Government Politics And Its Effect On The Us On Free Trade Agreements

Three years after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created the largest free trade area in the world, the debate rages on.

In this year’s SOTU address, the president urged Congress to back the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Obama said, “You want to show our strength in this new century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it. It’s the right thing to do.” Congress has granted “fast-track” authority to Obama. Still, Congress can reject the international agreement the president has presented (In this case, The Trans-Pacific Partnership). Obama wants Congress to use its power to approve the TPP, so that he can use his power to enforce it. These powers of approval and enforcement, outlined in the Constitution, help the legislative and executive branches work together, as well as check each other, regarding certain issues.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a grand, 21st century regional free-trade treaty which was commenced on 2003. It initiated as a trade contract involving Singapore, New Zealand and Chile. Presently, the TPP consists of 12 countries as their members that includes US, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Brunei, China, Korea, Australia, Peru and Vietnam. Other countries like Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, India etc. have also revealed their concern in merging with the TPP trade agreement. In 2011 the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries declared that the TPP is expected to “develop trade and investment accompanied by the TPP partner countries, to uphold innovation, economic expansion and advancement, and to support the formation and preservation of jobs. TPP will undo prospects for American employees, families, businesses, farmers, and ranchers by offering increased permission to some of the greatest growing markets in the world.

When it comes to the topic of political parties such as Democrats and Republicans, most of our country will readily agree that they continue to dominate the United States Government. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of which political party suits the country best. Throughout the media, internet, and the general public, there are constant debates on which party should be in control of the U.S. There is no actual answer to that question. Politics have a huge grip on the nation, even going as far as hiring journalist that are right winged or left winged in hopes of getting the reader to side with them. Democrats and Republicans are two different parties with different views on just about everything when it comes to politics and running the United States.

Donald Trump wants to get rid of this agreement. We see that Donald Trump acts in selfish ways to get ahead in his endeavors. He has all along been acting selfish, with malicious intent to downright “make America great again,” more like make America divided. He’s making more enemies than allies in the world, one more thing that comes out of his mouth is another hundred people that don’t like him.

After the controversial TPP fast track legislation was passed by Congress, the world woke up to the devastating effects of other "trade agreements."

Since 1993, China has experienced uninterrupted trade supplies and in 2013, China has overtaken the US as the world’s largest trading nation. As an economy highly integrated into the global trade system, the country benefited from a steady improvement in its term of trade since 2000. The country has multiple bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that opened new markets for its product. A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between China and ASEAN nations which came into effect in the beginning of 2010, created the world’s third largest free trade area in terms of nominal GDP. China established FTA with nations like Korea, Peru, Pakistan, Singapore and etc.

The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were failures. The North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the most controversial documents of the 20th century, beginning January 1st 1988.1 The reason it was so controversial was because it was loved in some ways yet hated in others. One of the reasons why the FTA and NAFTA were failures is due to the fact that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney lost a lot of votes caused by the amount of voters that disapproved of the FTA and NAFTA. Another reason the FTA and NAFTA were failures is because the agreement did not improve the amount of full time jobs in Canada, which was one of the reasons that the FTA and NAFTA was created in the first place. The final reason the deal failed was because the deal was supposed to improve productivity around Canada but really did nothing. The FTA and NAFTA were failures because it only helped a small handful of Canadians and hindered many more.

ctober 4th marks an important date in Canada-U.S. trade relations. In 1987, both countries agreed to the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA). Negotiations toward a free trade agreement with the U.S. began in 1986. The two nations agreed to a historic agreement that placed Canada and the United States at the forefront of trade liberalization.Key elements of the agreement included the elimination of tariffs, the reduction of many non-tariff barriers, and it was among the first trade agreements to address trade in services. It also included a dispute settlement mechanism for the fair and expeditious resolution of trade disputes.he purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which are toeliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States;facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement;liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free-trade area;establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes; andlay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement.The Canada-U.S. Free Trade

Few issues in American politics have become as polarizing as trade agreements. In fact, trade agreements are fairly unique in that it can be opposed by both the right and the left. Nothing is more evident of this characteristic than the most recent presidential election, in which the candidates of both major parties opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). By examining each candidate, one could easily predict the fate of the TPP.

It is commonly believed that free trade between nations is a mutually beneficial arrangement for all parties involved; indeed, this is held to be an absolute truth. Though free trade is undoubtedly the most effective form of commerce between countries from a purely economic standpoint, increasingly we find that our so-called "free trade agreements" are horribly unbalanced. Indicative of these fiascoes is the North American

     There are various trade agreements the United States have with many other countries and I will do a brief overview of a few of them. The most noticeable one is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which include the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This agreement was constructed and approved in January of 1992 and formed the largest free trade area. NAFTA eliminated and reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers in addition to comprehensive provisions in the way trade was conducted between these countries.

The biggest slow down of the negotiations was the continued failure of the U.S. Congress to renew the President Clinton’s fast-track authority, his ability to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to up-or-down votes. The 1994 Miami Summit ended with assurances from President Clinton that he would secure fast-track authority and use it to gain Chile’s admission to NAFTA. Without it, not only has Chile’s admission to NAFTA fallen by the wayside, but there are growing questions about U.S. approval of the final FTAA agreement. Doubts concerning Washington’s resolve and leadership have clouded the negotiations and provided an opening for countries not enthusiastic

As mentioned earlier, the TPP is a major potential free trade agreement between twelve of the Pacific Rim countries. The countries are Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, The United States, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore (Freil, Sharon, Gleeson, Thow, Labonte, Stuckler, Kay, and Snowdon 1). Interestingly enough, this agreement is the technical successor to the P4 agreement that was initialised in 2006 (Elms 29). This agreement was held between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand, and Singapore. In 2008 the U.S. showed large interest in joining this agreement giving spark to a new agreement that has enticed other Pacific Rim countries (Elms 29). Taking charge of this new agreement the U.S. has laid down most of the TPP 's foundation to create an agreement that should allow for a

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an economic free trade agreement currently being negotiated between New Zealand and 11 other Pacific Rim nations (Wyber & Perry, 2013). It seeks to reduce trade restrictions including tariffs, create shared guidelines for intellectual property rights, sanction codes for environmental and labour regulations, and create an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system (Fergusson, McMinimy & Williams, 2015). The implications of the TPP are immense, encompassing nearly 40% of global gross domestic product (GDP), with the potential to affect various aspects of a nations’ domestic policy environment (Wyber & Perry, 2013). On-going formal mediations have taken place since 2008; however public interest in the ramifications of the agreement has increased as negotiations have proceeded (Wyber & Perry, 2013). This is likely a result of its growing media coverage, which has raised public awareness to the issue. The private nature of TPP negotiations has evoked widespread controversy and debate throughout the media (Jairath, Johnstone & Moore, 2015). While confidentiality amid trade agreements is common, some consider that the TPP has been concealed in specific secrecy, giving more influential power to industries involved (Wyber & Perry, 2013).