Core Viewpoint - The U.S. President Trump announced a 10% tariff on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland starting February 1, which will increase to 25% on June 1, contingent upon negotiations regarding the U.S. purchase of Greenland [1][3]. Group 1: Tariff Announcement - The U.S. will impose a 10% tariff on imports from eight European countries, escalating to 25% if negotiations regarding Greenland do not progress [1][3]. - The estimated cost for the U.S. to purchase Greenland could reach $700 billion, according to experts [3]. Group 2: Reactions from European Leaders - Danish Foreign Minister Rasmussen expressed surprise at the tariff announcement and stated that Denmark is in close contact with the EU and other partners regarding the issue [4][5]. - Swedish Prime Minister Kristersson firmly opposed the tariffs, stating that Sweden will not allow itself to be extorted and emphasized that only Denmark and Greenland can decide on their affairs [7]. - UK Prime Minister Starmer criticized the tariff as "completely wrong," asserting that Greenland's future should be determined by its people and Denmark [9]. Group 3: Military Exercises and Political Stance - Several European countries, including Norway, Sweden, and Finland, announced troop deployments to Greenland for military exercises initiated by Denmark, signaling support for Denmark [3]. - The EU and its leaders emphasized the importance of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, with a unified stance against the U.S. tariffs [12].

美方近日宣称，任何与伊朗有商业往来的国家，在同美国进行的任何商业活动中都将被征收25％的关 税。此举将关税作为地缘博弈的施压工具和政治手段，势必为国际社会制造新的风险源，冲击正常的国 际经贸秩序，削弱世界各国对全球经济稳定发展的信心。 与其他国家开展合理、正常的商业往来，是主权国家基于自身发展阶段、资源禀赋和国际分工格局作出 的自主选择，是不容置疑的正当权利。国际经贸合作的对象、方式和规模，应由相关国家依据现实需要 和经济规律自主决定，而不应由某一国家以国内政策为依据，单方面划线、强行设限。美方一些人试图 以是否与特定国家开展商业往来作为征税标准，明显背离国际法确立的主权平等和不干涉内政原则。这 种做法不仅公然侵犯他国的正当发展权利，也将动摇国际经贸合作赖以运行的制度基础。 历史反复证明，把关税工具化、武器化，不但解决不了问题，反而会破坏国际治理秩序，制造新的混 乱。美方一些人以国内法凌驾于国际规则之上，试图强行重塑国际经贸往来的边界，其直接后果是推高 全球贸易成本，扭曲资源配置效率，削弱全球产业链供应链的稳定性，加剧世界经济运行的不确定性。 这种做法终将损害包括美国在内的世界各国利益。无论是从国际法理、经济 ...