From the inception of THE GATT in 1947 until the 1980s, U.S. efforts to liberalize trade have focused primarily on multilateral agreements, while the United States and other countries have strictly extended discriminatory bilateral agreements47. The United States focused in part on the multilateral system during this period, reflecting in part a response to trade discrimination in the 1930s and the desire to put in place mechanisms to prevent such measures in the future. Compared to measuring global tariffs, the multilateral system has been successful, with successive rounds of multilateral negotiations significantly reducing average tariffs (over 30% of the weighted average in some rounds). 48 non-tariff barriers have become increasingly problematic, both due to their increasing relative importance and their increased use as an alternative mechanism for limiting imports in sensitive areas.49 RCEP (Regional Compreshenive Economic Partnership) includes: Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, China, Laos, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. The impact of global ATRs on the U.S. economy and stakeholders. Trade agreements in which the United States does not participate may increase the price of U.S. exports to foreign markets relative to exports from countries that are contracting parties to the agreements and are not subject to tariffs. They may also encourage U.S. producers to rely on imported components, which are less competitive than foreign producers who face lower tariff barriers on their imports.
Some U.S. industries, including agriculture, export a significant portion of their production and/or face relatively high tariffs on foreign markets, making them particularly sensitive to tariff changes. These industries are concerned about the potential downsides to foreign markets by other RTA trading countries. RTAs among the major U.S. export partners, with whom the United States does not currently have a free trade agreement, have the potential for major negative consequences. For example, given the scale of trade relations and the current level of tariffs, the FREE trade agreement BETWEEN the EU and Japan could have a significant impact on US car and farmer producers, as it aims to eliminate a 10% EU tariff on imports from Japan and to remove or reduce japan`s relatively high agricultural tariffs on imports from the EU. Similarly, the recently concluded CPTPP agreement would eliminate most tariffs among the 11 parties and would likely result in a decline in U.S. exports to Japan and other growing Asian economies. The resumption of U.S. engagement in the T-TIP negotiations and the bilateral or joint continuation of free trade agreements with CPTP countries could eliminate the potential for discrimination against U.S. exports to these markets.
33 Both types of agreements have worked at the same time and RTAs have sometimes led to action at the multilateral level.34 Some trade experts argue, for example, that the creation and enlargement of the European Union led the United States and Japan to insist on the Kennedy round of multilateral trade negotiations in the 1960s. NAFTA, which lifted the largest number of customs barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico and was passed by Congress in 1993, may have resulted in measures on uruguay`s round agreements signed the following year36. , to continue multilateral negotiations. , or pulled the energy and resources simply needed away from the multilateral process.37 Economists have also found empirical evidence, especially in the case of the United States.