Threats and Tariffs: The Quiet Undermining of Ostensible Allies
The Independent reports that former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is being pressured to cancel a US fighter jet contract after former President Trump threatened a 50 per cent tariff on Canada over its refusal to certify Gulfstream jets. This framing presents Trump's threat as an isolated incident, a whimsical imposition by a particular presidency. CASE A: US Coercion Against Canada (2020s)
The current narrative surrounding the F-35 procurement suggests that Canada's decision on defense spending, particularly the F-35 acquisition, is a matter of sovereign choice intersecting with political pressure from a specific US administration. The former US President's threat of a 50% tariff if Canada did not certify a number of Gulfstream business jets is presented as a singular, aggressive
act. CASE B: US Coercion Against Latin America (20th Century) The historical record demonstrates that such economic coercion is not an anomaly but a consistent feature of US foreign policy, particularly when economic interests align with geopolitical objectives. For instance, the US-backed coup in Guatemala in 1954 was precipitated by a land reform initiative that threatened the United Fruit
Company's vast holdings. The US, leveraging its economic and political power through the CIA, orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected government, imposing a military regime amenable to American corporate interests (Schlesinger & Kinzer, 1982). No tariffs were explicitly threatened; instead, a more direct and violent form of economic enforcement was deployed. Similarly, in 1973, the