The debate on the impact of NAFTA on its signatory countries continues. While the United States, Canada and Mexico have experienced economic growth, higher wages and stronger trade since nafta, experts disagree on the extent to which the agreement has actually contributed to these benefits, if at all, to manufacturing employment. , immigration and consumer goods prices. The results are difficult to isolate and other important developments have occurred on the continent and around the world over the past quarter century. To date, trade ministers from the 34 countries have met three times to discuss areas of existing and potential cooperation and have set up twelve working groups to prepare for the Free Trade AGREEMENT negotiations in three key areas: market access reform (including the liberalisation of trade barriers and the elimination of discrimination against foreign suppliers in the application of national rules); rules on trade and investment in the goods and services sectors; Trade facilities (e.g. customs reform. B, business visa, etc.). As the first comprehensive and reciprocal free trade pact between developed and developing countries, NAFTA has illustrated several important aspects of free trade pacts that should support the NAFTA process. I will conclude with five critical trade policy lessons to be learned from the NAFTA experience, which are relevant to the understanding of the future free trade agreement: all issues in the ALEA negotiations are considered a package.
Some agreements could be concluded at an early start in the process and could be implemented by the year 2000 to meet the “early harvest” of the Miami Summit declaration. Customs reforms and other trade facilities approved by the U.S. Economic Forum could be achievable during this period; An investment agreement comparable to the multilateral investment agreement developed within the OECD is also possible. On January 29, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada. Canada has not yet adopted it in its parliamentary body until January 2020. Mexico was the first country to ratify the agreement in 2019. It is interesting to note that such an approach would be consistent with Brazil`s proposal to focus on trade facilitation at the beginning of the FTA negotiations. However, Brazil`s argument that market access reforms should be delayed for several years makes no sense and is indeed at odds with Brazil`s economic policy. Brazilian officials appear to have a “slow” approach to liberalizing the free trade agreement to avoid further pressure on adjustment that could disrupt the remarkable but fragile progress of their real plan — although further trade reform is an essential part of their macroeconomic stabilization policy.
I see the Brazilian proposal as a tactical trick to reassure their national electoral districts and not as an obstacle to the opening of substantial negotiations on the FTAA. Since the Miami Summit, U.S. trade initiatives in the region have been severely hampered by the lack of accelerated power to implement trade agreements in U.S. legislation.