North America Free Trade Agreement | US-Mexico-Canada Agreement
US drug agents say that free trade with Mexico has had an ugly and unintended consequence: Just as legitimate business people have flocked to Nuevo Laredo, so have criminals.
But in just over a decade, an estimated 1 million farmers in rural Mexico have lost their livelihoods.
Last year was the tenth anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and nearly all evaluations of the agreement conceded that the period showed negligible or negative results for Mexico. As the developing country partner of the agreement, Mexico’s experience under NAFTA has major implications for other developing nations negotiating FTA’s, particularly with the United States.
Instead of heeding the wave of social opposition, the United States has dug into its trenches, and in economic policy those trenches are the bilateral trade agreements.
The leader of Mexico’s largest farm union has demanded a review of the North American Free Trade Agreement before final tariff reductions take effect in 2008.
Recent developments in international trade highlight the difficulties facing the 15-member Caribbean Community (Caricom) as it prepares for a key World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial meeting in Hong Kong this December.
The United States, such a paragon and champion of free trade when it comes to exporting its own products and services, evidently considers itself free unilaterally to ignore the rules when the umpire comes down against it.
Washington says it has no plans to obey a NAFTA ruling that compels the United States to refund an estimated $5-billion in illegally collected duties to Canadian lumber producers — setting up a potential trade war that experts say could threaten the future of the North American trading bloc.
A few words of unsolicited advice to Congress and the President, who appear bent on approving a Central America Free Trade Agreement to go along with the North American one best known as NAFTA: Please go slowly.
The lack of worker and environmental protections leads the list of concerns as CAFTA is modeled after the failed 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. At its 10-year anniversary, the verdict on NAFTA is in: It is an economic, social and environmental failure.
Promoters of the proposed Dominican Republic/Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have asserted that it will provide significant benefits to the U.S. economy, especially to the agricultural sector. Similar promises were made in the debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 and 1993. However, since that time NAFTA has failed to live up to these promises, and similar promises made for CAFTA are even less likely to be fulfilled.
The Argentine government said it will try to annul a ruling by the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favour of US company CMS Energy Corp.
A new study by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch analyzes 42 NAFTA investor-state challenges and illustrates how the proposed CAFTA would extend the threat.
On January 24, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) launched a constitutional challenge against NAFTA’s Chapter 11 rules before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This is the first time that a court will consider the constitutionality of international trade rules.
Jobs are only one part of the trade equation. As the U.S. chips away at Canada’s economic independence, we’re slowly losing our sovereignty, says David Orchard
The North American Free Trade Treaty (NAFTA, Jan 1994), the Free Trade Area for the Americas (FTAAs, December 1994), Plan Colombia (1999), the Regional Integration of Infrastructure in South America (RIISA, September 2000) and the Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP, March 2001) are the building blocks of the US hegemonic policy for the Americas and the Caribbean.
After the highest court in Massachusetts ruled against a Canadian real estate company and after the United State Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal, the company’s day in court was over.
The recent explosion of bilateral investment and trade agreements and investor-state disputes is of growing concern. Many mobilisations against the World Trade Organisation (WTO) aim to stop attempts by industrialised countries to kickstart talks on a multilateral investment agreement at September’s Cancun Ministerial meeting.