NAFTA also reduced investment barriers and included clauses to protect the rights of direct investors. All of this reflected a major shift in the trade dynamics between its members and as result many opposed this treaty. The opposition was more fierce outside of Mexico, which was surprising given that Mexico "departed from common held traditions " and "had more to lose. "4 In the United States and Canada it was a central subject of debate during Presidential elections. American billionaire Ross Perot constructed a relatively successful Presidential campaign, for an independent, under the anti-NAFTA flag. Some of these doubts and questions around the treaty would prove to be accurate, but many were exaggerated. Such was the case of Ross Perot when he urged voters to listen for the "giant sucking sound " of American jobs heading south to Mexico should NAFTA be signed. The final draft included as a result several departures from the ideal free trade deal, and side agreements on environmental and labour cooperation.
NAFTA succeeded in the first point, increasing the flow of trade and investment between United States, Mexico and Canada. Between 1993 and 2012 trilateral trade amongst these countries nearly quadrupled in US dollar terms6. The volume of trade increased significantly, particularly for Mexico. Figure 1 shows how its exports to those two countries increased by eightfold after two decades. The increase in exports is particularly impressive between 1993 and 2002 time during which Mexican exports grew by more than 300% compared to a total world increase of 75% during the same period7. Figure 2 shows the increase in North American imports, which grew by 450% between the last two decades. In this side of commerce Canadian products invaded Mexican markets slightly more than twice as fast than the United States. Furthermore, not only trade flows increased but this expansion of trade was rarely at the expense of other countries.