A growing number of Americans are wondering where the results from the North American Free Trade Agreement are.  We’ve seen lots of results from NAFTA, but no one can unilaterally point to something that was beneficial to all three nations.   

Mexico has gained some jobs in manufacturing, but lost huge parts of its agricultural industry to agribusinesses in the United States and Canada.  The U.S. has gained better access to markets for its products, but it has also sent much of its production across the northern and southern borders.  Canada is now more integrated in the American economy, but it faces the same difficulties from low wage Mexican labor as the United States. 

The Center for International Policy, in an article published on December 3, detailed the need for wide-ranging reform of NAFTA.  The president has largely backed off his campaign rhetoric regarding “renegotiating” the terms of NAFTA.  In fact, it will likely be a non-issue throughout the remainder of his presidency.  Certain members of Congress recently introduced the TRADE Act of 2009, but it is not law and it may never become so. 

The TRADE Act of 2009 is perhaps this nation’s best bet to enact real reform, because it highlights the areas in most dire need of attention.   

In particular, the TRADE Act would ensure that the four most recent agreements (including NAFTA) and all future agreements be screened for approval prior to being accepted.  It would in essence end the “fast track” trade authority of the president that has contributed to our international commercial degradation. 

It would also highlight issue areas in agriculture, manufacturing, intellectual property rights, and investment that have been overlooked in the past. 

The U.S. cannot survive in the new global economy without becoming an integrated partner in the system.  But that does not mean it should integrate itself without proper protections and fail-safes.  Right now, thanks in large part to NAFTA and other similar agreements, the U.S. is rudderless.

Print PDF