That was all fiction. China has never had free trade. Not to single them out, they're just the most obvious. NAFTA was mighty long document for a "free trade agreement" because it wasn't. The powers are all still trying to maintain power and will continue to do so. It has been interesting to see how intertwined things got under this fiction. Not sure where we go next.
Do you disagree with this quote? And if not, then what is your definition of free trade?
In other words, the GPs comment of "mighty long document" meant that it doesn't take many pages to write "reduce tariffs on the following goods".
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre...
That's not elimination. A free trade agreement IMHO in laymans terms would be about a paragraph explaining that no party to it will restrict or tax in any way trade between the parties. I would expect good lawyering to expand that to a few pages of legalese. NAFTA was hundreds of pages and carved out particular niches for industries in the US and Canada at least. It might have been less restrictive than whatever was in place before, but it wasn't what I'd call a free trade agreement.