Did NAFTA save the Uruguay Round?
With the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks becalmed, it’s often tough these days to find a cheerful global trade expert. But former U.S. trade representative Carla Hills is having none of the doom and gloom. She is quite sure that the negotiations of NAFTA in 1990-1991 saved the Uruguay Round of global trade talks ...
With the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks becalmed, it's often tough these days to find a cheerful global trade expert. But former U.S. trade representative Carla Hills is having none of the doom and gloom. She is quite sure that the negotiations of NAFTA in 1990-1991 saved the Uruguay Round of global trade talks and that another blockbuster regional trade deal could have the same catalytic effect:
With the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks becalmed, it’s often tough these days to find a cheerful global trade expert. But former U.S. trade representative Carla Hills is having none of the doom and gloom. She is quite sure that the negotiations of NAFTA in 1990-1991 saved the Uruguay Round of global trade talks and that another blockbuster regional trade deal could have the same catalytic effect:
In 1990, the Uruguay Round collapsed in Brussels. In June 1991 the United States, Mexico and Canada launched the negotiations of a North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Fourteen months later negotiations were concluded. President George H.W. Bush signed the agreement in December 1992; President Clinton secured congressional approval of the agreement the following year.
By joining the economies of Canada, Mexico and the U.S., Nafta created a regional market of over 400 million people. It was the first comprehensive free trade agreement to join developed and developing nations, and it achieved broader and deeper trade liberalization than any prior trade agreement.
The world’s reaction was broad, deep and fast. In just a few months following the passage of the Nafta, trade negotiators returned to the bargaining table, completed the Uruguay Round, and created the W.T.O. to the enormous benefit of the global economy.
It’s a powerful claim. And for those who favor deeper trade liberalization, it’s a very appealing one. As Hills goes on to argue, if NAFTA saved Uruguay, why couldn’t a U.S.-EU trade agreement save Doha? If she’s right, a sufficiently strong regional jolt should spur global talks. But Hills provides no direct evidence that NAFTA did in fact save the Uruguay Round. It’s not fair to ask her to produce that evidence in the space of an op-ed, but there’s some cause for skepticism. The WTO’s official description of the Uruguay negotiations makes no mention of NAFTA. I’d be curious to hear from trade historians whether her account of NAFTA’s healing powers is well accepted.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.