The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) is calling upon the U.S. Congress to review and audit of existing trade agreements before entering into new agreements.  The problem, according to OCM, is that the process involves too many vague promises of trade benefits; hostility to suggestions of trade harm; an apparent lack of thorough and objective evaluation of the performance of trade agreements; and no corrective action plan.  Nor is it clear as to how agreement objectives are established and what corrective actions are taken regarding non-performing or poorly performing agreements.  Further, it is not clear as to how conflicting interests in many agreements are reconciled in the best interests of the American public.

“A comprehensive review and audit of existing trade agreements is long overdue.  The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has negotiated, and Congress has approved, trade agreements merely to get an agreement,” said Keith Mudd, OCM president.  “But there has been no discussion on what the goals and objectives should be, whether they have been achieved, and whether we can do better with the next trade agreement.”

OCM is concerned that federal decision makers have harmed U.S. agriculture and the overall economy by approving any document entitled “trade agreement” without defining goals, without measuring performance, and indeed without evening reading the documents.   The result is a trade debate that suffers from too little information, too much rhetoric, and no clear direction going forward.

“Trade agreements are business deals,” continued Mudd.  “Both sides should have clearly defined goals and objectives before even starting negotiation.  They should determine performance measures.  The final agreement should fit the criteria, and enable efficient enforcement of violations.  OCM is concerned none of these basic factors exist in current agreements.  A review and audit will provide answers.”

OCM believes an independent investigation conducted by professional auditing personnel should review existing trade agreements using these factors:

1. Whether goals and objectives for past trade agreements were defined prior to negotiations beginning;
2. Whether trade negotiators accomplished these defined goals and objectives;
3. Whether the goals and objectives were consistent with the needs of the American public
4. Whether fundamental economic, fiscal and monetary policies of prospective trading partners were considered and resolved prior to and during past negotiations, including policies involving: currency valuation, taxation, subsidies, and regulatory regimes;
5. Whether the U.S. retained an ability to respond to changes in trading partners’ economic, monetary, and fiscal policies which create trade imbalances;
6. Whether efficient and effective enforcement mechanisms exist in the agreements.