to reach a settlement in a damaging U.S. tax case against UBS (UBSN.VX) (UBS.N).

Micheline Calmy-Rey told the NZZ am Sonntag newspaper in an interview she would probably meet Clinton on July 31, adding she hoped that strong Swiss ties with the United States should help seal a deal for UBS soon.

"UBS employs more people in the United States than in Switzerland. Given these interests of the United States, I hope that a solution will be possible soon," she told the paper.

"Our relations are very good. That is also useful in the case of UBS," she said, pointing to Switzerland's recent mediation in the Turkish-Armenia conflict and its representation of U.S. interests in Cuba and Iran.

A foreign ministry spokesman confirmed that a meeting between Calmy-Rey and Clinton was planned for July 31 and said it would focus on "current bilateral topics and international cooperation."

A U.S. judge agreed earlier this month to delay a trial against top Swiss bank UBS to August 3 to allow the two governments to hammer out a settlement.

U.S. tax officials have accused UBS of hiding $20 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money in secret Swiss accounts and are seeking disclosure of 52,000 client names.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE56I0PG20090719

[bluesmail]

1. That sounded like a veiled threat, we (UBS) employ more people

in US than in Switzerland. :shrug:

[RandomThoughts]

2. Just as a logic problem, there seems to be an issue not discussed.

What I find has happened in history is that the US has, when needed, used its military resources in third world countries to ensure economic interests.

When you look at history, you see right wing over throws to maintain the influence and power of land owners, and if you go back further you can find other examples were the US used its military power for protection of economic, or what were deemed national interest.

Also we used military action in Kuwait, and Iraq.


Now I do not advocate for war or violence, so this idea fails with me for that reason, but simple logic makes the following a valid action.

If the US or other groups in the world have used military power to protect economic interest, then to protect the interest of people in society, logically it would show that it would be within the same system or legal frame work to fire cruise missiles at the houses, banks, islands, or any other places that people live or plan actions that hurt or limit freedoms or prosperity of all of society.

Again I don't believe in use of violence, but as a logic problem, if military force was used to protect profits of people in the past, then that same force would seem to be allowed or rationally understood to be able to be used against any group that used any power, weather financial or influence, to hurt, or even not help, the majority of society.

Can anyone find a flaw in that logic problem? Besides the obvious becoming what you fight, or fighting fire with fire arguments, both of which also make that idea only a thought problem and not a relevant coarse in my view.

There could be arguments made about Western World wealth compared to third world, but their does not seem to be an argument that could be made about wealthy class over anyone when looking at that logic problem.

Again I don't believe in violence, so it is only a thought problem, it is not a real issue, but from the context of equal application of methods of economic enforcement, wouldn't it make sense for the people that advocated many other wars to have those wars advocated against them?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. UBS is caught between US and Swiss laws.

The Swiss have threatened to seize the records which would actually get UBS off the hook in US court since they can not provide what they do not have. That would effectively negate the threat to shut them down in the US.

[The abyss]

4. Exactly!

[JDPriestly]

5. We could simply tell the Swiss that, to the extent that UBS does not comply with

U.S. banking and tax laws, it may not operate in the U.S. The government shuts down banks for various reasons every week. It can do that with UBS. It's assets and business can simply be transferred to other banks. UBS is not God.

We cannot allow people to hide income that is taxable in the U.S. from our tax laws. It is not fair to those of us who pay our taxes.

[The abyss]

6. I don’t think that will happen.

The US government needs to sell as many T-bills as possible at the next auction. There are fewer and fewer buyers every time.

[indypaul]

7. And isn't one of those employees

the former Senator Gramm? Could care less if UBS
wants to continue their disregard for U.S. tax laws
then none of those persons, especially Gramm, needs
further employment. Would the Swiss government allow
a U.S. bank to operate in Switzerland in violation
of Swiss banking laws? I seriously doubt that and
enough said.

[lexanman]

8. Didn't the Swiss launder Nazi money

Seems their banking "laws" have been encouraging money laundering and sheltering for a long time. That the Swiss were a neutral country during WW2 is laughable.