Suchergebnisse

Overview of the economic, political, and sociological impact of NAFTA upon North and South America and the Caribbean; 15 articles.

While both the EC and NAFTA are designed to provide trade preferences to the member countries, the two groupings differ markedly in other respects. The Treaty of Rome, establishing what is now the EC, consciously used economic means to foster political cohesion in Western Europe; whereas, the NAFTA negotiations seek free trade rather than more comprehensive economic integration precisely to minimize political content. The EC contains many social provisions absent from the NAFTA discussions, the most important of which is the right of migration from one EC country to another. However, migration between Mexico and the United States, both legal and undocumented, is more extensive than between any of the EC countries. This migration is unlikely to diminish in the near to medium term because of the great disparity that exists in the levels of income of the two countries. However, a reduction in the pressure to emigrate from Mexico over the long term requires sustained economic growth there, to which free trade with the United States can contribute.

The Moment of Truth has come for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The US Congress will have to stop talking and vote to accept or reject the agreement negotiated among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The disagreement on NAFTA in the United States is about free trade with Mexico, not with Canada. A US-Canada free trade agreement (FTA) already exists.This controversy over NAFTA has been fierce in the United States, much more so than in Mexico. This comparison speaks volumes about changing attitudes. It was almost unthinkable a decade ago that Mexico would so drastically alter its traditional position of maintaining economic and political distance from the United States. This change would not have been possible but for la decena trágica, the years of the 1980s. Beyond that, Mexico has more at stake in a free trade agreement. It has the smaller economy (about 1/27th that of the United States) so that changes, for better or worse, are magnified.

The moment of truth has come for the North American Free Trade Agreement. The US Congress will have to stop talking and vote to accept or reject the treaty negotiated among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Mexico has more at stake in a free trade agreement. It has the smaller economy (about 1/27th that of the United States) so that changes, for better or worse, are magnified. Even though the country is taking the bigger gamble, polls show much less opposition to the agreement there than in the United States

Arguments for and against the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trade Policy in the Western Hemisphere is undergoing major transformation. Developments during the past few years include entry into force of the Canada-US free trade agreement; the prospect of negotiations among Canada, Mexico, and the United States toward a North American free trade area; efforts to deepen economic integration between Argentina and Brazil; and the initiative of President George Bush for free trade in the Western Hemisphere.Had the Bush proposal been put forward a decade or so ago, it would have been greeted with suspicion, perhaps even derision, as just another neocolonial US maneuver to keep Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries from developing their industrial capacity. Its reception, however, was generally favorable, even enthusiastic. It is premature to expect the conclusion of free trade agreements between LAC countries, other than Mexico, and the United States, but there is a dynamic moving in this direction.

Reasons for renewed regionalism in trade relations in the Western Hemisphere. Some emphasis on President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative.