Talk:List of multilateral free trade agreements/Archives/2012

Cross referencing with other pages

There are many pages out there about trade agreements, such as CAFTA, Oman Free Trade Agreement, etc. I am worried that, by just listing the country names, we are missing out on an opportunity to re-direct people to those pages. I am going to put alongside some of the list of countries a list of the names of the ftas in parentheses.todddc

Peru FTAs

About the recently added FTAs for Peru. Peru is Andean Community (CAN) member, so there can be no Peru-CAN FTA. Also the Peru-Colombia/-Bolivia/etc. FTAs are with fellow CAN members, so they are eighter "defunct FTAs, supercedmy bum bumed by CAN" - or there are no such FTAs at all. Please note that there is a List of trade blocs where CAN is listed. Also on both the CAN page and the Trade bloc page Peru is listed as member along with Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and it is written on both pages that CAN has both a common FTA and CU (customs union). Also, note that in this list of FTAs are not listed Customs Unions, Common markets, Economic and monetary unions. All these formations ARE FTAs, but they are MORE THAN FTA - so every entitiy (like CAN) is listed in the list of the top-level integration that it has achieved (plus it is listed at the above-the-top-achieved as "proposed" if there is proposal for furthure integration).

• • If you dont see the Customs Unions, etc. on this page, then you really dont get an idea of what types of deals each country is in. You are probably freaking out at all the changes I have made over the last couple of days, huh? You say that because Peru is part of CAN it cant be in an FTA. However, I have recently seen press reports of a Peru-USA FTA scheduled to be concluded in April. How can a member of a customs union independently enter into an FTA with the USA? Does it mean it is leaving the CAN CU? Naerhu 06:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Double listing of FTAs

Because bilateral FTAs are between two countries sometimes a single FTA is listed two times. For example China-Chile is listed under Chile's FTAs and additionaly as China-Chile. This enlarges the list unreasonably large. I have a matrix-table in preparation that maybe will solve this issue, but until then we should adopt some policy about where to list a FTA. Variants:

1. Do not make such sub-lists as "USA FTAs" and list all bilateral agreements in one single list alphabeticaly with the state with "smaller" letter first (for example Singapore-Peru will be listed as "Peru-Singapore" because P is before S, but Peru-Oman will be listed as "Oman-Peru")
2. Keep the sublists and list the FTA under the state that has more FTAs in total (for example if Chile is involved in 20 FTAs and USA in 10, then the USA-Chile is listed under Chile). If two states have the same number of FTAs - then "alphabetical decision".
3. Keep the sublists and list evey FTA in two places - in the sublist of the two countries. This will double the size of the list.

Alinor 12:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Although your logic is fine, we would wind up with a listed headed by antingua and angola and places that most people referencing this page have no interest in. Shouldnt it start out by countries with the most economic power or relevance. USA - Japan - PRC, etc? I know "relevance" is hugely debateble, but why shrink form debate? Naerhu 06:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Japan - Thailand FTA

Is it in force already, or only in negotiations? 199.64.72.252 13:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I hear that ratification is awaiting the special election in Thailand Naerhu 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jordan - Australia

I have deleted this FTA as it is not listed on Australia's government site [1] listing all FTAs. Naerhu 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So what does it mean to join an FTA?

Besides the removal of tariffs on both sides, what does it mean to sign an FTA between two countries? Jamesse 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent removal of India

An user removed all of India claiming everything was false, and wondering what Asia Pacific meant. Well, have a passing look at "Asia Pacific": it is an economic zone. I think the original author was probably refering to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ? Although references are missing, it is not very controversial info either. Put citation template if you really question it. Tazmaniacs 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Your reinsertion of the information relating India is near vandalism, and your stupid comment about "wondering what Asia Pacific" counter-productive. APEC is not a country, nor is it a trade union, so it is impossible to enter into a FTA.
  • Look, the information is completely wrong, its not controversial and there is simply no question about it. What do you not understand about that?
  • A search of the web does not show any signing or ratification of the ASEAN-India FTA, though there have been many agreements to agree, nothing has been ratified. Further, the talks with India and the EU just started a couple of months ago, why would you even put the information that it has already been signed here? (alert: rhetorical question)
  • When was the Japan-India FTA signed? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't. Also, just to give you another hint, that was a rhetorical question regarding the US-India FTA, incase you missed that. Please further note that Japan comes before India, I guess you missed that. What that means is, even if there was an Indian-Japan FTA, it wouldn't belong here, it would belong under Japan (unless India were above Japan in the list).
  • You reinserted this information, so now you are responsible for putting it on this page. I do not know where you went to school, but Ceylon and Sri Lanka are the same country. Why did you list the same country twice? Please research the information before you put it up.
  • The South Asian Free Trade Agreement is the agreement between bhutan, pakistan, sri lanka (and ceylon, right?), bangledesh, and nepal, so these shouldnt be listed here.
  • Please stop wasting my time with your entirely unhelpful revisions of this page. Naerhu 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Korea

I removed the US/Korea deal from the list of established free trade agreements because it hasn't been finalized yet and is properly listed below under proposed agreements. Papercrab 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)