分类： politics

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — A severe transatlantic rift has emerged following U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of impending 10% tariffs targeting eight European nations in retaliation for their stance on Greenland. The unprecedented economic measure, scheduled to commence next month, specifically targets Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland.

The tariff threat represents a dramatic escalation in tensions over Arctic sovereignty and security arrangements. President Trump characterized the tariffs as retaliation against what he deemed European interference in American control of Greenland, specifically referencing the deployment of symbolic troop contingents to the region. European leaders uniformly rejected this characterization, maintaining their military movements were coordinated responses to Trump’s own calls for enhanced Arctic security through NATO frameworks.

Diplomatic reactions from affected nations revealed remarkable unity in condemning the U.S. move. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen emphasized transparent cooperation with American allies on Arctic security while implicitly rejecting the tariff justification. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre delivered a sharper rebuke, stating unequivocally that ‘threats have no place among allies’ and reaffirming Norway’s recognition of Danish sovereignty over Greenland.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson denounced the action as ‘blackmail’ and framed it as a broader European Union concern. French President Emmanuel Macron declared that ‘no intimidation or threats will influence us,’ whether in Ukraine, Greenland, or elsewhere. German officials indicated coordinated European responses would be determined at the appropriate time.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the tariffs as ‘completely wrong’ when applied to allies pursuing collective NATO security. Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel criticized the inappropriate use of trade measures for non-trade disputes, while Finnish President Alexander Stubb warned the tariffs would ‘undermine the transatlantic relationship and risk a dangerous downward spiral.’

The collective European response underscores a fundamental disagreement over appropriate conduct among NATO allies and establishes a potentially dangerous precedent for using economic measures to settle geopolitical disagreements within the Western alliance.

BERLIN (AP) — Transatlantic relations faced severe strain Sunday following President Donald Trump’s unexpected announcement imposing 10% tariffs on eight European nations for resisting U.S. territorial ambitions regarding Greenland. The move has triggered widespread condemnation across European capitals and prompted emergency diplomatic consultations.

The targeted nations—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Finland—collectively denounced the measures as economically damaging and politically destabilizing. European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen issued a joint statement warning the tariffs “would undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.”

Trump’s tariff threat, announced Saturday coinciding with mass protests outside the U.S. Consulate in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, represents an unconventional approach to territorial negotiation. The administration characterizes Greenland as critical to U.S. national security interests, though the semiautonomous territory remains under Danish sovereignty within the NATO alliance framework.

Legal and logistical complications immediately emerged regarding implementation. The European Union functions as a unified economic zone in trade matters, while targeted nations Norway and Britain operate outside EU trade structures. EU envoys scheduled emergency talks for Sunday evening to coordinate response strategies.

The announcement generated rare bipartisan criticism within both European and American political spheres. U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) condemned the move as damaging to international relationships, stating: “The damage this President is doing to our reputation and our relationships is growing, making us less safe.”

European leaders expressed concern that the confrontation might benefit geopolitical rivals. EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas noted that “China and Russia will benefit from the divisions between the U.S. and Europe,” emphasizing that Greenland security concerns should be addressed through NATO mechanisms rather than economic coercion.

Even Trump’s traditional European allies distanced themselves from the move. French far-right leader Jordan Bardella recommended suspending the EU-U.S. tariff agreement, characterizing the threat as “commercial blackmail.” British political parties across the spectrum, including Trump ally Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, uniformly criticized the measures.

Danish and Norwegian foreign ministers are scheduled to address the escalating crisis during a Sunday news conference in Oslo, as diplomatic efforts intensify to resolve the unprecedented transatlantic confrontation.

A unprecedented diplomatic crisis has emerged following U.S. President Donald Trump’s coercive threat to Western allies regarding Greenland’s potential annexation. The administration’s ultimatum—either support the proposed territorial acquisition or face intensified trade restrictions—represents an extraordinary escalation in economic diplomacy that experts describe as without historical parallel.

The threat, delivered through presidential social media channels, has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles. Officials from affected nations have expressed both bewilderment and deep concern about the implications for NATO and Western alliance structures. The move targets longstanding partners with minimal warning, fundamentally challenging the principles of international cooperation that have underpinned transatlantic relations for decades.

Economic analysts note that while allies have previously adapted to Trump’s trade policies, this particular threat enters qualitatively different territory. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent strategic pivot illustrates alternative approaches emerging among affected nations. During his China visit this week, Carney actively promoted “a new world order” in trade relationships, achieving a 14% surge in Canada’s non-U.S. trade that compensates for losses in American commerce.

The timing of Trump’s intervention coincides with his scheduled appearance at the World Economic Forum, where he is expected to meet with leaders of the very nations whose economies he has threatened. Diplomatic experts question the feasibility of such a territorial acquisition, noting that no modern precedent exists for compelling allies to surrender sovereign territory through economic coercion.

International observers have drawn disturbing comparisons, questioning how the global community would respond if China or Russia issued similar threats to their allies. The fundamental rationale behind the threat—public coercion of strategic partners—has raised profound concerns about the stability of international norms and the functioning of American decision-making processes.

As protests supporting Greenland’s position emerge in Denmark, the international community largely hopes this unprecedented situation will resolve before causing permanent damage to alliance structures that have maintained global stability for generations.

LISBON, Portugal — Portugal’s presidential election on Sunday features an unprecedented field of 11 candidates, setting the stage for a potential political milestone as far-right populist André Ventura emerges as a formidable contender. This development signals a possible breakthrough for Europe’s expanding far-right movement within a nation traditionally resistant to such politics.

The crowded ballot virtually guarantees no single candidate will secure the required 50% majority, necessitating a runoff election next month between the top two vote-getters. Nearly 11 million registered voters will determine the successor to President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who concludes his constitutionally limited two-term tenure.

André Ventura, leader of the populist Chega (Enough) party, ranks among the front-runners according to recent polling. His party’s remarkable ascent has transformed it into Portugal’s second-largest parliamentary faction within just six years of establishment. Ventura’s campaign prominently targets immigration, with provocative billboards proclaiming ‘This isn’t Bangladesh’ and opposing welfare benefits for immigrants—rhetoric previously considered unthinkable in Portuguese political discourse.

Other prominent candidates represent Portugal’s establishment parties: Luís Marques Mendes from the governing center-right Social Democratic Party and António José Seguro of the center-left Socialist Party. Retired Rear Admiral Henrique Gouveia e Melo, acclaimed for his efficient management of Portugal’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, presents a strong independent challenge.

The election occurs amid Portugal’s most severe political instability in decades, following three general elections within three years. While Ventura emphasizes immigration, voters express greater concern about housing affordability and living costs. The next president will also face constitutional decisions regarding euthanasia legislation approved by parliament in 2022.

Though largely ceremonial, the Portuguese presidency wields significant influence through mediation powers, legislative veto authority, and the crucial ability to dissolve parliament—a tool known locally as the ‘atomic bomb.’ The election’s outcome will determine leadership at Lisbon’s distinctive riverside ‘pink palace’ for a five-year term, with a potential runoff scheduled for February 8 should no candidate achieve immediate victory.