Moreno 1 Diana Moreno Espinoza International Politics 4/14/2016 Preliminary Draft NAFTA When it comes to the topic of the North American treaty some of the people will readily agree that the treaty was beneficial and it made a significance in the economic relations between United States, México, and Canada. Where the agreement usually ends, however is when we examine the treaty and we see both sides, what it brought to after it was sing, has it made the impact that it was expected and also what are some of the benefits and what other might say negative aspects about the treaty. The treaty was sign in 1994 by the presidents of México, Canada, and the United States of America. It s often mentioned that it was one of the most important agreements signed in the 1990s. The main purpose of the treaty was to increase the economic investment and interaction between the three states. The impact of NAFTA has been slightly positive it has not been what they were expected to get out of the treaty. The treaty primary object was to make possible the free trade between México, United States and Canada with what they call free tariff. At the beginning it was established that they were going to cut the whole tariff by the end of the fifteen year that it was established. The free trade tariff means that it removes the tariffs in most of the goods that are exported and imported, it also made possible the direct investment in any of the three state nations. The treaty was sing in 1992, then it was ratified in 1993 and finally it was implemented in 1994 by President George W. H Bush, Carlos Salinas and the prime minister of Canada Brian Mulroney. Some of the goods that are included in the trade are agriculture, automotive, and the textiles. As it is mentioned
Moreno 2 NAFTA is consider one of the most important treaty s that it was sign during the 1990s. Since the agreement was sign the three states have worked together. In order for a goods to qualify under the NAFTA there is a protocol that the goods have to follow before they can be exported or imported to any of the mentioned states countries it s called rule of origin or certificate of origin. These means that in order for a good to be exported or imported to any of the states involved on the agreement they have to follow a rule. The rule of origin has to follow the annex 401 how it is called where is stated what are the requirement for the good to be part of NAFTA how it is classified and if it does not have what is required to be consider a non-tariff goods then it does not qualify. Also the companies that decide to move in to either of the states involved in the treaty they have to follow the environmental laws that are established in the state. Whenever the treaty was signed it was establish that the three states were going to work together also on the promotion of environmental laws. The foreign direct investment was also possible after NAFTA was singed. For example during the current presidency of Enrique Penanieto he allowed the United States and Canada to invest in the petroleum production. It was a controversial issued for the Mexican population because they didn t approved Penanietos action on allowing foreign countries to get involved in to the petroleum production, because it was nationalized during the presidency of Lazaro Cardenas and now he came into the presidency and his allowing direct investment from other state nations. According to the article North American Free trade agreement by Pedro dos Santos The arguments used to support NAFTA included increased trade among the three countries and increased job growth and economic output, as well as a reduction of poverty, especially in Mexico. This is basically explaining the main purpose of the treaty what it was expected from
Moreno 3 the treaty to bring for the three state nations. For example in places like México were poverty levels are high with the signing of the treaty American and companies were able to move into Mexican territory. Also in Canada the treaty also brought jobs to the Canadian people. The presidents of the United States and México and ministers of Canada have worked together or cooperate more closely to reinforce the agreement since the year that it was signed so the three state nations can get good economic benefits for each of the states. Some of the benefits of the North Atlantic free trade agreement were not only the removing of tariffs on goods and the investments that the states were able to do. In addition to that it also brought jobs in to a country like México were poverty levels are high. With foreign companies moving south or into Mexico NAFTA brought jobs to a place where there are no many places to work where you have to take the opportunities of work that are available or else you would not have a job. Even though some might state that working in foreign companies that have facilities to work in México they don t have the best paying salaries the working conditions are not the best most of these people work long hours, they are thank because else were they would not have a job. The United States trades now more goods in services with México than any other state. In the other hand, we have Canada who is also part of the agreement, Canada was also able to benefit from the agreement. After they sign the agreement Canadas exportations to the United States has increased in the auto motive system and oil production, and minerals. With the United States investment in Canadian territory it has also brought jobs to Canada. It is also mentioned that Canada has, however, experienced some losses in narrow sectors such as specialty steel production and processed foods due to U.S. imports (Barufaldi 1). Canada is also
Moreno 4 able to trade goods with México. The relation between Canada and México increased after the treaty was sign. After the treaty was sign during the first couple years the relations between the two governments were strong. The relations currently are still favorable for both states even though the Mexican government has told Canadas ministers to reconsider on the requirement of visas that it was sign in 2009 were Mexicans are required to have a visa to visit Canada. Every year there are more Mexican people who decide to rather stay in Canada than the United States because of the opportunities of jobs that Canada has. Also we can add that Canada as well as the United States provides temporary work visas to the Mexican population. In the United States the visa that is given to those who want to work in the agricultural or seasonal work is called H-2A: Temporary Agricultural Worked visa. The visas are given for three months to work in a seasonal agricultural job once the season is done you have to return to the state of origin in this case it will be México. In order for the United States to give a work visa to any they have to follow certain thing first. Many argued that people takes advantage of these kind of visas because some don t return to the country whenever they have too. Many people take these kind of opportunities because, during the time that the worker works either in Canada or the United states they get more money than what they would get if they were to stay in México. It seems that every time it gets harder for some to get a visa because many don t return back and they stay in the country illegally. The population especially form Mexico has a total different view on whether NAFTA was actually going to benefit them when it was signed. As mentioned in the article Under
Moreno 5 NAFTA, Mexico Suffered, and the United States Felt Its Pain by Laura Carlsen NAFTA has cut a path of destruction through Mexico. Since the agreement went into force in 1994, the countries annual per capita growth flat-lined to an average of just 1.2 percent -- one of the lowest in the hemisphere (Carlsen 1). Which means that it has not make much difference in the state economy as it might have been expected. It s also mentioned in the article that they can t blames NAFTA for all the economic problems that the country is facing. When you see it from the Mexican perspective they think that the agreement has brought more negative points to the country than positive ones. The Mexican population or state has not yet to realize the full benefits of the agreement. It is also point out that after NAFTA was sing immigrations to the United States increased. Whenever they sign the agreement they also agree to establish that they would be giving out temporary work visas to the people so they could work in Canada or the United States. But is also mentioned that before it was signed and went in to effect undocumented immigration was not as high as it became after it was signed. According to the article Immigration to the United States by Joseph R. Rudolph Jr. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), whose creation in 1994 forced Mexican farmers to compete with the United States vastly more efficient agricultural system. Between 1993 and 2002, at least two million Mexican farmers had to abandon their land for want of markets for their produce, and many came north. Undocumented immigration from México was only from certain region but after it was sign it was from the whole state. Which means that between the 1993 and 2002 more than two million Mexican people immigrated as it is stated in the article by Joseph r. Rudolph jr. the workers didn t have any other option after companies move in to México they lost their jobs
Moreno 6 they would sell their crops and make a living out of it, but once NAFTA was signed everything change and they had to immigrate to place were they would be able to work. Adding more into the undocumented immigration increase and how is related to NAFTA because as is mentioned in the North America free trade agreement The import of inexpensive American agricultural goods caused the bankruptcy of many Mexican farmers and therefore pushed large numbers of Mexican farmworkers out of work. These dislocated Mexican workers increasingly chose to seek a new life in the United States. (Zhang1). This is one of the reason why undocumented immigration increase and how they related in one way to one of the negative aspects of the agreement. They immigrate from México to the United States was mainly because as it is point out they were not able to compete with foreign companies they didn t had what these foreign companies had to produce goods as it is mentioned by Zhang. When they were not able to compete with foreign companies they had to leave their lands they were not able to keep on in the agriculture. They didn t have in these case the equipment that these foreign companies had. They had to find a way to survive and make money to support their families so that s why they move into United States territories. We can also add that there is a belief by a part of the society who believe that after the treaty was sign many jobs move in to México. As companies moved south into México some believe that Mexicans took the jobs of the United States people. As it is mentioned in the article México and the united states by Edward A. Riedinger Moreover, U.S. labor saw jobs lost as companies moved to Mexico to lower their cost of wages (Riedinger1). Meaning that since it
Moreno 7 they would pay less for goods to be produce in Mexican territories, they moved into México. We can also add these to why many think that they took their jobs because with what they would pay to one worker here, with that same money they would pay like three or four people in México. For example right now the hour for a worker here just in California they pay ten dollars an hour in México a regular worker gets pay one hundred pesos a day which is less than eight dollars right now when the peso it s at its lower value they can pay more people and are able to have more people working. When we talk about the foreign companies that were established in Mexican territories we refer to those automotive and textiles companies who decide to move in to Mexico and are called the maquiladoras. A maquiladora is a big factory where they made supplies. Some of the American companies that are located in México are Nestle, General Motors, John Deere and many more. The United States exports supplies to the maquiladoras in México were later the supplies that are made there are exported back into the United States. To reinforce these Dan Barufaldi talks about it in the article NAFTA S Winners and Losers how the exports and then imports the supplies from the maquiladoras Much of the trade between the two countries involved exporting U.S. parts to maquiladoras, the Mexican factories that sprang up near the border to take advantage of cheap labor. Workers would assemble the parts into goods, such as appliances, television sets and auto assemblies, then re-export the assembled products to the U.S. (Barufaldi 1). Once again since companies take advantage of the cheap labor of the Mexican hand so they take advantage of it and they see what the best is for their companies.
Moreno 8 In conclusion, the treaty brought many economic benefits for all of the three state nations. They were able to invest in countries where they would have not been able to do it if NAFTA had not been signed in 1994. There has been positive benefits about the agreement but there has been negative things to it as mentioned. As mentioned the undocumented immigration increase after the agreement was signed because they couldn t compete with the foreign companies. Also it is also mentioned that as foreign companies move into Mexican territory it took many jobs into another state. The agreement brought jobs to a country where there is a high level of poverty. There are those who think that the agreement has not been as beneficial as they though, there is no dough that it has helped the economy of the three states. Leaders of each of the three state nations have worked together sin the day that the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement was signed to reinforce the treaty and make the relations within each other more beneficial. As it is mentioned NAFTA has been categorized as one of the most important treaties signed in the 1990.
Moreno 9 Apr. 2016. Barufaldi, Dan. "NAFTA's Winners And Losers." INVESTOPEDIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Carlsen, Laura. "Under Nafta, Mexico Suffered, and the United States Felt Its Pain." <i>http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/undernafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain</i>. N.p., 24 Nov. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2016. dos Santos, Pedro. "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." The 1990s in America. Ed. Milton Berman. Hackensack: Salem, 2009. n. pag. Salem Online. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. <http://ezproxy.portervillecollege.edu:2099>. Riedinger, Edward A. "Mexico and the United States." The 1990s in America. Ed. Milton Berman. Hackensack: Salem, 2009. n. pag. Salem Online. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. <http://ezproxy.portervillecollege.edu:2099>. Rudolph, Joseph R. "Immigration to the United States." The 1990s in America. Ed. Milton Berman. Hackensack: Salem, 2009. n. pag. Salem Online. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. http://ezproxy.portervillecollege.edu:2099 Zhang, Yunqiu. "North American Free Trade Agreement." Encyclopedia of American Immigration. Ed. Carl L. Bankston. Hackensack: Salem, 2010. n. pag. Salem Online. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. http://ezproxy.portervillecollege.edu:2099