North America Free Trade Agreement | US-Mexico-Canada Agreement
While US President Barack Obama hoped to kick Keystone XL out of the way by delaying a decision ahead of mid-term elections, Ottawa is considering launching a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The US government launched on Friday a probe into allegations that cheap imports of Mexican sugar are causing nearly $1 billion in damages in the local market, even as the Mexican representatives made a formal rebuttal of the accusations.
New evidence of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement’s damaging record provides the latest reason why Congress should not delegate away its constitutional trade authority and allow the Trans-Pacific Partnership to be “fast-tracked” into place.
Dr Robert A. Blecker, a researcher of the Economics Department at the American University in Washington admitted that the North American Free Trade Agreement has not led to economic growth, much less to job creation in Mexico.
Farmers, union, environmental and women’s activists gathered in Mexico City last week to take stock of the lessons from NAFTA and plan strategies to confront the next big threat: the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Chemical firm uses trade pact to contest Environmental Law
This is a call to action for communities throughout Mexico, Canada and the United States to join together on January 31, 2014, and say "ENOUGH!" to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and other corporate "trade" deals. Solidarity actions elsewhere throughout the globe are welcome.
Twenty years after NAFTA began remapping the North American economy, the US wants a sequel.
The very same policies which undermined the livelihoods of the approximately 2 million small farmers in Mexico who were displaced as a consequence are devastating the Colombian country side now.
In an extensive report on “20 years on from the Signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)”, the British newspaper, the Guardian, has claimed that Mexico could have maintained economic growth that it sustained between 1960 and 1980 without the need for an agreement.
Mexican peasant organizations have warned of a year of protests unless the federal government fulfills its promise to end the disastrous effects generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
On the same day the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army and people of Chiapas declared war on the Mexican government, saying that NAFTA meant death to indigenous peoples. To learn about the impact of the uprising 20 years later and the challenges they continue to face, DN! speak with Peter Rosset, professor of rural social movements in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated, supporters promised it would increase the income of Mexicans. Two decades later, it’s clear that Mexico’s ultrarich are among its big winners.
Although NAFTA fundamentally changed the country in some ways, it did not meet expectations of putting Mexican wages on the same level as US wages, boosting employment, reducing poverty or protecting the environment.
On the 25th anniversary of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, big corporations have gained at the expense of the public good.
Twenty years after it took effect, NAFTA has failed the vast majority of Mexicans
Since NAFTA will turn 20 years old in 2014, U.S. officials say next year’s anniversary will be a golden opportunity to re-launch it and then try to expand it to the rest of the continent.
Caleb Duarte and Mia Eve Rollow from EDELO (En Donde Era La UNO/Where the United Nations Used to Be) explore the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement in Chiapas, Mexico’s poorest state and the site of the Zapatista revolution.
In a recent NAFTA Investor-State claim brought against the United States by Apotex Inc., Canada’s largest producer of generic drugs, the Tribunal upheld the US’ preliminary objections to jurisdiction on the grounds that the company’s efforts to win approval for generic drugs in the US market did not make it an "investor" under NAFTA Chapter Eleven.
It’s likely that until recently very few people in Canada knew what a Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) was. But when the Harper government announced it had signed one of these things with China, the situation changed quickly.