"We would certainly welcome the recipient nation to put their inspectors on our shores, if they wanted to make that investment to help protect that shipment that is outgoing"
About this Quote
The line lands like hospitality, but it’s really an elegant jurisdictional judo move. Asa Hutchinson frames a hard-edged sovereignty question as a friendly offer: sure, other countries can “put their inspectors on our shores” - as long as they’re the ones paying for it, and as long as the inspection is cast as protecting an “outgoing” shipment. The phrasing is lawyerly in the best and worst sense: it sounds cooperative while narrowing responsibility to the thinnest possible slice.
The specific intent is to defuse criticism about safety, contamination, or compliance without conceding regulatory failure at home. By inviting foreign inspectors, Hutchinson signals confidence and transparency. But the real work is done by “if they wanted to make that investment.” That conditional flips the burden: if you’re worried, you fund the solution. It’s not an invitation so much as a cost-shifting mechanism dressed up as openness.
The subtext is also about control. Inspectors “on our shores” suggests access, yet the host country still sets the terms. The shipment is “outgoing,” meaning the concern is export credibility - not necessarily public health broadly, but trade friction, market access, and reputational risk. In the typical context for a remark like this (agriculture, food safety, or industrial exports), it’s a message to trading partners: we’re not blocking oversight, but don’t expect us to underwrite your confidence.
It works because it sounds reasonable while quietly drawing a line: cooperation, yes; culpability, no.
The specific intent is to defuse criticism about safety, contamination, or compliance without conceding regulatory failure at home. By inviting foreign inspectors, Hutchinson signals confidence and transparency. But the real work is done by “if they wanted to make that investment.” That conditional flips the burden: if you’re worried, you fund the solution. It’s not an invitation so much as a cost-shifting mechanism dressed up as openness.
The subtext is also about control. Inspectors “on our shores” suggests access, yet the host country still sets the terms. The shipment is “outgoing,” meaning the concern is export credibility - not necessarily public health broadly, but trade friction, market access, and reputational risk. In the typical context for a remark like this (agriculture, food safety, or industrial exports), it’s a message to trading partners: we’re not blocking oversight, but don’t expect us to underwrite your confidence.
It works because it sounds reasonable while quietly drawing a line: cooperation, yes; culpability, no.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Asa
Add to List
