Is the trade agreement the most recent, but the most concrete, proof of the withdrawal of the Americans in a fortified North American policy reinforced by possible bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada? (These agreements followed previous U.S. trade agreements, namely a bilateral agreement with Israel in 1985 and the Caribbean Basin Economic Initiative.) In the United States, trade negotiations are only one aspect of a broader economic agenda. In 1975, the United States began to feel the first signs of dramatic post-war changes in the world economy. Richard Nixon had to deal with the first dramatic slide, the devaluation of the dollar and the exit from the gold standard, abandoning the post-war Bretton Woods framework, founded in 1944. President Ronald Reagan began an inexorable trend toward a “managed trade” framework that regulates key sectors such as textiles, autos, and semiconductors, where the most important economic relationships have been determined by the two largest economies, the United States and Japan. The two countries mirrored one another, growing surpluses and deficits, creditor and debtor status, where their common policy influenced the world economy in areas such as exchange rates, capital flows and Third World debt. Serious imbalances, partly influenced by OPEC, necessitated further political coordination and resulted in annual meetings of Heads of State and Government, the G4, then the G5, then the G7, including Canada. Just like the Reagan administration in the traditional auto industry (for example.B. Cars, cameras, motorcycles, radio and television) and new sectors such as consumer electronics and industrial machinery, robots faced fierce Japanese industrial competition, American big business saw a free trade agreement with Canada as a problem subordinate to trade pacts with Japan and Europe. But are the pre-established conditions, i.e. the political and political factors of personality necessary for significant change, present in the FTA agreement? These conditions are instructive in this regard. Much has been said about the personal relationship between Reagan and Mulroney. It began with the visit to Washington of then-Leader of the Opposition Brian Mulroney in June 1984, just a week after John Turner, himself a strong pro-American lawyer and former senior cabinet minister, succeeded the enigmatic Pierre Elliot Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party.
In the spring of 1983, Mulroney pledged, on a strong pro-American platform, to lead his own party and bring about change on political issues largely damaged to American business, namely Trudeau`s policy in the areas of energy, foreign investment, NATO, intellectual property, crown corporations, and international trade. As an individual, Mr. Mulroney was initially lukewarm in The Direction toWard Global Free Trade, but expressed a frank and critical view of bilateral trade restrictions in sectors such as steel, timber, energy and agriculture. Although NAFTA did not keep everything its supporters had promised, it remained in force. Indeed, in 2004, NAFTA extended NAFTA to five Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua). . . .