scholarly journals VIZENTINI, Paulo y WIESEBRON, Marianne (eds.), Free Trade for the Americas? The United States' push for the FTAA agreement

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuily Zárate Díaz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
The United States

The Investment Provisions of the Canada—United States Free Trade Agreement: A Canadian Perspective

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 394-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Raby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
The United States ◽  
The World ◽  
Trading Partners

This is a good deal, a good deal for Canada and a deal that is good for all Canadians. It is also a fair deal, which means that it brings benefits and progress to our partner, the United States of America. When both countries prosper, our democracies are strengthened and leadership has been provided to our trading partners around the world. I think this initiative represents enlightened leadership to the trading partners about what can be accomplished when we determine that we are going to strike down protectionism, move toward liberalized trade, and generate new prosperity for all our people.On January 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada signed the landmark comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries that already enjoyed the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. The FTA was subsequently ratified by the legislatures of both countries, if only after a bitterly fought election on the subject in Canada. On January 1, 1989, the FTA formally came into effect.

scholarly journals The Dimensions of the US-China Trade War

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Mohamad Zreik
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
China Trade ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
Trade War

AbstractThe Chinese Ministry of Commerce issued a statement Friday morning, July 6, 2018, confirming the outbreak of a trade war between the United States and China. The statement came after the United States imposed tariffs on many Chinese goods, in violation of international and bilateral agreements, and the destruction of the concept of free trade which the United States calls for following it. It is a war of opposite directions, especially the contradiction between the new Trump policy and the Chinese approach. The proof is what US Defense Secretary James Matisse announced in Singapore in early June 2018 of “the full strategy of the new United States, in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific,” where China was the “sole enemy of the United States” in China’s geostrategic region. Intentions have become publicized, and trade war between the two economic giants is turning into a reality. This paper will give an overview of the US-China scenario of trade war, then a focused analysis on the Trump’s administration economic decision regarding China, and the consequences of this decision.

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE PERIOD THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP (2017-2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-39
Author(s):  
Andrei Martynov ◽  
Sergey Asaturov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Area

The European Union has met Donald Trump's presidency in a crisis, caused by Britain's exit, quarrels over migration policy and prospects for European integration. Trump has abandoned a project to create a transatlantic free trade area. He demanded a one-sided trade advantage for the United States. The rejection of the liberal project of multilateral foreign policy contributed to the deepening of contradictions between the EU and the US in the field of trade, environment, the regime of international disarmament treaties, the algorithm for resolving regional conflicts. The Trump era in US foreign policy was a time of abandoning liberal globalism. But it is impossible to realize this task in one cadence. The question is whether it is possible for Democrats to fully restore liberal globalism in equal cooperation with the European Union.Trump has abandoned the project of a transatlantic free trade area between the United States and the European Union. This shocked the European elites. Differences in approaches to world trade contributed to the coolness. The European Union is promoting a liberal approach. Trump insisted on the priority of the patronage of American interests. As a result, the tradition of relationships has suffered. Until 2017, the United States bought European goods and paid the most to the NATO budget. Trump demanded trade parity and more European funding for NATO. European elites perceived Trump's approach to migration issues as unacceptable. Trump's policy on international conflicts has become another reason for mutual misunderstanding. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This has become a challenge for the European Union's Middle East policy.

AHMED GALAL AND ROBERT Z. LAWRENCE, ED., Building Bridges: An Egypt–US Free Trade Agreement (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998). Pp. 121. $29.95 cloth.

2000 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira Salem
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Optimal Form

Has the time come for a free-trade agreement (FTA) between Egypt and the United States? According to the contributors to Building Bridges, an FTA is the logical next step in the Egypt–U.S. relationship. This policy-oriented volume explores the conditions under which the benefits of an FTA between the parties would be maximized. Although the contributors reach different conclusions regarding the optimal form of the Egypt–U.S. FTA, consensus is reached on one point: an FTA between Egypt and the United States will produce economic benefits for both nations.

Central American integration through infrastructure development: A case study of Costa Rican hydropower

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denielle M. Perry ◽  
Kate A. Berry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Central America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Central American ◽  
Infrastructure Development

At the turn of the 21st century, protectionist policies in Latin America were largely abandoned for an agenda that promoted free trade and regional integration. Central America especially experienced an increase in international, interstate, and intraregional economic integration through trade liberalization. In 2004, such integration was on the agenda of every Central American administration, the U.S. Congress, and Mexico. The Plan Puebla-Panama (PPP) and the Central America Integrated Electricity System (SIEPAC), in particular, aimed to facilitate the success of free trade by increasing energy production and transmission on a unifi ed regional power grid (Mesoamerica, 2011). Meanwhile, for the United States, a free trade agreement (FTA) with Central America would bring it a step closer to realizing a hemispheric trade bloc while securing market access for its products. Isthmus states considered the potential for a Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States, their largest trading partner, as an opportunity to enter the global market on a united front. A decade and a half on, CAFTA, PPP, and SIEPAC are interwoven, complimentary initiatives that exemplify a shift towards increased free trade and development throughout the region. As such, to understand one, the other must be examined.

The Paleoconservative Critique of Global Capitalism

2017 ◽  
pp. 167-189
Author(s):  
Peter Kolozi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
American Culture ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigrant Population ◽  
Global Capitalism ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Capitalist Economy ◽  
Corporate Profits ◽  
The U.S

The paleoconservative critique of capitalism offered by Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Francis focuses on the threat to national independence and the nation’s culture and values by free trade. For paleoconservatives, the United States’ independence is undermined by a business class that prioritizes corporate profits over national interests. Likewise, the global capitalist economy has opened the U.S. to an immigrant population that has gradually eroded the values of white “middle Americans,” the population that is the repository of a unique American culture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document