James Ahiakpor looked up "free trade area" and found:  
 >I have now   
>confirmed that a free trade area is an arrangement over the   
>commonality of tariffs or their elimination among a group of   
>countries, but which does not bind the members to impose a   
>common tariff against imports from non-members (rest of the   
>world).  
  
Whereas:  
  
>a customs union requires that its   
>members impose a common tariff against non-members, besides   
>eliminating (differential) tariffs among member countries.    
>Did NAFTA require the imposition of common tariffs against   
>imports from other countries?  If not, it is legitimate to   
>talk about "free trade" and NAFTA in the same sentence.  
  
A week or so ago I suggested that free trade should not be  
mentioned without the prefix "unilateral".  
  
When Britain began her course towards complete free trade in 1846  
no attempt was made to make any kind of arrangement with anyone.  
She simply got rid of her trade restrictions so by the end of the  
century the only import taxes were excise duties on sugar and  
tea, neither of which could be produced in Britain.   
  
However, any word or phrase can be used to describe anything one  
wishes. I like the Concise Oxford description of 'free trade':  
  
"international trade left to its natural course without tariffs,  
quotas, or other restrictions."  
  
Perhaps we should look to the definitions found to be so  
convincing. The first suggests that the crucial condition for  
free trade among a group of countries is they are not bound:   
  
>to impose a common tariff against imports from non-members (rest  
of the   
>world).  
  
If the 'arrangement' is elimination of tariffs, then we have a  
quandary for any member of the arrangement can import anything it  
wishes from outside the arrangement to export to any other  
member. So we have de facto worldwide free trade within the  
group. However, I'm not sure they needed to make any arrangement.  
  
If they arranged a "commonality of tariffs" we have a description  
of free trade which includes the imposition of tariffs - free  
trade means protection.   
  
Sound awfully like 1984.  
  
James suggested that essential to a customs union is:  
  
"a group of states that have agreed to charge the same import  
duties as each other and usually to allow free trade between  
themselves."  
  
He asks: "Did NAFTA require the imposition of common tariffs  
against imports from other countries?"  
  
If they didn't, we have an interesting situation.  
  
(The following quantities may have been changed in accordance  
with the imperatives of economic science - or something.)  
  
Poland is allowed to send only an annual 350 tons of alloy tool  
steel to the US.  
  
So why doesn't Poland send umpteen thousands of tons of tool  
steel to the US via Mexico?  
  
In spite of the monstrous Sugar Quota, Haiti is allowed to export  
8,030 tons of sugar to the US. However, as there is no  
"imposition of common tariffs" Haiti can send shiploads of sugar  
to us via Mexico, an import that would have an unfortunate effect  
on our corn syrup industry.  
  
Yet, apparently it doesn't happen, Why not?  
  
Why is there not a flood of goods, usually prevented from  
entering by almost 9,000 tariffs, quotas, and anti-dumping  
duties, pouring into the US from Canada and Mexico if the  
"arrangement" doesn't prevent this from happening.  
  
I am also forced to ask what level of import protection makes it  
'legitimate to   
talk about "free trade" and NAFTA in the same sentence.'  
  
As this is long, I'll get to the other points in another post.  
  
Harry Pollard