Title: US-Colombia Trade War Averted as Deportation Flight Agreement Reached

A potential trade war between the United States and Colombia has been avoided following an agreement on deportation flights. The agreement comes after a tense standoff, which began on Sunday when Colombian President Gustavo Petro ordered two U.S. military planes carrying deported migrants to be barred from landing in Colombia.

The situation quickly escalated when the U.S. responded by threatening punitive tariffs on Colombian exports, including coffee, flowers, and textiles. The Trump administration’s decision to threaten economic penalties led to a heated exchange, with President Petro initially signaling Colombia’s intent to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.

However, diplomatic talks were swiftly underway, and the U.S. sought a resolution before the situation could escalate further. In a dramatic turn, the White House announced that Colombia had agreed to accept deported migrants, including those arriving on U.S. military flights, “without limitation or delay.” This agreement effectively diffused the tension and avoided the imposition of new tariffs on Colombian goods.

The deal is seen as a significant diplomatic win for both nations, as it prevents the trade war from impacting the economies of either country. The agreement ensures that deported migrants will be accepted and processed in Colombia, which had previously been a sticking point in the negotiations.

The Colombian government expressed a commitment to managing the influx of deported migrants in an orderly and humane manner, despite the initial opposition to U.S. deportation flights. President Petro’s administration faced domestic criticism for allowing the return of deported individuals, but the potential for a trade conflict with the U.S. weighed heavily in the decision-making process.

This resolution marks a critical moment in U.S.-Colombia relations, underscoring the complex intersection of immigration policy and international trade. It remains to be seen whether this compromise will set the tone for future diplomatic engagements or if tensions will resurface over other contentious issues.

Both sides have indicated their desire to move forward with stronger bilateral ties, focusing on addressing common challenges, including migration and trade policies.

Title: White House Claims Victory in Colombia Deportation Flight Agreement

The White House has hailed the recent agreement with Colombia over the deportation of migrants as a major win for President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies. This comes after a weekend of escalating tension between the two countries, with the leaders exchanging heated threats on social media.

In a statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt celebrated the diplomatic outcome, calling it a clear demonstration of America’s renewed strength on the global stage. “Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again,” Leavitt said, underscoring the importance of the U.S.’s position in international negotiations.

The White House also confirmed that the tariffs and sanctions previously threatened by the Trump administration would be “held in reserve,” only to be enacted if Colombia fails to adhere to the newly reached agreement. These measures had been proposed in response to Colombia’s refusal to allow U.S. military flights carrying deported migrants to land in the country.

Leavitt further emphasized President Trump’s stance on global cooperation, stating that the U.S. expects “all other nations of the world to fully co-operate in accepting deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States.” The Trump administration has consistently pushed for more stringent immigration policies and increased accountability from other nations in managing their citizens abroad.

The deal with Colombia, which resolves the immediate crisis, highlights Trump’s commitment to a tough approach on illegal immigration and deportation, with the White House positioning the agreement as a significant diplomatic success. It also sets a precedent for future interactions with other nations on similar issues, signaling the administration’s readiness to impose economic pressures to ensure compliance with U.S. immigration objectives.

Title: Tensions Soar Between Colombia and US Over Deportation Flights

The diplomatic row between Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro and U.S. President Donald Trump escalated rapidly on Sunday, creating a fresh crisis in the bilateral relationship. The confrontation centers around the treatment of Colombian migrants being deported from the United States.

Petro, an avid user of social media, took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce that he had barred U.S. planes carrying Colombian migrants from entering Colombian airspace. He explained his decision by saying that the U.S. “can’t treat Colombian migrants like criminals.” Petro emphasized the need for the U.S. to implement procedures that would ensure deported migrants were “treated with dignity.”

In his posts, the Colombian president went further, offering to send a presidential plane to the U.S. to transport the deported Colombians back home. This proposal, while symbolic, indicated his serious objections to the way the U.S. was handling the deportation process.

While Colombia has previously accepted deportation flights from the U.S., the situation took a turn when Petro objected to the use of military planes rather than commercial flights for these deportations. His primary concern appeared to be the manner in which migrants were being treated aboard military aircraft. Petro pointed to a disturbing news video showing Brazilian deportees being handcuffed and restrained by their feet during a similar deportation flight from the U.S.

Petro made it clear that he would “never allow Colombians to be returned handcuffed on flights,” underlining his commitment to protecting the dignity of his citizens. His statements reflected deep concerns about the treatment of deported migrants, which became a flashpoint for the diplomatic tensions between Colombia and the U.S.

The confrontation put President Petro in direct opposition to the Trump administration’s tough stance on immigration, which has been a hallmark of the U.S. president’s policies. The dispute underscores the delicate balance between humanitarian concerns and the hard-line immigration policies championed by the Trump administration.

As both leaders traded threats over social media, the potential for a trade conflict loomed large, with the Trump administration warning of punitive tariffs on Colombian goods if the issue was not resolved. The quick escalation and the threat of economic fallout brought both countries to the negotiating table, culminating in a last-minute diplomatic agreement.

Title: Tensions Escalate Between US and Colombia Over Deportation Flights, But Diplomatic Resolution Reached

A diplomatic crisis between Colombia and the United States unfolded rapidly over the weekend after Colombian President Gustavo Petro refused to allow two U.S. military planes carrying deported migrants to land in Colombia. The move triggered an immediate and harsh response from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who took to Truth Social to express his frustration.

Trump condemned Petro’s decision, describing it as an affront to U.S. national security and public safety. “I was just informed that two repatriation flights from the United States, with a large number of illegal criminals, were not allowed to land in Colombia,” Trump wrote, accusing Petro of endangering American citizens by preventing the deportations. He further characterized Petro as “already very unpopular amongst his people,” a jab at the Colombian leader’s domestic standing.

In response, Trump announced a series of punitive measures, beginning with a 25% tariff on all Colombian goods entering the U.S., warning that the tariffs would rise to 50% if Colombia failed to comply within a week. Additionally, Trump imposed a travel ban on Colombian government officials and revoked the visas of their allies and supporters, adding that “these measures are just the beginning.”

The White House’s tough stance was met with defiance from Petro, who took to X (formerly Twitter) to post a lengthy, impassioned message. “Your blockade does not scare me, because Colombia, besides being the country of beauty, is the heart of the world,” Petro wrote, signaling his resolve to stand firm against U.S. demands. His post was seen as a direct challenge to the Trump administration’s actions, with Petro indicating that he would match any tariffs imposed by the U.S.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, members of Petro’s government worked to de-escalate the situation. In a late-night news conference, Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo announced that Colombia and the U.S. had “overcome the impasse.” Murillo confirmed that Colombia would agree to accept the return of its citizens, including those arriving on U.S. military flights. While he did not explicitly refer to Trump’s earlier statements, Murillo’s remarks hinted at an agreement reached between the two countries.

The resolution comes after days of high-stakes diplomatic wrangling and signals a fragile peace between the two nations. The agreement allows the deportation of Colombian citizens to continue without the imposition of tariffs or further sanctions. However, the exchange underscores the broader tensions surrounding immigration policy and the treatment of deported individuals, with both sides navigating a delicate balancing act in their ongoing relationship.

Title: Colombia and US Reach Agreement on Deportation Flights, But Tensions Persist

In a bid to defuse the rapidly escalating dispute, Colombia’s Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo reiterated the country’s offer to send its presidential plane to the U.S. to transport deported Colombians. This gesture was seen as a sign of Colombia’s commitment to resolving the diplomatic standoff with the U.S. and averting the threatened trade war.

While the agreement seemed to provide a resolution, tensions remain. The U.S. has stated that its visa restrictions on Colombian government officials will remain in place until the first planeload of deported Colombians safely lands in Colombia. Additionally, the Trump administration has imposed heightened scrutiny on Colombians arriving at U.S. airports, under the measures that were introduced in response to Petro’s refusal to allow the deportation flights.

Murillo announced that he would be traveling to Washington “in the coming days” for high-level talks with U.S. administration officials, signaling the ongoing need for diplomatic dialogue to address broader concerns.

The row marks a low point in relations between Colombia and the U.S., two historically close allies. The two countries have long cooperated in the fight against drug trafficking, with the U.S. providing billions of dollars in military aid and training to Colombia’s security forces. However, the deportation row reveals the complexities and tensions that continue to simmer beneath the surface of this bilateral relationship, as both nations navigate their competing priorities.

Despite the resolution of the immediate conflict, the episode highlights the frailty of international relations and the delicate balance required to maintain diplomatic ties. The ongoing scrutiny and travel restrictions serve as reminders of the challenges the two countries must overcome to rebuild the trust that has been shaken in recent days.

Title: Potential Tariffs on Colombia’s Exports Would Have Hit Both Economies, Experts Warn

The escalating diplomatic tensions between Colombia and the United States had the potential to significantly affect both economies, as punitive tariffs threatened by both President Trump and President Petro would have hit consumers and producers in both countries. The trade dispute, which centered on the deportation of Colombian migrants, could have jeopardized the $53.5 billion worth of bilateral trade between the two nations in 2022, according to data from the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative.

Colombia’s main exports to the U.S. include oil, coffee, and cut flowers, all of which would have been subject to steep tariffs under the proposed measures. While these tariffs would have put Colombian producers at a disadvantage, U.S. consumers would have faced the brunt of the impact as well.

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised concerns about the potential economic fallout for everyday Americans, particularly when it comes to consumer goods like coffee. “Remember: we pay the tariffs, not Colombia,” she warned, arguing that Americans would feel the price hikes directly. “Trump is about to make every American pay even more for coffee,” she wrote before the tariffs were suspended. Her statement highlighted the widespread impact of trade policies on U.S. consumers, particularly those who rely on affordable imports from Colombia.

The threat of a trade war and the imposition of tariffs would have created a ripple effect, raising prices for U.S. consumers on a range of goods. It also risked harming Colombia’s economy, which heavily depends on exports to the U.S., as well as further straining diplomatic relations between the two nations. The suspension of the tariffs, however, appears to have averted an immediate crisis, with both sides now seeking to restore normalcy to their trade relations. Nonetheless, the specter of potential tariffs served as a stark reminder of the economic consequences that can arise from political disputes.

Courtesy: CNN

References

• ^
  • Mckenna, Peter (1999). “Canada, the United States, and the Organization of American States”. American Review of Canadian Studies. 29 (3): 473–493. doi:10.1080/02722019909481638. ISSN 0272-2011. this important and complex relationship,
  • “Reconcilable Differences: A History of Canada-US Relations”. Oxford University Press. Reconcilable Differences provides students with a contemporary look at the often complex relationship between Canada and the United States from 1763 to today, using the most recent scholarship available.
  • “Canada and the United States”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. June 11, 2020. “The Americans are our best friends whether we like it or not.” This statement, uttered in the House of Commons by Robert Thompson, the leader of the Social Credit Party early in the 1960s, perhaps best captures the essence of Canada’s complex relationship with its nearest neighbor.
  • Shull, Aaron; Tandt, Michael Den (December 13, 2021). “Is US President Joe Biden Good or Bad for Canada?”. Centre for International Governance Innovation. Canadians have a complex relationship with the United States.
  • “Dispute Resolution in the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement: One Element of a Complex Relationship”. McGill Law Journal. September 18, 2018.
  • Hale, Geoffrey (November 1, 2012). “So Near Yet So Far”. UBC Press. How do politicians, diplomats, and interest groups negotiate the tangled web of Canada–US relations? So Near Yet So Far provides an in-depth look at the multiple dimensions of this complex relationship..
  • “A Canadian Agenda for the USA: Obama and Beyond”. Canadian Global Affairs Institute. August 1, 2018. Complex and Complicated but Mutually-Beneficial Relationship Ours is a very complex relationship building, as John F. Kennedy remarked, on ties of history, geography, economics, security, and deep people-to-people relationships.
  • “”The U.S. Studies Program at The University of British Columbia will significantly increase our understanding of the United States and its institutions and policies through critical research, teaching, and public outreach, making a tremendous contribution to Canada’s complex relationship with the U.S.””. usstudies. January 16, 2013.
• ^
  • Canada, Global Affairs (November 24, 2022). “Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy”. GAC. Retrieved October 21, 2023.
  • House, The White (February 24, 2021). “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Joint Press Statements”. The White House. Retrieved October 21, 2023.
• ^“The Canada–U.S. border: by the numbers”. cbc.ca. CBC/Radio-Canada. December 7, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2016.
  • “The world’s longest border”. Archived from the original on July 4, 2015. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
• ^ Cudmore, James. “Canadian military explored plan to fully integrate forces with U.S. – Politics – CBC News”. Cbc.ca. Retrieved January 4, 2017.
• ^ Poushter, Jacob (October 6, 2015). “Canadians Satisfied with U.S. Relationship”. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved October 21, 2023.
• ^ Brenan, Megan (March 21, 2023). “Canada, Britain Favored Most in U.S.; Russia, N. Korea Least”. Gallup, Inc. Retrieved October 21, 2023.
• ^ “State of Trade 2024: Supply chains”. GAC. August 28, 2023. Retrieved December 18, 2024.
• ^ “Canada-United States relations”. GAC. March 28, 2019. Retrieved December 18, 2024.
• ^ “Canada-United States relations”. GAC. March 28, 2019. Retrieved December 20, 2024.
• ^ “U.S. Relations With Canada”. United States Department of State. September 30, 2022. Retrieved December 20, 2024.
• ^ “Canada and the United States”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. June 11, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2024.
• ^
  • Mingst, K.; Karns, M.P. (2019). The United Nations In The Post-cold War Era, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-000-30674-3.
  • Massie, Justin (April 30, 2019). “Why Canada Goes to War: Explaining Combat Participation in US-led Coalitions”. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 52 (3). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 575–594. doi:10.1017/s0008423919000040.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c Massie, Justin (April 30, 2019). “Why Canada Goes to War: Explaining Combat Participation in US-led Coalitions”. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 52 (3). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 575–594. doi:10.1017/s0008423919000040. ISSN 0008-4239.
• ^ Gutiérrez-Haces, Maria Teresa (November 6, 2018). Identity and Otherness in Canadian Foreign Policy. Collection internationale d’Études canadiennes | International Canadian Studies Series. University of Ottawa Press. pp. 231–250. ISBN 978-0-7766-2722-9.
• ^ Carroll, Michael K (2016). “Peacekeeping: Canada’s past, but not its present and future?”. International Journal. 71 (1). [Sage Publications, Ltd., Canadian International Council]: 167–176. doi:10.1177/0020702015619857. ISSN 0020-7020. JSTOR 44631172. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
• ^ “Canada’s Current Role in World” (PDF). Environics Institute for Survey Research.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Doran, Charles F.; Sewell, James Patrick (1988). “Anti-Americanism in Canada?”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 497. [Sage Publications, Inc., American Academy of Political and Social Science]: 105–119. doi:10.1177/0002716288497001009. ISSN 0002-7162. JSTOR 1045764.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Kim Richard Nossal (2007). “Anti-Americanism in Canada,” in Brendon O’Connor, ed., Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, and Themes” (PDF). Oxford/Westport: Greenwood World Publishing}. pp. 59, 76.
• ^ Kymlicka, Will (2003). “POLITICS OF IDENTITY – II: Being Canadian”. Government and Opposition. 38 (3). Cambridge University Press: 357–385. ISSN 0017-257X. JSTOR 44483035. Retrieved January 19, 2025.
• ^ Raney, Tracey (2010). “Quintessentially Un-American? Comparing Public Opinion on National Identity in English Speaking Canada and the United States”. International Journal of Canadian Studies (42): 105. doi:10.7202/1002174ar. ISSN 1180-3991.
• ^ “War of 1812”. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
• ^ John Herd Thompson, Canada and the United States: ambivalent allies (2008).
• ^ Thomas Morgan, William (1926). “The Five Nations and Queen Anne”. Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 13 (2): 169–189. doi:10.2307/1891955. JSTOR 1891955.
• ^ June Namias, White Captives: Gender and Ethnicity on the American Frontier (1993)
• ^ Howard H. Peckham, The Colonial Wars (1965)
• ^ Chard, Donald F. (1975). “The Impact of French Privateering on New England, 1689–1713”. American Neptune. 35 (3): 153–165.
• ^ Shortt, S. E. D. (1972). “Conflict and Identity in Massachusetts: The Louisbourg Expedition of 1745”. Social History/Histoire Sociale. 5 (10): 165–185.
• ^ Johnston, A. J. B. (2008). “D-Day at Louisbourg”. Beaver. 88 (3): 16–23.
• ^ “The Loyalist Flag”. UELAC. December 6, 2021. Retrieved December 26, 2024.
• ^ Mason Wade, The French Canadians, 1760–1945 (1955) p. 74.
• ^ George W. Geib (1987). “The Old Northwest Under British Control, 1763–1783” and “Indiana A Part of the Old Northwest, 1783–1800”. Butler University. pp. 42–44.
• ^ Thomas B. Allen, Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War (2011) p. xviii
• ^ Bradford Perkins, The First Rapprochement: England and the United States, 1795–1805 (1955)
• ^ Rawlyk, George A. (1994). The Canada Fire: Radical Evangelicalism in British North America, 1775–1812. McGill-Queen’s Press. p. 122. ISBN 9780773512214. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• ^ Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies (2010).
• ^ Stagg 2012, pp. 5–6.
• ^ George F. G. Stanley, 1983, p. 32 ^{[full citation needed]}
• ^ David Heidler, Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812, pg4 ^{[full citation needed]}
• ^ Tucker 2011, p. 236.
• ^ Nugent 2008, p. 73, 75.
• ^ Mark Zuehlke, For Honour’s Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace (2007) is a Canadian perspective.
• ^ W.L. Morton, The Kingdom of Canada (1969) ch 12
• ^ Cleves, Rachel Hope; Eustace, Nicole; Gilje, Paul; Hale, Matthew Rainbow; Morgan, Cecilia; Opal, Jason M.; Peskin, Lawrence A.; Taylor, Alan (2012). “Interchange: The War of 1812”. The Journal of American History. 99 (2). [Oxford University Press, Organization of American Historians]: 520–555. doi:10.1093/jahist/jas236. ISSN 0021-8723. JSTOR 44306807. Retrieved April 4, 2024.
• ^ Wood, James A. (2010). Militia Myths (PDF). Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7748-1765-3. OCLC 473375581.
• ^ Dunning, Tom (2009). “The Canadian Rebellions of 1837 and 1838 as a Borderland War: A Retrospective”. Ontario History. 101 (2): 129–141. doi:10.7202/1065615ar.
• ^ Orrin Edward Tiffany, The Relations of the United States to the Canadian Rebellion of 1837–1838 (1905). excerpt and text search
• ^ Cross, L.D. (2010). The Underground Railroad: The long journey to freedom in Canada. Amazing Stories. James Lorimer Limited, Publishers. p. intro. ISBN 978-1-55277-581-3.
• ^ “Underground Railroad”. CBC. Retrieved April 4, 2024.
• ^ Robin W. Winks, “The Creation of a Myth: ‘Canadian’ Enlistments in the Northern Armies during the American Civil War”, Canadian Historical Review, 1958 39(1): 24–40.
• ^ Adam Mayers, Dixie & the Dominion: Canada, the Confederacy, and the War for the Union (2003)
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Alabama Claims, 1862–1872”. GlobalSecurity.org.
• ^ Mayers, Dixie & the Dominion pp 105–116.
• ^ Congressional series of United States public documents. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1870. p. 71.
• ^ David Keys (June 24, 2014). “Historians reveal secrets of UK gun-running which lengthened the American civil war by two years”. The Independent.
• ^ Paul Hendren (April 1933). “The Confederate Blockade Runners”. United States Naval Institute.
• ^ Sexton, Jay (2005). Debtor Diplomacy: Finance and American Foreign Relations in the Civil War Era, 1837–1873. Oxford University Press. p. 206. ISBN 9780199281039. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• ^ Theodore C. Blegen, “A Plan for the Union of British North America and the United States, 1866”. Mississippi Valley Historical Review 4.4 (1918): 470–483 online.
• ^ Doris W. Dashew, “The Story of An Illusion: The Plan To Trade ‘Alabama’ Claims For Canada”, Civil War History, December 1969, Vol. 15 Issue 4, pp 332–348
• ^ Shi, David E. (1978). “Seward’s Attempt to Annex British Columbia, 1865–1869”. Pacific Historical Review. 47 (2): 217–238. doi:10.2307/3637972. JSTOR 3637972.
• ^ Shain, Yossi (1999). Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and Their Homelands. Cambridge U.P. p. 53. ISBN 9780521642255. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• ^ David Sim, “Filibusters, Fenians, and a Contested Neutrality: The Irish Question and US Diplomacy, 1848–1871”. American Nineteenth Century History 12.3 (2011): 265–287.
• ^ Robert M. Groceman, “Patriot War and the Fenian Raids: Case Studies in Border Security on the US Canada Border in the Nineteenth Century” (US Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth United States, 2017) online Archived November 13, 2020, at the Wayback Machine.
• ^ Kurlansky, Mark (1998). Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. Penguin. p. 117. ISBN 9781440672873. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• ^ Munro, John A. (1965). “English-Canadianism and the Demand for Canadian Autonomy: Ontario’s Response to the Alaska Boundary Decision, 1903”. Ontario History. 57 (4): 189–203.
• ^ David G. Haglund, and Tudor Onea. “Victory without Triumph: Theodore Roosevelt, Honour, and the Alaska Panhandle Boundary Dispute”. Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.1 (2008): 20-41.
• ^ Tucker, Spencer (2011). World War II at Sea: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 142. ISBN 9781598844573.
• ^ Baker, W. M. (1970). “A Case Study of Anti-Americanism in English-Speaking Canada: The Election Campaign of 1911”. Canadian Historical Review. 51 (4): 426–449. doi:10.3138/chr-051-04-04. S2CID 161614104.
• ^ Clements, Kendrick A. (1973). “Manifest Destiny and Canadian Reciprocity in 1911”. Pacific Historical Review. 42 (1): 32–52. doi:10.2307/3637741. JSTOR 3637741.
• ^ Ellis, Lewis E. (1968). Reciprocity, 1911: a study in Canadian–American relations. Greenwood.
• ^ Paolo E. Coletta, The Presidency of William Howard Taft (1973) pp. 141–152.
• ^ Hugh Ll. Keenleyside, Canada and the United States (1929) p 373. online
• ^ Warren G. Harding & Stanley Park. The History of Metropolitan Vancouver. Vancouver.ca [1] Archived September 16, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 11, 2017
• ^ Richard N. Kottman, “Herbert Hoover and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff: Canada, A Case Study”, Journal of American History, Vol. 62, No. 3 (December 1975), pp. 609–635 in JSTOR
• ^ McDonald, Judith; et al. (1997). “Trade Wars: Canada’s Reaction to the Smoot–Hawley Tariff”, (1997)”. Journal of Economic History. 57 (4): 802–826. doi:10.1017/S0022050700019549. JSTOR 2951161. S2CID 154380335.
• ^ Carlson, Peter (December 30, 2005). “Raiding the Icebox”. The Washington Post.
• ^ Bell, Christopher M. (1997). “Thinking the Unthinkable: British and American Naval Strategies for an Anglo-American War, 1918–1931”. International History Review. 19 (4): 789–808. doi:10.1080/07075332.1997.9640804.
• ^ Arnold A. Offner, American Appeasement: United States Foreign Policy and Germany, 1933–1938 (1969) p. 256
• ^ Galen Roger Perras, Franklin Roosevelt and the Origins of the Canadian-American Security Alliance, 1933–1945 (1998)
• ^ Richard Jensen, “Nationalism and Civic Duty in Wartime: Comparing World Wars in Canada and America”, Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens, December 2004, pp 6–10
• ^ Rachel Lea Heide, “Allies in Complicity: The United States, Canada, and the Clayton Knight Committee’s Clandestine Recruiting of Americans for the Royal Canadian Air Force, 1940–1942”, Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, 2004, Vol. 15, pp 207–230
• ^ Galen Roger Perras, “Who Will Defend British Columbia? Unity of Command on the West Coast, 1934–1942”, Pacific Northwest Quarterly, Spring 1997, Vol. 88 Issue 2, pp 59–69
• ^ McNeil Earle, Karl (1998). “Cousins of a Kind: The Newfoundland and Labrador Relationship with the United States”. American Review of Canadian Studies. 28 (4): 387–411. doi:10.1080/02722019809481611.
• ^ C. P. Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict: A History of Canadian External Policies. Volume 2, 1921–1948: The Mackenzie King Era (1982) pp 420–424.
• ^ Hector Mackenzie, “Golden Decade (s)? Reappraising Canada’s International Relations in the 1940s and 1950s”. British Journal of Canadian Studies 23.2 (2010): 179–206.
• ^ Don Munton and John Kirton, eds. Cases and Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy Since World War II (1992) pp 2–18.
• ^ Stewart, Luke (2018). “‘Hell, they’re your problem, not ours’: Draft Dodgers, Military Deserters and Canada–United States Relations in the Vietnam War Era”. Études Canadiennes / Canadian Studies (85). Open Edition: 67–96. doi:10.4000/eccs.1479. S2CID 181777562.
• ^ Bruce Muirhead, “From Special Relationship to Third Option: Canada, the U.S., and the Nixon Shock”, American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 34, 2004 online edition Archived March 23, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
• ^ Lily Gardner Feldman, “Canada and the United States in the 1970s: Rift and Reconciliation”. The World Today 34.12 (1978): 484–492. online
• ^ Hills, Carla A. “NAFTA’s Economic Upsides: The View from the United States”. Foreign Affairs 93 (2014): 122. online
• ^ Wilson, Michael. “NAFTA’s Unfinished Business: The View from Canada”. Foreign Affairs 93 (2014): 128. online
• ^ Marcus Lee Hansen, The Mingling of the Canadian and American Peoples. Vol. 1: Historical (1940)
• ^ John Brebner, The Neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia: A Marginal Colony During the Revolutionary Years (1937)
• ^ Marcus Lee Hansen, The Mingling of the Canadian and American Peoples. Vol. 1: Historical (1940); David D. Harvey, Americans in Canada: Migration and Settlement since 1840 (1991)
• ^ Renee Kasinsky, Refugees from Militarism: Draft Age Americans in Canada (1976)
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Barkan, Elliott Robert (1980). “French Canadians”. In Thernstrom, Stephan; Orlov, Ann; Handlin, Oscar (eds.). Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press. p. 392. ISBN 0674375122. OCLC 1038430174.
• ^ John J. Bukowczyk et al. Permeable Border: The Great Lakes Region as Transnational Region, 1650–1990 (University of Pittsburgh Press. 2005)
• ^ J. Castell Hopkins, The Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs: 1902 (1903), p. 327.
• ^ Yves Roby, The Franco-Americans of New England (2004)
• ^ Brookes, Alan A. (1980). “Canadians, British”. In Thernstrom, Stephan; Orlov, Ann; Handlin, Oscar (eds.). Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press. p. 191. ISBN 0674375122. OCLC 1038430174.
• ^ Soloman Gabriel, Foreign Policy of Canada: A Study in Diefenbaker’s Years (1987).
• ^ Potter, Mitch (November 18, 2013). “JFK’s war with Diefenbaker”. The Toronto Star. Retrieved June 12, 2018.
• ^ Preston, Andrew (2003). “Balancing War and Peace: Canadian Foreign Policy and the Vietnam War, 1961–1965”. Diplomatic History. 27: 73–111. doi:10.1111/1467-7709.00340.
• ^ Brean, Joseph (November 17, 2014). “‘I’ve been called worse things by better people: A history of Canadian PMs’ not-so-diplomatic one-liners”. National Post. National Post. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
• ^ Grande, Peggy (2017). “8: Rawhide’s Ranch”. The president will see you now: my stories and lessons from Ronald Reagan’s final years (First ed.). New York. ISBN 9780316396455. OCLC 951764632.
• ^ “The President’s News Conference With Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada”. The American Presidency Project. April 8, 1997. Retrieved May 16, 2018.
• ^ Jehl, Douglas (February 24, 1995). “Clinton, in Talk to Canadians, Opposes Quebec Separation”. The New York Times.
• ^ Drache, Daniel (2008). Big Picture Realities: Canada and Mexico at the Crossroads. Wilfrid Laurier U.P. p. 115. ISBN 9781554582334. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• ^ “Prime ministers and presidents”. CBC News. February 18, 2009.
• ^ “Guest column: Time, Canada, to negotiate the Northwest Passage”. CBC News. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
• ^ “Obama to visit Canada Feb. 19, PMO confirms – CTV News”. Ctv.ca. January 28, 2009. Archived from the original on June 6, 2009. Retrieved February 26, 2011.
• ^ “Obama loses boozy bet with Harper”. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
• ^ “Barack Obama follows through on Olympic beer bet”. canoe.ca. Archived from the original on February 25, 2014. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
• ^ “Joint Statement by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada on Regulatory Cooperation”. whitehouse.gov. February 4, 2011. Retrieved February 26, 2011 – via National Archives.
• ^ “PM and U.S. President Obama announce shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness between Canada and the United States”. Office of the Prime Minister of Canada. February 4, 2011. Archived from the original on September 10, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2011.
• ^ “United States–Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan: Developing and implementing the Joint Action Plan”. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Prime Minister of Canada. December 7, 2011. Archived from the original on July 29, 2013.
• ^ “Notice: Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Over-the-Counter (OTC) Products: Common Monograph Working Group: Selection of a Monograph for Alignment”. Canada’s Action Plan. Government of Canada. January 10, 2013. Archived from the original on November 8, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
• ^ “Canada–U.S. border agreement a good thing”. The Globe and Mail. Toronto. September 6, 2012.
• ^ Jordan, Roger (November 20, 2015). “Trudeau promises Obama an enhanced Canada–US partnership”. World Socialist Web Site. International Committee of the Fourth International. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
• ^ Harris, Kathleen (November 6, 2015). “Justin Trudeau ‘disappointed’ with U.S. rejection of Keystone XL”. CBC News. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
• ^ Hall, Chris (November 20, 2015). “Trudeau warmly embraced by Obama, but don’t expect concessions from U.S.” CBC News. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
• ^ Cullen, Catherine (November 17, 2015). “Justin Trudeau says Canada to increase the number of training troops in Iraq”. CBC News. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
• ^ “Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau set a date for the first meeting in Washington”. Toronto Star. The Canadian Press. December 28, 2015. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
• ^ “Obama welcomes Trudeau to White House, ‘About time, eh?'”. thestar.com. March 10, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
• ^ “Obama on growing friendship with Trudeau – ‘What’s not to like?'”. SWI swissinfo.ch. Archived from the original on March 18, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
• ^ Harris, Kathleen (November 10, 2016). “Justin Trudeau invites Donald Trump to visit Canada during the call that marks ‘strong beginning'”. CBC News. Retrieved November 11, 2016.
• ^ “It’s Trudeau’s move after Trump goes from tough talk to action with lumber duties: Chris Hall”. CBC News. Retrieved April 26, 2017.
• ^ “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks with United States President Donald Trump”. Prime Minister of Canada. April 25, 2017. Retrieved April 26, 2017.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Trump Signs Trade Deal With Canada and Mexico”. The New York Times. January 29, 2020.
• ^ Long, Heather. “The USMCA is finally done. Here’s what is in it”. Washington Post.
• ^ Lea, Brittany De (November 30, 2018). “NAFTA 2.0: What to know”. FOXBusiness.
• ^ Montes, Juan (February 13, 2019). “Strikes at Low-Wage Plants Signal Revival of Labor Demands in Mexico”. Wall Street Journal – via www.wsj.com.
• ^ Swanson, Ana; Tankersley, Jim (January 29, 2020). “Trump Just Signed the U.S.M.C.A. Here’s What’s in the New NAFTA”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
• ^ “Under USMCA, Canada rolls with ‘new NAFTA'”. FreightWaves. July 1, 2020. Retrieved July 2, 2020.
• ^ “‘Very dishonest & weak’: Trump lashes out at Trudeau following G7 summit”. thejournal.ie. Associated Press. June 10, 2018. Retrieved June 10, 2018.
• ^ Watkins, Eli (June 10, 2018). “Trump’s top economic aide on Trudeau: ‘It was a betrayal'”. CNN. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
• ^ Dangerfield, Katie. “Donald Trump slams Trudeau (again), says PM will cost Canadians a lot of money”. Global News. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
• ^ “The US is picking a fight with Canada over a thawing Arctic shipping route”. Quartz. June 27, 2019.
• ^ “Readout of President Joe Biden Call with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada”. The White House. January 22, 2021.
• ^ “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada Before Virtual Bilateral Meeting”. The White House. February 23, 2021.
• ^ Vaillancourt, William (November 29, 2024). “Donald Trump Dines With Justin Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago After Tariff Threat”. The Daily Beast. Retrieved December 3, 2024.
• ^ “Trump’s apparent joke about Canada becoming 51st state draws range of reaction in B.C.” British Columbia. December 3, 2024. Retrieved December 10, 2024.
• ^ Crawley, Mike (January 6, 2025). “Trump responds to Trudeau resignation by suggesting Canada merge with U.S.” CBC News. Retrieved January 7, 2025.
• ^ “Trudeau says ‘not a snowball’s chance in hell’ Canada will join US”. www.bbc.com. Retrieved January 8, 2025.
• ^ “”Oh Canada”: Donald Trump Shares New US Map Amid Controversy”. www.ndtv.com.
• ^ Mingst, K.; Karns, M.P. (2019). The United Nations In The Post-cold War Era, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-000-30674-3.
• ^ Background note on Canada, U.S. State Department
• ^ Lennox, Patrick (2009). At Home and Abroad: Canada–US Relationship and Canada’s Place in the World. UBC Press. p. 107. ISBN 9780774859073. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• ^ Canadian Peace Research Institute (2006). Peace Research. Canadian Peace Research and Education Association. Retrieved November 6, 2015. vol 38 page 8