Under NAFTA, total trilateral merchandise trade, as measured by the sum of each country`s imports by its other two NAFTA partners, has reached nearly $1 trillion, more than three times as much since 1993. About 77.8 per cent of Canada`s total merchandise exports went to our NAFTA partners in 2016. Total merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since 1993 and has increased ninefold between Canada and Mexico. U.S. President Donald Trump opposed it during his election campaign and promised to renegotiate and „tear up” the deal if the U.S. could not get its desired concessions. A renegotiated agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was approved in 2020 to update NAFTA. But why did Trump and many of his supporters consider NAFTA „the worst trade deal that could have been the worst ever” while others saw his main manko in a lack of ambition and the solution to even more regional integration? What was promised? What was delivered? Who were the winners of NAFTA and who were the losers? Read on to learn more about the history of the agreement as well as the main players in the agreement and its terms. Other ancillary agreements have been adopted to allay fears about the potential impact of the Treaty on the labour market and the environment. Critics feared that, in general, low wages in Mexico would attract U.S.
and Canadian companies, leading to a relocation of production to Mexico and a rapid decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, environmentalists were worried about the potentially disastrous effects of rapid industrialization in Mexico, which has no experience in implementing and enforcing environmental legislation. Potential environmental issues were addressed in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. Assessing the value of NAFTA is not a simple or simple matter. However, many experts believe that free trade agreements are a necessity for the United States when it competes in an increasingly globalized world. After all, three discrete events have had a significant impact on the North American economy, none of which are due to NAFTA. The failure of the tech bubble has affected growth. The September 11 attacks led to severe repression at border crossings, particularly between the United States and Mexico, but also between the United States and Canada. In a 2013 foreign affairs article, Michael Wilson, Canada`s minister of international trade from 1991 to 1993, wrote that crossings from the United States to Canada dropped nearly 70 percent on the same day from 2000 to 2012 to a four-decade low. The highly organized opposition to NAFTA has focused on the fear that the removal of trade barriers will encourage U.S. companies to pack their bags and move to Mexico to use cheap labor. This concern grew in the early 2000s, when the economy experienced a recession and the subsequent recovery turned out to be a „recovery from unemployment.” Opposition to NAFTA was also strong among environmental groups who claimed that the anti-pollution elements of the treaty were particularly inadequate.
These criticisms have not wavered since the implementation of NAFTA. In fact, both Mexico and Canada have been repeatedly named for environmental offences. NAFTA was structured to increase cross-border trade in North America and foster economic growth for each party. Robinet says Mexico has become „not only the crossroads of auto trade in the Western Hemisphere,” but it is also „improving and expanding its transportation infrastructure. When it comes to transportation, Mexico is in a sweet spot; You don`t need to go through the Panama Canal. Before NAFTA, Japanese exporters had to cross the canal, which has bottlenecks and is expensive. . . .