NAFTA Case Analysis

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an international agreement between Canada, America and Mexico. This agreement took effect in January 1994 and was signed by President Bill Clinton. This agreement brought great changes in trade volumes and open new opportunities for millions of labours. Later, in January 2008 according to the schedule all duties and restrictions were eliminated. About 45,000 tariffs were eliminated in 1994 and only 3000 were left until 1999.

After 27 months of negotiation, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a trade agreement between the three north American countries: Canada, United States, and Mexico, was put into effect on January 1st 1994. NAFTA was developed to increase trade among the three north American countries while simultaneously promoting each countries’ economy growth. However, the United States faces a new government, and President Trump believes that NAFTA should be renegotiated to modernize the trade agreement instead of removing U.S participation. Some of these renegotiations, include: Trade in goods, Investment, Digital Trade, Cross-Border Data Flows, Government Procedure, etc, take into account the changes in the economy since 1994. This new

To begin I will be discussing Trump’s plan to stop NAFTA. Stopping NAFTA would be horrific for Canadian society. Canadian society acquires thousands of items from the U.S that can’t be produced in Canada for instance products like oranges, lemons, limes and mangos. During 2015 the United States imported $295.2 billion from Canada and exported $280.3 Billion to Canada. Without NAFTA all goods would have a tax costing Canada Millions of Dollars.

NAFTA was established in 1992 and came into effect January 1st 1994. NAFTA was created to eliminate or reduce any tariffs between the three countries. It was formed to uphold greater trade between three countries "the increase in agricultural trade was doubled after the eight- to 12-year 'phase-in' period” (Grant, newswise). It promoted conditions of fair competitions, it also increased investment opportunities. NAFTA shows how free trade increases wealth and competitiveness,delivering real benefits to families, farmers, workers, manufacture and consumers. The impact of NAFTA on trade relations between Canada and the U.S. is more difficult to measure because the two countries had a free trade deal even before. NAFTA has helped boost agriculture flows between the two

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted between two industrial countries and a yet still developing nation. This was an agreement that was the first of its kind due to the relationship that the countries had and the investment opportunities that it presented. The United States, Canada, and developing Mexico decided to work towards eliminating most tariffs and non-tariff barriers between the three in order to increase the flow of trade in goods and services. Since its enactment NAFTA has led to the providing of over 40 million more jobs throughout the countries, and it has also tripled merchandise trade between the three participants to an astounding $946 billion USD in 2008 (NAFTA Now). However even then it is still not very clear whether enacting NAFTA was worth the time and effort and in fact the United States may have been better off not having joined NAFTA.

With all the research and reviews on Trade Agreements, it has been interesting to read that the U.S. President, Donald Trump continues to baffle the world including the Republican Party, over how he plans to honor his campaign elected political agenda, which vowed to scrap away years of American Trade Policies, with hopes of reestablishing domestic manufacturing jobs. Subsequently, Allegations streamed from the president’s cabinet that provided insights on his the plans not to go forth with renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), yet in March, 2017, the president changes directions to revamp the so called “job-killing disaster” policy for a more favorable US deal instead – this on-again, off-again, flip-flop behavior appears uneventful, to say the least.

Over the years, many things have changed in Canadian history when discussing women's rights and freedom. Canada has made many efforts to increase its reputation. Ways that Canada has shown its many efforts to allow our country to grow a greater reputation includes discharging restrictions on married women who were working government jobs in 1952, creating the Employment Equity Act in 1982 to help end barriers that limit employment for women and allowing Kim Campbell to become the first female prime minister of Canada in 1993.

Nafta is the first thing I’ll be talking about. Nafta is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is basically what the name says, it’s free trade. The main purpose is to resolve problems, have completion, and protect the property rights. There are three places that are affected the U.S.A, Canada, and Mexico. They have been affected by this since October 7, 1992, so, a pretty long time. There negative things that come

The features of the NAFTA include the abolition of tariffs on 99% of traded goods between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, removal of barriers on cross-boarder service flow, protection of intellectual property rights, removal of restrictions on foreign direct investment, application of national environmental standards, and two commissions with the responsibility to impose fines and remove trade privileges (Hill, 2011). The two commissions focused on environmental and labor issues among trading partners. The agreements support “cooperative efforts to reconcile policies, and procedures for dispute resolution between the member states (NAFTA, 2011).

The NAFTA obligations that UPS claims Canada has breached is mainly Section A of Chapter 11, Chapter 12, and Chapter 15. More specifically, Canada breached Article 1102 and 1202 - National Treatment; Article 1105 - Minimum Standard of Treatment; Article 1502(3)(a) and 1502(3)(d) - Monopolies and State Enterprises; and lastly Article 1503 – State Enterprises. Due to the limitations of this project, only Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 will be discussed.

Clearly NAFTA is a highly debated topic because of the ambiguous effects it has had on the US economy. Brent Snavely questions NAFTA in his article published in the Detroit Free Press by pointing out that “the US lost more than 670,000 jobs as a direct result of NAFTA between 1993 and 2010,” he also explains that NAFTA has been blamed for the “manufacturing job losses and plant closures as the auto industry spent billions to build assembly plants and parts in Mexico,” it seems that one of the main issues is that jobs and money has been lost because of NAFTA. NAFTA “provided for liberalization of trade in agriculture, textiles, and automobile manufacturing.” On the contrary, Bruce does highlight some of NAFTA’s positive attributes such as: after NAFTA the “total goods traded with Mexico and Canada – imports and exports combined – grew from $291 billion in 1993 to $1.1 trillion in 2016 which is a 267% increase,” this increase in trade “has benefited the US economy and created jobs in other industries.” Either way, Canada and Mexico have agreed to renegotiate NAFTA, which took two years to agree upon, in order to reduce the US trade deficit in a fair way that still allows for an improved market access between the US, Canada, and Mexico and are attempting to come to a conclusion within the next seven

The North American Free Trade Agreement or as its most commonly known NAFTA “is a comprehensive rules-based agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico”, that came into effect on January 1,1994. All three countries signed it in December of 1992; later on November of 1993 it was ratified by the United States congress. NAFTA was not only used in cutting down on tariffs between both countries but it also help deal with issues such as Transportation, Border Issues, and Environmental Issues between these two countries. NAFTA changed some tariffs immediately and within fifteen years other tariffs will fall to zero. NAFTA was not created to just lower tariffs it was also created to open protected sectors in agriculture, energy,

NAFTA having turned twenty years old in 2014 it is important to view its impact of the automotive industry. Automotive sales between the countries have increased both in sales and overall production. With that being said there was a clear winner between the “3 Amigos” In 1994 when NAFTA was ratified US car exports to Mexico increased 685% which resulted in a increase of $437 million in profits, along with that in Mexico production of automobiles has tripled. The result of the boom in Mexico didn’t fare well for the United States or Canada. Production in Canada saw little to minor increases in production. While the US saw a double-digit decline in production of automobiles.

NAFTA has been a hot topic of conversation over the last two decades. This agreement has many implications that not only affect Americans, but also the global market. In the United States, many people have been adversely affected by NAFTA. This is because they have lost jobs and some industries, such as the automobile industry, has gone to other countries because of cheaper costs. There are many advantages and disadvantages to this pact. Since NAFTA has harmed people in the United States, many people believe that we should get rid of it. On the other hand, others have pointed to the increasing global domestic product (GDP) in the United States, Mexico, and Canada as support to keep the agreement. The objective of this paper to weigh these pro’s and con’s and make a logical conclusion to what we should do about NAFTA in the future.

The new NAFTA objectives, a requirement to begin talks on updating the agreement in the next 30 days, contain the first specifics for a Trump administration that has made bold promises on trade. Trump has pledged to recover factory jobs and boost wages by crafting new trade deals. Supporters note that NAFTA enabled companies to charge cheaper prices for products that range from cars to vacuum cleaners, helping many U.S. consumers.