Many small U.S. companies under NAFTA depended on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade has supported more than 140,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States. [94] From the first round, agriculture has been a controversial issue within NAFTA, as has been the case with almost all free trade agreements signed under the WTO. Agriculture was the only party that was not subject to trilateral negotiation; Three separate agreements have been signed between the two parties. The Canada-U.S. agreement provided for significant tariff restrictions and quotas for agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy products and poultry products), while the Mexico-U.S. pact allowed for broader liberalization within a time frame (this was the first North-South free trade agreement for agriculture to be signed). [Clarification needed] After Mexico promoted a trilateral trade agreement in 1991, NAFTA was created as a way to open up free trade between the three North American superpowers and not just two. President H.W. Bush signed NAFTA in 1992, which was also signed by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Salinas.
In 1984, Congress passed and concluded the Trade and Tariff Act, which was itself based on the old Trade Act of 1974. The Act gave „rapid“ power to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements and streamline negotiations. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was inspired by the success of the European Economic Community (1957-1993) in removing tariffs to stimulate trade among its members. Supporters argued that the creation of a free trade area in North America would bring prosperity through increased trade and production, resulting in the creation of millions of well-paying jobs in all participating countries. In its May 24, 2017 report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote that the economic impact of NAFTA on the U.S. economy was modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized several studies as follows: „In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses that critics feared, nor the significant economic benefits predicted by supporters. The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively small, not least because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.
However, there have been adjustment costs for workers and businesses as the three countries have prepared for more open trade and investment between their economies. [93]:2 NAFTA is also used to resolve trade disputes, including investor-state issues, through the courts. President Trump criticized the system for the fact that there would have been a non-American party. Citizens „a veto of American law,“ according to the Council on Foreign Relations. However, discussions are still ongoing as to whether NAFTA provisions have actually contributed to the resolution of trade disputes by removing trade barriers. Many critics of NAFTA saw the agreement as a radical experiment developed by influential multinationals who wanted to increase their profits at the expense of ordinary citizens of the countries concerned. Opposition groups argued that the horizontal rules imposed by nafta could undermine local governments by preventing them from enacting laws or regulations to protect the public interest. Critics also argued that the treaty would lead to a significant deterioration in environmental and health standards, promote privatization and deregulation of essential public services, and supplant family farmers in the signatory countries. 1. The parties reaffirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to the other general agreement on tariffs and trade and other agreements to which these parties are parties.
