Oct 15

After a Herculean struggle, the Clinton administration gained congressional approval in 1993. Many critics of NAFTA saw the deal as a radical experiment developed by influential multinationals who wanted to increase their profits at the expense of ordinary citizens of the countries concerned. Opposition groups argued that the general rules imposed by NAFTA could undermine local governments by preventing them from passing laws or regulations to protect the public interest. Critics have also argued that the treaty would lead to a significant deterioration in environmental and health standards, promote the privatization and deregulation of key public services, and move family farmers to signatory countries. . . .

Comments are closed.