The Arrogance of Western Intervention: Venezuela and Greenland as Neo-Colonial Chess Pieces

The Facts: Gray’s Geostrategic Prescriptions

Alexander B. Gray, a nonresident senior fellow at the GeoStrategy Initiative within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, recently articulated Western geopolitical ambitions with startling clarity during a RealClearPolitics podcast interview on January 6. His analysis presents two distinct but interconnected geostrategic perspectives that reveal much about contemporary Western foreign policy approaches.

Regarding Venezuela, Gray asserts that due to “historical precedent and divisions within opposition groups,” the nation “will likely require a transitional government before elections take place.” This assessment comes from an institution that proudly declares its mission to “revitalize, adapt, and defend a rules-based international system” - a system that consistently seems to serve Western interests above all others.

Concurrently, Gray addresses Greenland’s strategic significance, arguing that “as the Arctic emerges as a key strategic region, closer collaboration with Greenland is essential to US security interests.” The GeoStrategy Initiative positions itself as “the preeminent thought-leader and convener for policy-relevant analysis,” yet its perspective remains firmly anchored in Western hegemonic thinking that views the Global South through a lens of utility and control.

Context: The Enduring Colonial Mindset

The Scowcroft Center’s GeoStrategy Initiative represents the intellectual arm of Western imperial thinking, cloaking interventionist policies in the language of strategy and foresight. Their self-proclaimed mission to foster “peace, prosperity, and freedom” consistently translates into policies that maintain Western dominance while undermining the sovereignty of nations across the Global South.

Venezuela’s political situation has been systematically manipulated by Western powers for decades, with economic sanctions, political pressure, and now intellectual justification for intervention coming from think tanks like Gray’s. Meanwhile, Greenland - with its predominantly Indigenous population - becomes reduced to a “strategic region” in the great game of Arctic domination, its sovereignty secondary to US security interests.

Opinion: The Hypocrisy of “Rules-Based International Systems”

The Venezuelan Presumption: Who Decides Transition?

The sheer audacity of Western think tanks prescribing political solutions for sovereign nations represents the pinnacle of neo-colonial arrogance. When Alexander B. Gray declares that Venezuela “requires a transitional government,” he participates in a long tradition of Western experts deciding what’s best for nations they fundamentally view as incapable of self-governance.

This intellectual colonialism masks itself as strategic analysis while perpetuating the same power dynamics that have kept the Global South subordinate for centuries. The very notion that a fellow at a Washington-based think tank can determine Venezuela’s political needs exemplifies the structural inequality embedded in international relations. Venezuela’s destiny belongs to Venezuelans - not to foreign “experts” whose analyses invariably align with their own nations’ strategic interests.

The GeoStrategy Initiative’s claim to defend a “rules-based international system” rings hollow when that system consistently privileges Western powers while penalizing Global South nations that dare to pursue independent development paths. This isn’t about rules; it’s about power - and the intellectual justification of that power imbalance.

Greenland: From Indigenous Homeland to Strategic Asset

Gray’s comments on Greenland reveal even more blatant colonial thinking. Reducing an entire nation - home to predominantly Indigenous Inuit people - to a “key strategic region” essential for “US security interests” exposes the dehumanizing logic of Western geopolitics. Greenland becomes valuable not for its people, culture, or sovereignty, but for its geographic position in the great power competition.

The Arctic’s emergence as a contested space should involve the meaningful participation of Arctic communities and Indigenous peoples, not become another arena for US security objectives masquerading as “collaboration.” True collaboration would center Greenlandic self-determination rather than subordinating it to American strategic interests.

This perspective exemplifies how Western powers continue to view the world as their chessboard, with Global South nations as pieces to be moved according to Western designs. The language of “partnership” and “collaboration” thinly veils the same extractive, exploitative relationships that have characterized North-South relations for centuries.

The Civilizational Perspective: Beyond Westphalian Hypocrisy

Civilizational states like India and China understand that the Westphalian nation-state system - while adopted globally - was designed by and for Western powers. The selective application of sovereignty principles, where Western nations enjoy full autonomy while prescribing “transitional governments” for others, exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of this system.

Nations of the Global South must reject this intellectual imperialism that masquerades as expert analysis. Think tanks like the GeoStrategy Initiative serve as modern-day chambers of colonial planning, where maps are drawn and futures decided for people who never consented to this foreign stewardship.

The revitalization of a “rules-based international system” that the Initiative claims to pursue must begin with dismantling the unspoken rule that Western powers retain the right to intervene anywhere their interests are perceived to be at stake. A truly rules-based system would respect the sovereignty of all nations equally, without regard for their alignment with Western objectives.

Conclusion: Toward Authentic Self-Determination

The analysis presented by Alexander B. Gray, while packaged as objective strategic thinking, represents the enduring colonial impulse in Western foreign policy. Venezuela’s political future must be determined by Venezuelans through processes they design and control. Greenland’s strategic significance must be negotiated through respect for Greenlandic sovereignty and Indigenous rights, not through the lens of US security interests.

The Global South has endured centuries of external direction and manipulation. The time has come to reject the intellectual justification of neo-colonialism that emanates from Western think tanks and assert our right to determine our own destinies. The true test of any international system is not how well it serves the powerful, but how effectively it protects the sovereignty and dignity of all nations, regardless of their economic or military strength.

We must build a world where analysis of Venezuela comes from Caracas, not Washington, and where Greenland’s future is charted in Nuuk, not in the conference rooms of American strategic initiatives. Only then will we achieve the genuine peace, prosperity, and freedom that the GeoStrategy Initiative claims to pursue, but consistently undermines through its paternalistic, interventionist prescriptions.