Thirty years ago, Canada and the US opened negotiations in regards to a possible Free Trade Agreement. As a result, a nationwide contentious debate filled the streets and a call for an election was demanded as necessary. A bilateral agreement came to form, generating a FTA between the United States and Canada. By 1990, president Bush and the Mexican president divulged their intentions, on negotiating a free trade agreement. This ultimately posed a problem for the deciding governments. Should the government implement Canada as part of the negotiations and risk kindling negative sentiments over the issue once more or risk deterring the gains that they had earlier achieved in their agreement with the United States. This paper seeks to outline
…show more content…
Upon negotiations with Mexico to form a free trade zone, President Bush carefully identified the pros and cons. Having a politically and economically strong neighbor is always in the best interest of a thriving country. From a political perspective, stimulating trade liberalization would open up additional markets to place their products in and ultimately enhance living standards in both countries. The idea of a NAFTA was important for the United States as U.S firms had substantial investments in Mexico. Should the FTA be passed, this would be a means to secure investments and stimulate additional investments in Mexico. The U.S would now have trade blocs on both sides of them, making them the focal point for investment. From an economic standpoint, investment would be a means of raising wages and employment eventually stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into their borders. However at the root of the NAFTA stood the potential negative impacts that needed to be weighed out just as equally as the pros had been. Given the rather extreme difference in wages between the two countries, there was concern that jobs may torrent into Mexico as a result of worker displacement, loss of jobs and loss of industries. Organizations may experience increased strain contending against the relatively lower Mexican wages and cost-structures, causing a loss of jobs and industries. The concept of environmental standards came into play, considering the horrendous environmental conditions in Mexico. Would Canadian and U.S companies now migrate to Mexico because of the negligence to enforce standards? If the standards were not up to par with American-Canadian regulations, would the lax Mexican standards put pressure on jurisdictions to adjust their environmental
Upon negotiations with Mexico to form a free trade zone, President Bush carefully identified the pros and cons. Having a politically and economically strong neighbor is always in the best interest of a thriving country. From a political perspective, stimulating trade liberalization would open up additional markets to place their products in and ultimately enhance living standards in both countries. The idea of a NAFTA was important for the United States as U.S firms had substantial investments in Mexico. Should the FTA be passed, this would be a means to secure investments and stimulate additional investments in Mexico. The U.S would now have trade blocs on both sides of them, making them the focal point for investment. From an economic standpoint, investment would be a means of raising wages and employment eventually stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into their borders. However at the root of the NAFTA stood the potential negative impacts that needed to be weighed out just as equally as the pros had been. Given the rather extreme difference in wages between the two countries, there was concern that jobs may torrent into Mexico as a result of worker displacement, loss of jobs and loss of industries. Organizations may experience increased strain contending against the relatively lower Mexican wages and cost-structures, causing a loss of jobs and industries. The concept of environmental standards came into play, considering the horrendous environmental conditions in Mexico. Would Canadian and U.S companies now migrate to Mexico because of the negligence to enforce standards? If the standards were not up to par with American-Canadian regulations, would the lax Mexican standards put pressure on jurisdictions to adjust their environmental