The history of NAFTA is paved with legislation and indicative of its inevitability.

As a matter of course, considering the growth and interests of Canada, the United States, and Mexico respectively, NAFTA was necessary in order to facilitate a healthy North American economy.

Influences of NAFTA

NAFTA is the product of a culmination of thought. Said to have been influenced by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the bilateral trade and services agreement between the United States and Israel, the Trade and Tariff Act, and the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, it began when Ronald Regan campaigned for a North American common market.

President Reagan, an atypical politician, ambitiously followed through with his agenda once elected. After Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act, granting Fast Track privilege to the president (essentially meaning that negotiations regarding free trade agreements would be handled strictly by the president, whereas Congress can only approve or disapprove agreements following negotiations), President Ronald Reagan opened negotiations with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada and President Carlos Salinas de Gotari of Mexico. As a result, a preliminary agreement was signed between the United States and Mexico in 1987 and a Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1988. With the formal proposal of a free trade agreement between the United States and Mexico by President Salinas de Gotari in 1990, the seed was sewn, and representatives of the three countries signed NAFTA only two years later (superseding all prior free trade agreements in North America).

Opposition to NAFTA

Canada was initially wary of a free trade agreement with the United States due to a general reluctance to engage in any sort of free trade. Furthermore, the general perspective of politicians in Ottawa was that the United States was already getting too big for its britches. Nonetheless, an agreement was signed due to the fact that a free trade agreement between Mexico and the United States (which seemed very likely, given President Salinas de Gotari’s interests) with the exclusion of Canada would result in real economic problems rather than potentialities posited by an economically conservative political framework.

Some American Politicians were similarly averse to a free trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Outrage and outcry resulted from the proposal of free trade outside national boundaries; with the primary concern being a weakened economy due to a diluted labor market, environmentalists were also rather vocal about their concerns and opposition. Nonetheless, interests in preserving a good relationship with both countries, the potential for growth in incorporating both a strong and a quickly growing industrialized nation, and preparation for a globalized economy overrode any reluctance to engage in the agreement.

Calming the NAFTA Paranoia

Most credit President Bill Clinton for assuaging these controversies (quite ironically) by proposing three auxiliary agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the environment, labor, and unforeseen issues that could be associated with the ratification of NAFTA (one of which is described below). This not only reduced concerns for an impending crisis resulting from reduced isolationism, but it also diminished the ostensibly partisan nature of the bill. Thus, this political maneuver is considered one of the primary reasons why NAFTA was approved.

Despite Perot’s proverbial toilet (down which American jobs were being flushed with the ratification of NAFTA), one of the provisions included with the new legislation under President Bill Clinton was the Transitional Assistance Program. This service combines aspects of previously enacted laws, including the Workforce Investment Act and Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which both fall under the umbrella of the Trade Act of 1974. Through the Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program, those who may have lost their jobs as a direct or indirect result of NAFTA can receive assistance from the United States government via the Department of Labor in the form of transitional assistance as well as the opportunity for long-term training and supplementary income. Indeed, this accommodation even comes with appeals for those who feel that they have been erroneously rejected assistance by the United States government.