In July of 1997, a group of some fifty “activists” gathered for two days to discuss the inequities in cattle markets in the auditorium of Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation in Jackson, Mississippi.

In the spring of the next year, a follow-up meeting was held in Omaha, Nebraska to discuss the inequities in ALL agricultural markets and to consider forming an organization to advocate for a fair and competitive agricultural marketplace. In October of that same year (1998) a founding meeting for The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) was held in Kansas City, Missouri.

I take great pride in my role as one of the founders and presidents of this organization which has amassed a fine record of accomplishments and made “Competitive Markets” a key part of the debate on agricultural and trade matters. I am excited and honored to now become its Executive Director.

One of my early undertakings will be to organize the first of what is likely to be a series of meetings on Globalization and Free-Trade.

Ever since the administration of John F. Kennedy, the bully pulpit has been used to push Globalization and Free-Trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), brought by the Clinton Administration, was supposed to only take away the jobs nobody wanted anyway and create better jobs in their place. It was to be the instrument of prosperity for Mexico and stem the flood of illegals crossing our Southern border. Ross Perot’s warning, about the giant sucking sound, was dismissed, by branding him a nut. Well, there was indeed a giant sucking sound and later a second giant sucking sound as many of these jobs went on to China, India and other places with even cheaper labor. NAFTA was supposed to create a $100 billion trade surplus with Mexico by 2005. Instead we find ourselves with a current account deficit with Mexico of some $400 billion.

Some months ago at a conference on the future of agriculture, former Texas Congressman Charles Stenholm recited numbers, which reflected a significant increase in trade volume between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. as a result of NAFTA. When I asked about the negative aspects of NAFTA, such as our trade deficit and displaced farmers and workers, he replied that the major negative aspect was that the issue got him beat in his race for reelection to the U. S. House of Representatives.

One might ask why our trading partners continue to pile up trade surpluses while we set a new trade deficit record month after month. Who is cutting these dumb deals? Our balance of trade for 2005 was a negative $805 billion, which was 20% greater than for 2004; the previous record. Our current trade deficit stands at $5 trillion. That is how much we owe foreign governments and other foreign sources. Leery of the future value of the dollar, these folks don’t want our currency; they want chunks of our vital national assets. We now amass a trade deficit equal to the dollar value of the Dubai Ports World deal every three days. These numbers prompted Moody’s chief economist to exclaim; ”We’re hemorrhaging red ink!”

Manufacturing is not the only sector affected by the outsourcing that is part and parcel to Globalization and Free-Trade. Agriculture is at the center of trade talks and a matter of great concern. Contrary to the frequent bluster one hears; “American Farmers can compete with anyone” - fact is, we can’t. The only way to compete is to live as they do and I’m getting too old to ride a bicycle. Money and technology is totally portable and inevitably flows to the cheapest labor on the globe.

Agricultural export surpluses used to be that part of foreign trade, which allowed us to import autos and electrical gadgets and still maintain a tenable trade balance. Remember the days of Earl Butts and his call to “plant fencerow to fencerow”? You might also remember the bloody purge in the mid-80’s of those who followed his advice.

We are told that since U. S. agriculture produces a third more than we can sell at home and 95% of the world’s population lives outside the U.S., foreign trade is key to our economic prosperity. We also hear politicians and bureaucrats proclaim that this country must never become dependent on foreign sources for our food. Well, let me share a bit of news! While it is projected that we will have a very slim $1 billion in overall agricultural trade for this year, we’ve been running negative on food trade since 1998. Last year, according to Dr. Keith Collins, Chief Economist of USDA, we imported $21 billion more in food than we exported. What has happened to the breadbasket of the world?

Has it occurred to any of our decision makers that we might try to sell more at home and worry less about foreign trade? What is so good about making these deals where we gain limited access to markets where folks are broke in exchange for their free access to the world’s best market? Are we to sacrifice our national self-sufficiency in food production at the altar of Globalization? It is okay to import coffee, tea and bananas, but shouldn’t we grow our own meat and potatoes?

As a military retiree, I shop at the military commissary. There is not a domestically produced shrimp to be had in the store. When I try to identify the origin of a package of shrimp (unlike beef and other foods, seafood is supposed to be covered by COOL), I find in bold print, “packaged by” but in much smaller print, “product of”. We are currently importing 92% of the shrimp we consume in this country; while the U.S. Gulf Coast shrimp industry faces extinction as a result of Katrina, high cost of diesel and cheap foreign production.

In my home County, I can only find two remaining full-time farmers. Soon, there will be none. In a recent news article, the author predicts that the family farm will head the list of occupations that will cease to exist by 2015. Our commercial scale, family farmers are being forced out of business by factory farms and a New World Order which emphasizes the bottom line
for transnational corporation to the exclusion of all else.

One frequently hears someone say that they believe in ”fair trade” rather than “free trade”. Trouble is, there are no “Fair-Trade Agreements”. Most prominent economists say the situation is not sustainable. Few propose solutions.

For those of us who still care about the future of our republic, China holds a major portion of our foreign debt and is on track to replace The United States as the dominant global superpower in a very few years.

These are but some of the issuesand concerns we will address at our Globalization Conference this fall or early winter. We’re going to shine a bright light on the situation and hope that folks wake up. Stay tuned!FS