►為什麼格陵蘭是黃金穹蒼的最後一塊拼圖？◄中英對照|即時新聞|學習道地口語表達

Hardball, game on. President Trump says he'll put new tariffs on eight NATO allies next month, unless he's reached a deal to buy Greenland from Denmark. Here's Treasury Secretary Scott Bassett. What we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security. If there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict, because the United States right now, we are the hottest country in the world, we are the strongest country in the world. The Europeans project weakness, the U.S. projects strength. Now these EU countries held an emergency meeting on Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron, reportedly calling to use a nuclear option known as the trade bazooka. Harris, this is where Europe would block the U.S. from accessing some EU markets. Back here at home, there is a bipartisan concern that the president is pushing away our NATO allies, but many Republicans feel the president is right here to go after Greenland. There certainly is no authority that the president has to use military force to seize territory from a NATO country. And certainly this is problematic that the president has made this statement and has caused tension among the alliance. A lot of this gets back to missile defense and early warning systems, and he doesn't want to waste a minute. He knows he only has three years left in office. He wants to get this new missile defense system in place. That means we've got to start moving, that means we've got to have access to Greenland. Let's bring in now U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz. Mike, good to see you. Good to see you. Good to be with you, Aisha, and congratulations on the show. Thank you, Ambassador. I want to start with Greenland and the U.N. At least their experts came out with a kind of a condemnation of the U.S.'s rhetoric on Greenland. I'm going to read it to you. They write, Assertions suggesting that a territory can be taken, controlled or owned by another state in pursuit of perceived national security or economic interests evoke a logic of colonial domination that the international community has long rejected. Look, we've heard a lot of concerns from the left that this is going to push our allies away. At the worst, it's going to blow up NATO. You've been to Greenland. You were just there last year with the vice president. What did you see in here? Well, first, you know, this is why President Trump has defunded the so-called Human Rights Council from where these so-called experts come from. Look, at the end of the day, the president is doing whatever it takes for our national security in our hemisphere, whether you want to call it the Donro Doctrine or the Monroe Doctrine 2.0 from the Arctic to the border, to the Panama Canal, to our key interests in Central and South America. In this case, he's trying to make a deal. And this is no secret that he sees it critical to our national security. Look, Ayesha, Denmark subsidizes Greenland to the tune of over half a billion dollars a year when their defense budget is only about $5 billion per year. That breaks down to about $12,000 per head for the 53,000 Greenlanders. I promise you their lives will be safer, stronger and more prosperous under the umbrella of the United States. And furthermore, if you look at Denmark's defense expenditures, they have zero heavy icebreakers. They really have no navy in the Western Hemisphere to speak of, and they certainly aren't contributing in a meaningful way to the Golden Dome space or other types of missile defense we have to have. Meanwhile, look at Russia with over 60 icebreakers, some nuclear. The Chinese are building more. They're pushing up into the natural resources that are up there that are increasingly exposed in the polar regions. We have to secure the United States. The Greenlanders will be better for it. I mean, that's that's kind of the point the president is making, right? When you hear the pushback about there's no threat today, nobody's bothering Greenland today. Well, this is not about today, right? This is about what might happen in the next coming years. That's what national security is about. That's right. It's looking forward in the future threats that we do see rising both from all of our adversaries, but also it's about looking back. This area, this region was completely ignored by both NATO and Denmark, who was a great ally otherwise, but just doesn't have the resources or the capacity to do what needs to be done in the northern region. And to the, you know, to to the Democrats who say, well, you know, they're giving you full access. Look, everybody knows that if you are renting a place or a home, you treat it differently than if you own it. Yeah. And from a standpoint of international law, President Trump is trying to make a deal, as President Truman tried to do in the 40s, as we did with the Virgin Islands, which we purchased from Denmark for 25 million dollars in the in the 20th century. So there's nothing wrong with that. And he's putting doing what needs to be done. Well, the strategic significance of it is indisputable. And multiple presidents certainly have seen the same thing the president has. But things have changed quite a bit. We have two major adversaries, not just in Russia, and also in China. And both of them have their ICBMs, you know, pointed at the United States. I mean, that's the reality of it. And the quickest way to get to us is across that island. We have early warning sites in the region and in Greenland to help us with radar identification. But clearly, China is building up its nuclear weapons to the that they're likely going to go right past Russia and right past the United States. At least that is their intent. So that is one of the issues. The other thing is, you know, because of the routes of warming. And now you can navigate and use those, the sea routes, much more so during the year than what we've been able to do in the past. And that brings in Navy assets transiting that area as well in the interest of Russia and the interest of China. So that's another security issue that clearly we have to deal with. And the good news is that negotiations have started. And I think if we kind of tone down the rhetoric, I hope that we can find a pathway that's in the interest of the people in Greenland and also in Denmark's interest. And you're absolutely right. Denmark hasn't done much here whatsoever to actually increase the security that Greenland truly offers NATO. And I think the United States could do a much better job than Denmark can do in NATO's interest here. And obviously they have significant interest in terms of what Russia and China would be doing. The Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, has spoken on this subject. And he's very interested in negotiations. And look, Rutte, I have a great regard for him. And certainly we've dealt with him a lot over Russia's invasion in Ukraine. And he's a voice of reason. He's steady. He's calm. And he has an excellent relationship with President Trump. One of the best, to be quite about it. And look, we've been watching this for a year now. Tariffs in most cases, not all, but in most cases when Trump uses it, it is the beginning of a negotiation process. But these people are overreacting to it, I think. And hopefully with Mark Rutte involved and others, we can get into moving into something that's substantive and beneficial to all parties involved. All right. Thank you for all that.