国际观察丨不止资源：美国觊觎格陵兰岛的操作与盘算

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government's recent actions regarding Greenland, including high-profile appointments and declarations of intent to acquire the territory, reflect a predatory diplomatic approach that has sparked strong opposition from Denmark and the EU [1][3][10]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Reactions - President Trump has emphasized the necessity of acquiring Greenland for national security, stating, "We must get it" [2]. - The appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the U.S. Special Envoy to Greenland aims to promote American interests, with Landry suggesting that Greenland should become part of the U.S. [3]. - Denmark's Prime Minister and Greenland's Premier issued a joint statement opposing U.S. territorial claims, reaffirming respect for Denmark's territorial integrity [3][6]. Group 2: Diplomatic Tensions - The U.S. has employed various tactics, including public pressure and covert operations, to influence Greenland's affairs, with Trump making aggressive statements about potential military or economic coercion [7]. - High-level U.S. visits to Greenland have been perceived as provocations, with local officials describing them as attempts to undermine Danish authority [7]. - Reports indicate that U.S. intelligence activities have intensified regarding Greenland, focusing on local independence movements and attitudes towards U.S. resource extraction [7]. Group 3: Strategic and Economic Considerations - Analysts suggest that the U.S. interest in Greenland is driven by its strategic location, which has been significant since the Cold War, and its role in NATO's defense strategy [10]. - Greenland is rich in natural resources such as rare earth elements, graphite, copper, and nickel, which are critical for energy transition and technology manufacturing [10]. - The melting ice in Greenland is making resource extraction more feasible, increasing its attractiveness for U.S. manufacturing revival efforts [10]. Group 4: Political Ambitions - Trump's ambitions regarding Greenland are seen as part of a broader desire to leave a political legacy, with comparisons drawn to 19th-century imperialism [12]. - The administration's expansionist rhetoric may exacerbate international tensions and lead to greater isolation for the U.S. [12].