I agree with most of the issues that were discussed in Seiji Naya and Pearl Imada's paper. What I would like to do in the spirit of the Roundtable is to add a different dimension to the discussion by comparing the recent AFTA agreement with the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I have two broad comments to make. The first is the fact that the proposed NAFTA is much more comprehensive, both in terms of scope of coverage as well as details of the scheme. Briefly, what is actually is covered in NAFTA are:

1. 1. Rules of origin, discussed by the paper.

2. 2. Schedule of tariff reductions. In NAFTA, it is stated that the tariff reductions for most goods would be phased down in five or 10 equal annual stages, and that 65 per cent of U.S. industrial and agricultural exports will be eligible for duty-free treatment in Mexico immediately or within five years. For AFTA, there is, as Pearl has mentioned, some ambiguity regarding the schedule of tariff reductions.

3. 3. NAFTA also includes discussions on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical standards, safeguards, countervailing duties and so on. These are still rather vague in AFTA.

4. 4. NAFTA opens up markets in terms of government procurement, cross-border trade and services, investments as well as intellectual property, where it is stated that the principle of national treatment will be upheld within the NAFTA countries. For example, the Mexican market for telecommunications will be opened up to American companies. This is incorporated in the concept of AFTA-plus that Seiji mentioned, but it is not really discussed in the AFTA agreement itself.

5. 5. Institutional arrangements. In NAFTA, a trade commission comprising ministers will be established, as well as a Secretariat to serve the Commission and other bodies to provide administrative and technical support.