Opinion: As U.S. coerces allies over Greenland, Europe's partnership becomes submissive

Europe is caught in a dilemma. On paper, it is a partner. In reality, it is often treated as a pressure point. On trade, sanctions and security, European governments are repeatedly asked to fall in line, even when their own interests are at stake.

BEIJING, Jan. 18 (Xinhua) -- Henry Kissinger once said that being America's friend can be more dangerous than being its enemy. The remark was cynical. It was also prescient.

Washington's latest threat to impose tariffs on European countries that resist its pressure campaign over Greenland fits the pattern. It is coercion dressed up as diplomacy. And it once again exposes the gap between America's rhetoric and its conduct.

The United States likes to present itself as the guardian of a so-called "rules-based international order." Yet when allies object to its demands, rules quickly give way to leverage. Sovereignty becomes negotiable. Respect becomes conditional.

It's not an aberration: It reflects a Washington worldview in which power defines legitimacy. Under this system, Washington either compels compliance or penalizes resistance. Consent is optional. Alignment is mandatory.

The Greenland episode makes this logic plain. The island's strategic location and mineral wealth have long attracted American interest. That interest is now asserted not through partnership, but through pressure: economic threats aimed not at adversaries, but at allies.

Europe is caught in a dilemma. On paper, it is a partner. In reality, it is often treated as a pressure point. On trade, sanctions and security, European governments are repeatedly asked to fall in line, even when their own interests are at stake.

Rather than confront this reality, some European governments have reached for a familiar and convenient narrative. As military personnel are dispatched to Greenland amid Washington's pressure campaign, these moves are framed as a response to supposed threats from China and Russia.

This framing distorts the facts. The obvious driver was pressure from Washington itself, applied through economic threats and political pressure. Blurring that distinction may offer short-term cover, but it erodes strategic honesty and weakens the EU's credibility.

That trajectory is unsustainable. A continent that cannot defend its interests even in front of its allies risks sliding into permanent junior-partner status.

For Washington, its hegemonic approach may yield short-term leverage. Over time, it produces mistrust and fragmentation.

For Europe, the lesson is straightforward. Strategic autonomy cannot be declared with appeasement onboard. Genuine independence begins with the freedom to say no and the confidence to chart its own path in a changing world.■