Negotiation is an act of compromise. The mere agreement to discuss an issue via the process of negotiation represents a willingness to consider non-aggressive solutions. In the realm of politics, negotiation and compromise are the meat-and-potatoes of daily life. So it has been for the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA - during the past few months. NAFTA posed, for the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of the United States government, respectively, an important socio-economic issue in which the two parties found themselves lined up on opposite sides. Negotiation, in the public forum and in classic behind-the-scenes backroom maneuvering, was the key tool that allowed President Bill Clinton his NAFTA victory in the House of Representatives - by compromising on enough minor elements of the proposal to enable a majority of legislators, his nominal opponents on the issue, to support a free trade agreement as expounded in NAFTA.
Few negotiations begin from clean-cut, black/white positions of opposition: particularly when the parties involved are so numerous, or the issues involved are so wide-ranging. The North American Free Trade Agreement, in simplistic terms, encourages the evolution of tariff-free trade among the North American continental nations sharing common borders with the United States: Mexico and Canada. As each of the nations involved has its own traditions, culture and form of democratic government, so, too, do the barriers to foreign imports/protectionism of domestic industry reflect those factors. Enforcement of law, protection of the business community and environmental concerns vary as well (Elliott, 1993, pp. 29-30).
From the United States' perspective, NAFTA was negotiated over a period of years beginning in the mid-1980s; Republican Party presidential administrations were to firmly dominate foreign policy decision-making until George Bush's defeat by Bill Clinton i...