will the fast food chains be issued with marching orders?
here is the source of the controversy:
...........
U.S., U.A.E. Delay Trade Talks Amid Row Over Ports (Update3)
March 10 (Bloomberg) -- A trade agreement between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates may be delayed because of the controversy that scuttled a Dubai-based company's acquisition of U.S. port terminals, a cancellation President George W. Bush says may send the wrong message to allies in the war on terror.
Talks that had been scheduled to resume March 13 between the U.S. and U.A.E. for a trade agreement will be postponed, the U.S. trade office said, citing the need for more preparation.
Trade negotiations between the two nations had proceeded without controversy since they began in November 2004 and were likely to be completed this year. Protectionist climate in Washington bubbled to the fore last month as the planned acquisition of six U.S. ports by Dubai-based DP World sparked outrage in Congress over the potential security risks.
``We've got some crow to eat,' said David Mack, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.A.E. who is now vice president of the Middle East Institute in Washington. ``Our approach globally has been that we support the opening of capital markets and the lowering of barriers to investment.'
With Congress poised to block the acquisition, state-owned DP World yesterday abandoned its efforts to assume control of six U.S. seaports as part of its $6.8 billion acquisition of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
Bush Unaware
The administration in January approved the purchase after a 30-day review by a multi-agency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Congressional criticism drove DP World to agree to a new 45-day review of the deal. That extended review had just begun.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has said Bush was unaware of the Dubai decision until the panel had made its recommendation.
An administration official said today that as the Dubai agreement unraveled Bush sent a clear message to advisers and department heads that the White House be given a heads-up the next time a politically sensitive case comes before the committee. Bush also is open to legislative changes that would give Congress a role in such reviews, the official told reporters in a briefing.
In a speech to newspaper executives in Washington today, Bush linked the scotched agreement to the war on terror. ``In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our friendship with moderate Arab nations,' the president said.
`What's the Point?'
The derailing of the ports plan was a setback for Bush, who was rebuffed by fellow Republicans and stung by polls that showed strong public opposition to the agreement.
This ``is clearly going to complicate the president's ability to achieve his foreign policy goals in the region,' said William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which coordinates business support for Middle East trade initiatives. ``These countries are going to say that if you can't differentiate between the countries that support you and don't, then what's the point of cooperating.'
The U.A.E. trade agreement is part of a drive by Bush to form an economic link between the U.S. and the Middle East. In addition to the U.A.E., the U.S. has completed talks with Oman, which could come up for a vote in Congress as early as this month, and a separate agreement with Bahrain that has already been ratified by lawmakers.
Poised to Block
Reem al-Hashimy, commercial attaché of the U.A.E. Embassy in Washington, downplayed any connection between the ports controversy and the trade agreement. Hashimy said she doesn't anticipate a long delay in the trade talks. ``I think we just want a little more time to work through some of the substantive issues,' she said.
The U.S. trade office had a similar message. ``In order to get an agreement that both sides can successfully implement, we need additional time to prepare for the next round of negotiations,' said Neena Moorjani, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office.
For others, such as former government negotiator Catherine Novelli, the link between the two developments is clear.
``It's natural that when there are events tangential to a negotiation, that those can cause people to want to take a breather,' said Novelli, a partner at Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw in Washington and the lead U.S. negotiator with the U.A.E. until last year. ``But I would be surprised if this one very difficult incident would completely upend the talks.'
Lots of Issues
The trade talks had already hit snags over U.S. demands that the U.A.E dismantle remnants of its boycott against Israel, allow U.S. banks and insurance companies better access to that market and construct rules over how investment disputes would be handled, according to people briefed on the negotiations.
The ``talks were having a lot of issues, particularly in financial services,' said Christopher Wenk, director of trade policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. Wenk testified on behalf of the agreement in January 2005.
U.S. exports to the emirates doubled last year to about $8.5 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Aircraft maker Boeing Co., defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. and oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. are among the U.S. companies with the biggest commercial ties to the U.A.E.
The U.A.E. shipped about $1.47 billion in merchandise to the U.S. last year.
Political Damage
Some analysts said another fallout of the ports row may be a reluctance of Middle East investors to acquire U.S. companies. ``It will have a chilling effect on Middle East direct investment in companies,' said Gary Hufbauer a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
``Congress needs to walk a fine line in ensuring transactions continue to be scrutinized without chilling the foreign investment the U.S. needs,' said David Marchik, a partner at the Washington law firm Covington & Burling and author of a soon-to-be published book on foreign investment.
The controversy has damaged what was supposed to be a political rebuilding year for Bush, who in 2005 failed to sell the U.S. public and Congress on changes to Social Security, the signature domestic issue of his second term.
The administration's response to Hurricane Katrina and sectarian fighting in Iraq intensified criticism of him, and Americans in the most recent Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll opposed the port deal by a margin of more than three to one.
More Say
Bush's approval rating fell to its lowest level ever in a March 6-8 Associated Press/Ipsos poll, dropping to 37 percent from 40 percent last month. Two-thirds of Americans said the country is on the ``wrong track,' according to the poll.
``I have said all along that I thought the administration didn't handle this very well, and I'm glad now that at least to most people's satisfaction, it's been resolved,' Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania who is running for a third term this fall, said yesterday.
Still, some in Congress want more say in how such acquisitions are approved and will work to change the process, now handled solely by the executive branch. One proposal by Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman would bar foreign government ownership of vital U.S. assets.
``I think that Congress has to have a say,' said Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican. ``We've got to have a meaningful way to vet these deals.'
The debate let Democrats gain the upper hand, at least temporarily, on national security, an issue that has always been a strong suit for Bush. Democratic strategists said the controversy could lessen the Republican advantage on that issue.
``Any political observer will tell you that any development that lessens or negates the Republican advantage on security is a good thing for Democrats, which is why they will keep talking about it,' said Joe Lockhart, a strategist who served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a4v5lMAr8GTc&refer=us
i figure that any number of muslim nations and other non aligned nations (eg venezuala, bolivia to start) are more than willing and ready to jump at any chance to impose tit-for-tat national security measures. and let us be candid here, food security is of vital importance to a nation so the western food perveyors must be quaking in their boots over this one.
any comments???
Originally posted by moweutNot exactly true.
remember that it was not so long ago that the chinese caught the American fast food chains putting the carcinogen "Sudan I " into the chilli sauce in China.
Sudan 1 was in the chilli paste that the American owners of MacDonalds told their franchisees they had to buy... but it was also an ingredient in most of the other chilli sauces available at that time.
Anyone remember the scare in the UK last year when most of the grocers and supermarkets took hundreds of products off the shelves because they also included Sudan 1 in the ingredients?
It's probably a true fact that if you had chilli sauce in 2004, 2005, then in had Sudan 1 in it.
Oh no!!!! We're all gonna die....
EDIT: Just out of interest, did anyone actually die from eating that chilli sauce?