Edward Alden of CFR says the fear of trade deals has increased because wages have not kept pace with labour productivity, while income inequality has increased. To some extent, he says, trade agreements have accelerated the pace of these changes because they have „strengthened the globalization of the U.S. economy.“ On August 12, 1992, President Bush announced that negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States had been completed. On October 7, 1992, President Bush, President Salinas and Prime Minister Mulroney met in San Antonio, Texas, where they committed to introducing NAFTA in 1993 effective January 1, 1994. The actual signing of the agreement took place on December 17, 1992, when Bush, Salinas and Mulroney signed it in their respective capitals. The date was the last date when President Bush was able to sign the agreement under the fast track settlement. On the other hand, Canada has long sold the United States 99% or more of its total oil exports: it did so even before the two countries concluded a free trade agreement in 1988. In other words, NAFTA does not appear to have done much to open up the U.S. market to Canadian crude oil. It was very open — Canadians were producing more. The main benefits of NAFTA will be outlined at the beginning of the agreement. They are then more precisely developed by sections of principles and rules covering the national treatment and treatment of the most favoured nation. In 1998, the United States changed the name „Must-favored Nation“ to „Normal Trade Relations.“ Almost all COMMERCIAL PARTNERS in the United States have normal trade relations, which does not mean that they are duty-free.

For example, the agreement contains provisions that reduce food safety standards and require that they be applied „only to the extent necessary to achieve an adequate level of protection“ and „not (be) more restrictive than necessary.“ One might wonder what`s really going on here. Well, there is strong corporate support for the agreement, precisely because the real measures are in the many chapters that contain provisions that meet the interests of the major U.S. multinationals. NAFTA is often held responsible for things that could not be its fault. In 1999, the Christian Science Monitor wrote about a town in Arkansas that it would „collapse, like so many NAFTA ghost towns that have lost jobs in the needle trade and in production in places like Sri Lanka or Honduras.“ Sri Lanka and Honduras are not parties to the agreement. Increasing competition from the Pacific and European countries has led the United States to create a dollar-dominated bloc in the U.S. hemisphere. This wish led first to the free trade agreement with Canada, which came into force in January 1989, and then to an expanded trilateral agreement with Canada and Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force in January 1994. In light of the previous agreement between the United States and Canada, NAFTA has primarily affected restructuring trade between the United States and Mexico, as well as between Mexico and Canada. All tariffs between the United States and Canada would expire until 1998; Between the United States and Mexico, abolition would be by 2008.

The agreement also contains a number of market access provisions that „aim to remove quotas and other barriers to service providers` entry into foreign markets.“ The Commission estimates that „the broadcasting, telecommunications and messaging sector in the United States will gain the most, followed by the commercial banking sector in all three countries.“ In March 1991, President Bush asked Congress to quickly pass the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement and Congress agreed.