CGTN｜李品保：特朗普“情定”格陵兰，将给世界带来什么？｜特朗普2.0一周年

IPP评论是国家高端智库华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）官方微信平台。

导语：

近日，美国总统特朗普反复扬言要“得到”格陵兰岛——1月20日，他在社交媒体上发布了一张图片：他手持美国国旗站在格陵兰岛上，旁边指示牌上写着“格陵兰岛2026年成为美国领土”。在同日的白宫记者会上，当被追问“到底会为取得格陵兰岛做到什么地步”时，特朗普以“你们很快就会知道”作答。特朗普还表示，他的目标“绝不会改变”，并拒绝排除以武力夺取格陵兰岛的可能性。

格陵兰岛战略价值集中体现在全球航道、关键资源与未来规则塑造三方面。美国若执意“霸占”格陵兰岛，不仅可能打破北极长期的“低军事化、低对抗”状态，也将侵蚀以协商为基础的北极治理传统。

近日，CGTN官网发布了IPP副研究员李品保博士的评论文章。文章指出，北极正从科学合作与环境保护的典范，演变为地缘政治对抗的焦点。从对格陵兰岛的不懈图谋到区域军事化部署，美国近期在北极战略上的步步紧逼，暴露出其从多边合作转向单边主导的危险倾向，使北极越来越不像共同治理的空间，而更像是待攫取的“战利品”。他强调，这种以“国家安全”为名的施压将撕裂多边治理机制、助长安全困境，并破坏基于规则的秩序。

特朗普1月20日凌晨在社交媒体上发布图片，他手拿美国国旗登上格陵兰岛，身后站着美国副总统万斯和国务卿鲁比奥。图源：Truth Social

本文作者

李品保

IPP副研究员

北极，这个曾经象征科学合作与环境保护的典范，如今正演变为地缘政治对抗的焦点。美国近期在北极战略上的步步紧逼——从对格陵兰岛的不懈图谋到区域军事化部署——暴露出其从多边合作转向单边主导的危险倾向。这种根植于单边行动和霸权逻辑的路径，不仅威胁北极稳定，也危及全球秩序的根基。

在战略定位上，美国已将北极视为大国竞争的关键地缘舞台。其《北极地区国家战略》（2022）及《2024年国防部北极战略》均将“安全”与“战略竞争”置于优先位置，并明确将俄罗斯和中国标注为竞争对手。这清晰表明，美国看待北极的视角已从“需要多边协作应对共同挑战的区域”转变为“维系全球霸权的战略支点”。

美国政府的行动早已超越言论层面。2025年美国副总统J.D.万斯未经邀请突访位于格陵兰岛的美军基地，配合特朗普总统“不惜动用武力”夺岛的威胁言论，昭示着其刻意绕开丹麦主权的战略意图。

2025年3月28日，美国副总统万斯（左一）率代表团访问位于格陵兰岛北部的美国皮图菲克太空基地。图源：AP

同时，美国借助《红白蓝地法案》（Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025）规避常规外交渠道，直接投资格陵兰关键矿产项目，并部署F-35战机群至该区域，所有这些都被冠以“国家安全需要”之名。这种多维施压诠释了美国的战略转向：北极越来越不像共同治理的空间，而更像是待攫取的“战利品”。

此类行径折射出“美国优先”思维驱动的强权政治逻辑，与国际社会期待的合作精神背道而驰。其危害体现在以下四个关键方面：

第一，撕裂多边治理机制。北极理事会作为该地区气候、生态与原住民事务的核心治理平台，正在美国施压下分崩离析。通过胁迫北约盟友配合其议程，并以“安全”为由排挤非北约成员，美国加速了理事会的瘫痪进程。俄罗斯和芬兰相继退出巴伦支欧洲-北极理事会，进一步印证了地缘政治竞争正在削弱重要的区域合作框架。失去这些合作平台，针对北极变暖等议题的协同应对，以及对脆弱社区的支援都将陷入停滞。

第二，助长危险的安全困境与军备竞赛。美国正将格陵兰岛上的皮图菲克太空基地快速改造为一个永久性进攻枢纽。这种单边安全追求加剧了区域军事对抗，迫使各方重新评估其安全边界，引发紧张局势螺旋式升级。其恶果是，北极正面临沦为核冲突引爆点的风险。在这种高风险的环境中，哪怕出现一次误判，都可能引发超出北极圈范围的危机。

当地时间19日，北美防空司令部（NORAD）在社交媒体上表示，北美防空司令部的飞机将很快抵达位于格陵兰的美国皮图菲克太空基地。

第三，破坏国际法与基于规则的秩序。美国通过政治和军事压力挑战丹麦对格陵兰主权的完整性，同时却在“航行自由”和总体“国家安全”的旗号下，为其自身在北极的军事扩张辩护。这种对原则的选择性适用形成了双重标准——尽管中国在格陵兰矿产领域的投资纯属商业行为，美国仍以“安全威胁”为由加以阻挠。这种对合法经济活动的“安全化”操作，侵蚀了全球治理体系的信任基础，将北极变成强权规则的角力场，而非共同规范治理的空间。

第四，动摇全球秩序稳定。美国通过向北约盟友丹麦施压来试探同盟体系的边界，暴露出跨大西洋联盟信任关系的脆弱一面。连锁效应已然显现，北极利益攸关方各有反应：德国、法国等欧洲北约成员国以应对区域威胁为由启动对格陵兰的侦察行动，其他北极及近北极国家则被迫在大国竞争升级背景下重新评估其安全与合作框架。当美国将“美国优先”置于共同安全之上时，世界正被推回冷战时期的零和思维。

关键在于，美国的北极战略本身就存在缺陷。将北极视为待争夺的“战利品”，使得美国有时忽视了一个现实：北极变暖正是更广泛的气候变化趋势的重要推动力量之一，直接威胁着全球粮食安全、气象模式与沿海城市。美国声称要维护“稳定”，但其行动却在制造所要防止的动荡。

中国作为近北极国家和负责任大国，始终倡导构建基于规则的北极治理。通过“冰上丝绸之路”、联合科考及对北极理事会的支持，中国证明可持续发展之路在于合作而非对抗。相比之下，美国战略则是过时世界观的产物，终将事与愿违。

图为在摩尔曼斯克建造的混凝土重力式平台，它将承载中俄合作的“北极2”液化工厂。图源：新华社

北极不是大国博弈的棋盘。它是人类共同遗产，是原住民家园，是地球气候调节器，也是全球贸易通道。美国选择将其军事化并排挤他国，绝非实力的体现，而是让世界更加分裂、更不安全、更难应对气候危机的战略误判。

因此，国际社会必须摒弃美国的单边行径。主权原则、多边主义和国际法应当得到维护——这正是北极治理数十年的基石。唯有通过包容性对话，我们才能确保北极的未来是和平之地而非战争舞台。

中国秉持以国际法为根基、以科学合作为纽带、以主权尊重为准则的立场，为北极参与提供了建设性方案。随着北极加速变暖，世界绝不能任由大国竞争凌驾于集体行动之上。前行之路需要克制、透明，更需要回归指导北极治理的核心原则：合作而非对抗，规则而非武力。

在北极领域，中国通过参与北极理事会有关工作，举办中国—北欧北极合作研讨会、开展北冰洋科学考察等，积极向国际社会提供对话合作平台、分享科研成果。图源：新华社

*以下为英文原文，供读者对照参考（请上下滑动查看）。

The Arctic, once a beacon of scientific collaboration and environmental stewardship, is now becoming a flashpoint of geopolitical confrontation. The United States' recent escalation in its Arctic strategy – evidenced by its relentless pursuit of Greenland and militarization of the region – reveals a dangerous shift from multilateral cooperation to unilateral dominance. This approach, rooted in one-sided actions and hegemonic logic, threatens not only Arctic stability but the very foundations of the global order.

In terms of strategic positioning, the U.S. now views the Arctic as a critical geopolitical arena for great-power competition. Its National Strategy for the Arctic Region (2022) and the 2024 Department of Defense Arctic Strategy prioritize "security" and "strategic competition," explicitly labeling Russia and China as competitors. This clearly demonstrates that the U.S. perceives the Arctic primarily through the lens of maintaining global hegemony rather than as an area requiring multilateral cooperation to address shared challenges.

The U.S. government's actions have moved beyond rhetoric. In 2025, U.S. Vice President JD Vance's uninvited visit to Greenland's U.S. military base, coupled with President Donald Trump's threat to "use military force" to seize the territory, signaled a deliberate strategy to bypass Danish sovereignty.

At the same time, the U.S. leveraged the Red, White, and Blueland Act to bypass diplomatic channels and invested in Greenland's critical mineral projects. It also deployed F-35 fighters to the region, framing all of this as a "national security imperative." This multifaceted pressure campaign epitomizes a strategic shift: the Arctic appears less as a zone for shared governance and more as a prize to be claimed. These actions reflect a power-politics logic driven by an "America First" mindset, which contradicts the cooperative spirit expected by the international community.

The harm of this approach manifests in four critical dimensions:

Firstly, it fractures multilateral governance. The Arctic Council, the region's primary platform for climate, ecology and indigenous affairs, is collapsing under U.S. pressure. By pressuring NATO allies to align with its agenda and emphasizing "security" to exclude non-NATO actors, the U.S. has accelerated the Council's paralysis. The subsequent withdrawals of Russia and Finland from the Barents Euro-Arctic Council exemplify how geopolitical rivalry is crippling crucial regional cooperation frameworks. Without these platforms, coordinated efforts on issues like Arctic warming – which accelerates global sea-level rise – and support for vulnerable communities stall.

Secondly, it fuels a dangerous security dilemma and arms race. The U.S. is rapidly transforming Greenland's Pituffik Space Base into a permanent offensive hub. This pursuit of unilateral security has dramatically intensified military confrontation in the region, compelling all parties to reassess their security boundaries and triggering a spiral of tension. The result is that the Arctic now risks becoming a nuclear flashpoint. A single miscalculation in this high-stakes environment could trigger a crisis far beyond the polar circle.

Thirdly, it undermines international law and the rule-based order. The U.S. challenges the integrity of Danish sovereignty over Greenland through political and military pressure, while simultaneously justifying its own expanded military activities in the Arctic under the banner of "freedom of navigation" and overarching "national security." This selective application of principles creates a double standard, evident in its efforts to block Chinese investments in Greenland's mineral sector by labeling them "security threats," despite their commercial nature. Such instrumental "securitization" of lawful economic activity erodes trust in global governance, turning the Arctic into a battleground for arbitrary rules rather than a space governed by consistent and shared norms.

Fourthly, it destabilizes the global order. The U.S. is testing the limits of its alliance system by pressuring Denmark – a NATO partner – over sovereignty. This exposes the fragility of transatlantic trust. The ripple effects are already visible, prompting various reactions from Arctic stakeholders: European NATO members like Germany and France have initiated reconnaissance missions to Greenland, framing them as necessary responses to regional threats, while other Arctic and near-Arctic nations are compelled to reassess their security and cooperation frameworks in the face of escalating great-power competition. As the U.S. prioritizes "America First" over shared security, it risks turning the world back to a Cold War-era zero-sum mentality.

Critically, the U.S. strategy fails on its own terms. By treating the Arctic as a prize to be won, the U.S. sometimes overlooks the reality that Arctic warming is a major driver of broader climate change trends, which consequently poses a direct threat to global food security, weather patterns and coastal cities worldwide. The U.S. claims to champion "stability," yet its actions are generating the very instability it purports to prevent.

China, as a near-Arctic state and responsible global actor, has consistently advocated for a rules-based Arctic. China's engagement – through the Ice Silk Road, joint scientific expeditions and support for the Arctic Council – demonstrates that cooperation, not confrontation, is the path to sustainable development. The U.S. strategy, by contrast, is a self-defeating relic of an outdated worldview.

The Arctic is not a chessboard for great-power competition. It is a shared heritage, home to indigenous communities, a climate regulator for the planet, and a corridor for global trade. The U.S. choice to militarize it and exclude others is not strength – it is a strategic miscalculation that will leave the world more divided, less secure and less capable of addressing the climate crisis that binds us all.

Therefore, the global community must reject the U.S. single-edged approach. The principles of sovereignty, multilateralism and international law should be upheld, as they have underpinned Arctic governance for decades. Only through inclusive dialogue – not unilateral coercion – can we secure the Arctic's future as a zone of peace, not a theater of war.

China's position – rooted in international law, scientific cooperation and respect for sovereignty – offers a blueprint for engagement. As the Arctic warms, the world cannot afford to let great-power competition override the imperative of collective action. The path forward requires restraint, transparency and a return to the principles that have governed the Arctic for decades: cooperation, not confrontation; rules, not force.

文章于2026年1月19日刊登于CGTN官网，点击图片链接阅读原文。图源：CGTN网站截图

李品保 华南理工大学公共政策研究院 副研究员

（点击图片链接阅读更多李品保博士的文章）

IPP评论热门文章

徐伟钧：特朗普“新现实主义”外交的变与不变｜特朗普2.0一周年
李品保：特朗普的“格陵兰梦”为何难圆？

关于IPP

华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）是一个独立、非营利性的知识创新与公共政策研究平台。IPP围绕中国的体制改革、社会政策、中国话语权与国际关系等开展一系列的研究工作，并在此基础上形成知识创新和政策咨询协调发展的良好格局。IPP的愿景是打造开放式的知识创新和政策研究平台，成为领先世界的中国智库。