Custom essays on North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

North American Free Trade Agreement (abbr. NAFTA; fr. Accord de libre-échange nord-américain, ALENA; esp. Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte, TLCAN) is the agreement about free trading between the United States of America, Canada and Mexico, which is based on the model of European Union. NAFTA Agreement was ratified in the 1st of January 1994 and the core idea of this agreement was reducing the trading barriers between the countries participants. The half of the limitations was reduced after the ratification of NAFTA and the left were reduced during the 14 years after ratification. It should be noted that such an agreement became the enlarged variant of the treading agreement between the United States and Canada signed in 1989. The core difference of NAFTA from the Agreement provided by the European Union was that the agreement was not aimed on the creation of interstate administrative organs and development of the new legislation (Deresky, 2007). NAFTA could be regarded as just international trading agreement and is limited by the norms of international legislation. The core idea of this essay is to examine, whether NAFTA positively or negatively influenced on the economics of three countries: NAFTA has left all three nations, U.S., Mexico and Canada “better off than they would have been without it”, – and agreeing or disagreeing with it. Personally I can’t agree with it as after critical evaluation the subject I came to the pretty different conclusions.
To prove my position I would like to begin with the reasons that were provided for the NAFTA creation and what results were expected by creation of this organization.
The Reasons of Creating NAFTA and the Results expected
 Reduce of the custom and passport barriers alongside with the stimulation of goods and service movement between the countries members of the Agreement;
 Creation and support the facilities of the fair competition in the free trading zone;
 Attraction of the investments in to the countries members of the Agreement;
 Provision of appropriate and effective security and defense of the intellectual property rights;
 Creation of the working mechanisms of the Agreement integration and usage of it for the solution of the problems and management;
 Creation of the basis for future three side, regional and international cooperation in order to enlarge and improve the Agreement;
 Creation of the one continental market.
As we see the reasons for creation the Union were really obvious. They were really aimed on improving the trading relations between the three countries:
The accord, known as Nafta, brought under one canopy three hugely different economies: the wealthy United States, middle-class Canada and striving Mexico. The disparities made NAFTA the boldest gamble ever on the proposition that free trade could benefit all (The New York Times, 2009).
The great promises were made and everyone expected from NAFTA a real breakthrough that would help to provide new jobs, fight illegal immigration and increase the life facilities:
Leaders promised the accord would create millions of good jobs, curb illegal immigration and raise living standards ‘from the Yukon to the Yucatan’. More than a decade later, the verdict, even among Nafta’s strongest supporters, is that for those goals free trade by itself is not enough” (The New York Times, 2009).
But the results showed that NAFTA expectations could hardly be called absolutely fulfilled. Some analysts actually consider that the establishment of NAFTA agreement provided the opposite impact than it was expected by the leaders of the countries. I would like to make a stress on the Mexico, as the most economically weak member of the Union. When the agreement was ratified the former president of the country announced about the bright perspectives NAFTA provides for Mexico and it would be able “to export goods, not people”. A new birth the new prosperous and richer country was promised (Malkin, 2009). 15 years passed from the ratification date now we could hardly speak about fulfillment of this promises as Mexico is still exporting people more than goods: nearly half a million every year. It goes without saying that the agreement did not actually solve the problem. Another significant negative factor is deindustrialization of the United States, which also negatively impacted the economics of the country. The list could be prolonged far more and that is why I am not agreeing to the fact that NAFTA has driven Canada, Mexico and The United States to prosperity. The leaders of the countries have already understood that the agreement as it exists now could not fulfill the set aims and provide the reliable relations. Now it could be hardly tools about the success of the problem, as the benefits of it are lost behind the difficulties it has created. In Canada NAFTA is being strongly criticized as a number of the companies were taken by the foreigners. I think the idea was really great but it has to pass through the reforms to reach the planned result.

 
References
Helen Deresky. International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures. Prentice Hall: 2007
Mel Hurtig. The Vanishing Country. Is It Too Late to Save Canada? McClelland & Stewart: 2003
Elizabeth Malkin. NAFTA’s Promise, Unfulfilled. The New York Times. New York: March 24, 2009, page B1
The New York Times official web site. April 21, 2009. North American Free Trade Agreement. June 03, 2010. The New York Times Official Web site