It is over nine years since NAFTA was initiated between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The initial period of NAFTA's existence was made difficult by the implosion of the Mexican economy during the first year of the treaty (Browning, E.S., 1995). The U.S. had to come to the rescue of the Mexican economy to shore it up and provide for real and continuing growth in the future (Smith, R., 1995).

Today, while there are sever problems in Mexico, the economy has experienced remarkable growth. There are very few organizations similar to NAFTA in size and scope. The only organization that could compare to NAFTA would be the European Union.

NAFTA and the EU currently represent almost 60 percent of the world's GDP. NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994. Since then, the economies of Canada, Mexico and the United States have experienced significant economic growth. As seen in tables 1 and 2, NAFTA experienced an increase of almost 42 percent from 1994 to 2000 with the U.S. at 43.4 percent, Canada with 28.2 percent, and Mexico at 34.5 percent. The EU grew less then 3 percent from 1994 to 2000. While Ireland and Great Britain grew significantly during this time, France, Germany and Italy actually declined. These countries are three of the four largest economies in the EU and are well over half of the total GDP. Austria and Belgium declined during this period, while Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, and Portugal experienced double digit growth in GDP, but less then 15 percent each from 1994 to 2000.

If the EU is the standard by which the success of NAFTA must be measured, then NAFTA is a success, especially compared to the EU. Trade unions are established to increase the wealth and standard of living of the citizens of the member countries, providing the citizens of those countries with more goods and services than they would otherwise be able to achieve. NAFTA has accomplished this for its members.

On the other hand, the success of the EU is questionable. If the objective is to raise the standard of living, then the EU's success is in doubt. From 1994 to 2000, the GDP of the EU increased by less than 3 percent. In three of the four largest economies, the GDP declined, making the per capita GDP lower than it was at the beginning of 1994. Five of the fifteen countries in the EU, three of the largest, experienced a decline in their GDP.

If Britain is removed from the EU, then the GDP for the trade organization would actually decline by about 2 percent instead of increasing by 3 percent. The GDP for the UK increased more than the GDP for the entire European Union, even when Britain is included.

Inclusion of Eastern European countries may or may not help the EU. These new members are significantly economically behind the rest of the union, and may be a drain. They could also become "Irelands" for the first decade of the 21st century.

Mixed results are the most likely outcome. Unfortunately, these economies are so small, when compared to the rest of the EU; the overall impact will not be great. The economies that drive the European are that of Germany, France, Italy, and Britain. Only a revival of the first three and continued expansion in Britain will make the EU as successful as NAFTA.

NAFTA is a success. But, the question of whether the EU is a success would seem to be in doubt. The EU has tried to stimulate growth by introducing the euro as a continental currency. But, Britain, the only economy of the big four in the EU that is actually growing, has opted out of the currency union.

The time since the start of NAFTA is relatively short. Yet the initial conclusion has to be that NAFTA has been more successful than the EU, and that NAFTA is a success.