scholarly journals Le destin n'est pas inéluctable : évaluation des effets probables du libre-échange nord-américain sur la politique étrangère du Canada

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-135
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Schmitz-Le Grand
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Public Rhetoric ◽  
Canadian Foreign Policy ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
Gulf Crisis ◽  
Evolving Context ◽  
United States Mexico

This article with minor revisions, was originally presented as a paper at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Victoria, B.C., May 27, 1990. Since then, Canada has been accused of simply following Washington's lead in sending troops to the Gulfand in seeking to join United States-Mexico free trade negotiations. These developments do not alter the paper's challenging conclusion : namely, that the current bilateral free-trade regime neither obliges nor justifies a subordinate Canadian foreign policy — however much the terms of the Free Trade Agreement may impinge on the international dimensions of some Canadian policies (e.g., on energy and investment), and notwithstanding the potential momentum (but uncertain prospects) of North American integration. Free trade, in fact seems to have increased, not reduced, the salience of the national question in Canada. As well, the Gulf crisis is a test more of United Nations resolve than bilateral solidarity. And on the trade front, Canada has been reminded of the extent to which it remains on its own. U.S. negotiators were angered by Canada's middle-ground position on agricultural subsidies - the issue over which GATT talks collapsed, increasing Canadian vulnerability. Moreover, Canadian participation in U.S.Mexico trade negotiations has been privately less welcome than the official public rhetoric suggests. More than ever perhaps, Canadian national interests depend on strong international diplomacy mode no less necessary, if arguably encumbered, by the evolving context of continental free trade.

Thought This Was Easy? U.S.–Thailand Free Trade Agreement

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Peter Debaere ◽  
Christine Davies
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Diversion ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
Customs Unions ◽  
Multilateral Trade ◽  
Excellent Opportunity ◽  
The U.S

This case describes and analyzes the negotiations surrounding the U.S.–Thailand free trade agreement (FTA) that never materialized. The case offers an excellent opportunity to discuss the complexities of trade negotiations, the welfare analyses of FTAs (with trade diversion and creation), and the growth of FTAs and customs unions (CUs) as opposed to multilateral trade liberalizations.

The Political Dynamics of Agricultural Liberalisation in the US-Chile Free Trade Agreement

2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
JESSICA LEIGHT
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Liberalisation ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
Economic Costs ◽  
Price Supports ◽  
The Us

AbstractThe 2003 US-Chile free trade agreement, regarded by many as consistent with Chile's long-held trade liberalisation strategy, nonetheless engendered a surprisingly vigorous debate focused on the proposed elimination of the bandas de precio protecting traditional agricultural crops. Opposition to the agreement, mounted by the conservative Alianza por Chile, offers an intriguing political case study that suggests that populist posturing surrounding free trade agreements may persist long after a trade liberalisation strategy has become well-established. This article argues that agricultural liberalisation will be a significant challenge for Chile's governing coalition if it wishes to pursue trade negotiations while seeking to avoid costly political battles at home over the economic costs of abandoning price supports and the challenges of ‘reconverting’ to an export-oriented sector. Even given the strong elite consensus around trade liberalisation in Chile, the interconnections between sectoral interest groups, domestic politics and trade negotiations remain relevant, and deserving of analytical attention.

The Political Economy of NAFTA/USMCA

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo A. Flores-Macías ◽  
Mariano Sánchez-Talanquer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The North ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
The One ◽  
United States Mexico

When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into force on January 1st, 1994, it created the largest free trade area in the world, and the one with the largest gaps in development between member countries. It has since served as a framework for trilateral commercial exchange and investment between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. NAFTA’s consequences have been mixed. On the positive side, the total value of trade in the region reached $1.1 trillion in 2016, more than three times the amount in 1994, and total foreign direct investment among member countries also grew significantly. However, the distribution of benefits has been very uneven, with exposure to international competition reducing economic opportunity and increasing insecurity for certain sectors in all three countries. Twenty-four years later, the three countries renegotiated the terms of NAFTA and renamed it the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). The negotiation responded in part to the need to modernize the agreement, but mostly to President Donald Trump’s concerns about NAFTA’s effect on the U.S. economy and the fairness of its terms. Although the revised agreement incorporated rules that modernize certain aspects of the institutional framework, some new provisions also make trade and investment relations in North America more uncertain.

scholarly journals The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA): its implications for Australia-United States relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-53
Author(s):  
Johni Robert Verianto Korwa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Strategic Alliance ◽  
International System ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The Us

Australia is currently faced with a strategic and economic dilemma regarding its interactions with China and the United States (US). On the one hand, it should maintain and strengthen its strategic relations with the US as an ally in order to contain a rising China. On the other hand, Australia should ensure its economic growth by strengthening trade relations with China. This paper aims to examine the implications of the new China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) for the ANZUS strategic alliance. Through Qualitative Approach, this article analyzes the issues with the use of realist and liberal perspectives in international relations. By assessing two previous events involving the triangular Australia-US-China relationship (the case of the Taiwan conflict, and the US development of a National Missile Defense system), this paper concludes that ChAFTA may tend to undermine the ANZUS alliance. Three reasons for this conclusion are identified: a fundamental shift in the way Australia perceives China; ChAFTA offers more benefits to Australia than the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA); and finally Australia may consider ChAFTA as being more in its national interests in the international system than the ANZUS alliance.

scholarly journals Do free trade agreements promote sneaky protectionism? A classical liberal perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-200
Author(s):  
Jürgen Wandel
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
Classical Liberal ◽  
Multiple Case ◽  
Back Door ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
Liberal Perspective

Abstract A neglected aspect of regional trade agreements (RTAs) is their protectionist potential. In times of a stagnating World Trade Organization (WTO), growing economic nationalism and skepticism about the merits of free trade and trade agreements, the paper examines to what extent recently signed RTAs really promote genuine free trade or rather foster sneaky protectionism under the guise of free trade. For this, the paper proposes an ideal-type free trade agreement benchmark model based on a classical liberal perspective and applies it in a multiple case study approach to assess three cases of recently concluded mega-RTAs: the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the renegotiated North American trade agreement USCMA, and the Canada–European Union (EU) agreement CETA. The article shows that all of them are far from the classical liberal ideal of totally free trade and have a high content of back door protectionism suitable to raise trade barriers when politically opportune. In particular, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) includes many clear protectionist provisions that might even outweigh its liberalizing stipulations, whereas CPTPP and CETA can be deemed net liberalizing. It concludes that given political economy constraints, RTAs can nevertheless remain a second-best solution to the classical liberal ideals of completely unhampered trade and unilateral liberalization provided that they remove more impediments to free exchange than they cement or create.

scholarly journals United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Enters into Force

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-775
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
United States Mexico

On November 30, 2018, Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed an agreement renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). By the spring of 2020, all three countries had approved this agreement—known in the United States as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—through their respective domestic ratification processes. The USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020, amid extended U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada border restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On August 6, 2020, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum—tariffs that his administration had previously put in place in 2018 but had removed in 2019 in order to smooth the USMCA's path to ratification.

scholarly journals Analisis Kebijakan Luar Negeri Australia di Era Pemerintahan PM Tony Abbott

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ismail Adi Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Illegal Immigrants ◽  
Prevention Policy ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Foreign Policies

ABSTRAKSetiap negara pasti memiliki arah dan tujuan negaranya. Untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu dibutuhkan sebuah kebijakan luar negeri. Sebagai sebuah negara Australia tentu memiliki tujuan dan kepentingan nasionalnya. Pada era pemerintahan Perdana Menteri Tony Abbott, Australia memiliki kebijakan luar negeri yang ditujukan untuk memenuhi kepentingan nasionalnya. Isu-isu ekonomi dan imigran merupakan isu yang menjadi pokok utama dalam pemerintahan Tony Abbott. Dalam meningkatkan perekonomian, Australia menjalin kerja sama dalam bentuk free trade agreement dengan Tiongkok dan Korea Selatan. Australia menerapkan kebijakan pencegahan imigran ilegal yang dinamai Operation Sovereign Borders yang dilakukan untuk mencegah imigran ilegal masuk ke dalam teritorial Australia.Kata Kunci: Kebijakan Luar Negeri, Australia, Free Trade Agreement, Operation Sovereign BordersABSTRACTEvery nation must have directions and objectives. To achieve certain objectives requires foreign policies. As a nation, Australia certainly has its own national goals and interests. In Tony Abbott’s government era, Australia had many foreign policies aimed at fulfilling its national interests. Economic and immigrant issues are the focus in Abbott’s government. Australia cooperates in the form of free trade agreements with China and Korea to improve its economy. Australia also implements an illegal immigrant prevention policy called Operation Sovereign Borders which is conducted to prevent illegal immigrants from entering Australian territory.Keywords: Foreign Policy, Australia, Free Trade Agreement, Operation Sovereign Borders

Regiones ganadoras y cultivos perdedores de México en el TLCAN. Perspectivas para T-MEC

2020 ◽  
pp. 26-39
Author(s):  
Marcos Noé Maya Martínez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Liberalization ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
United States Mexico

In Mexican agriculture there are branches and regions that have benefited from the trade liberalization and economic integration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but there are sectors, essentially those of basic grains that have been affected by liberalization, which exacerbates the country's food dependence. To understand the trends already in the framework of the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement (USMCA) a projection (extrapolation) of the next 11 years will be made, based on the behavior already analyzed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document