Fifth, all NAFTA countries were required to respect patents, trademarks and copyrights. At the same time, the agreement ensured that these intellectual property rights did not affect trade. Article 102 of the nafta sets out its purpose. There were seven concrete objectives. Although NAFTA has not kept all its promises, it has remained in place. Indeed, in 2004, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) extended NAFTA to five Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua). In the same year, the Dominican Republic joined the group in signing a free trade agreement with the United States, followed by Colombia in 2006, Peru in 2007 and Panama in 2011. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), signed on October 5, 2015, represented an extension of NAFTA to a much larger extent. In October 2017, in The Globe and Mail in Toronto, an op-ed questioned the U.S.

willingness to renegotiate the agreement or whether it planned to do so, no matter what, and noted that the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador, Kelly Knight Craft, is married to the owner of Alliance Resource Partners, a major U.S. coal company. Canada is implementing a carbon plan, and it is also about selling bomber jets. « Americans used so many poison pills in last week`s conversations in Washington that they should have been charged with murder, » columnist John Ibbitson wrote. [134] A 2007 study showed that nafta had « a considerable impact on the volume of international trade, but a modest influence on prices and well-being. » [62] It is impossible to isolate the effects of NAFTA on the broader economy. For example, it is difficult to say with certainty what percentage of the current U.S. trade deficit, which reached a record $65,677 million at the end of 2005, is directly attributable to NAFTA. It is also difficult to say what percentage of the 3.3 million manufacturing jobs that were lost in the United States between 1998 and 2004 is the result of NAFTA and what percentage would have been created without this trade agreement. It cannot even be said with certainty that the intensification of trade between NAFTA countries is exclusively the result of the trade agreement. Those who support the agreement generally claim NAFTA loans for enhanced trade activity and reject the idea that the agreement has resulted in job losses or a growing trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ($8,039 million and $4,263 million respectively in December 2005).

Critics of the agreement generally associate it with these deficits and job losses. A 2015 study showed that Mexico`s prosperity increased by 1.31% as a result of NAFTA tariff reductions and by 118% for Mexico`s intra-Bloc trade. [63] Inequality and poverty have decreased in the regions of Mexico most affected by globalization. [75] Studies from 2013 and 2015 showed that Mexican small farmers benefited more from NAFTA than large farmers. [76] [77] The former Canada-U.S. free trade treaty was the subject of controversy and controversy in Canada and was presented as a theme in the 1988 Canadian election. In this election, more Canadians voted for the anti-free trade parties (Liberals and New Democrats), but the split of votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the polls with the largest number of seats and thus took power. Mulroney and the CPCs had a parliamentary majority and passed the NAFTA bills and bills passed by Canada and the United States in 1987 without any problems. Mulroney was, however, replaced by Kim Campbell as head of the Conservatives and Prime Ministers.