The methods and form of this direction can take various shapes. For example, in an extreme case the troops of the imperial power may garrison the territory of the neo-colonial State and control the government of it. More often, however, neo-colonialist control is exercised through economic or monetary means. The neo-colonial State may be obliged to take the manufactured products of the imperialist power to the exclusion of competing products from elsewhere. Control over government policy in the neo-colonial State may be secured by payments towards the cost of running the State, by the provision of civil servants in positions where they can dictate policy, and by monetary control over foreign exchange through the imposition of a banking system controlled by the imperial power.
Where neo-colonialism exists the power exercising control is often the State which formerly ruled the territory in question, but this is not necessarily so. For example, in the case of South Vietnam the former imperial power was France, but neo-colonial control of the State has now gone to the United States. It is possible that neo-colonial control may be exercised by a consortium of financial interests which are not specifically identifiable with any particular State. The control of the Congo by great international financial concerns is a case in point.
Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves thesubjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties indefining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it fromimperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Likecolonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic controlover a dependent territory. The etymology of the two terms, however,provides some clues about how they differ. The term colony comes fromthe Latin word colonus, meaning farmer. This root reminds usthat the practice of colonialism usually involved the transfer ofpopulation to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as permanentsettlers while maintaining political allegiance to their country oforigin. Imperialism, on the other hand, comes from the Latin termimperium, meaning to command. Thus, the term imperialismdraws attention to the way that one country exercises power overanother, whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirectmechanisms of control.
The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.
The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.
Neo colonialism is the view that even after nations has gained their political independence; they are still under the massive influence of their "parents”, so to speak.
Colonialism and its effects are mainly relating to monetary issues, and its effects are almost always felt by the masses of a nation yet to steady its feet.
THE neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a country upon which a neo-colonial regime had been imposed — Egypt in the nineteenth century is an example — into a colonial territory. Today this process is no longer feasible. Old-fashioned colonialism is by no means entirely abolished. It still constitutes an African problem, but it is everywhere on the retreat. Once a territory has become nominally independent it is no longer possible, as it was in the last century, to reverse the process. Existing colonies may linger on, but no new colonies will be created. In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism.
The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.
Non-alignment, as practised by Ghana and many other countries, is based on co-operation with all States whether they be capitalist, socialist or have a mixed economy. Such a policy, therefore, involves foreign investment from capitalist countries, but it must be invested in accordance with a national plan drawn up by the government of the non-aligned State with its own interests in mind. The issue is not what return the foreign investor receives on his investments. He may, in fact, do better for himself if he invests in a non-aligned country than if he invests in a neo-colonial one. The question is one of power. A State in the grip of neo-colonialism is not master of its own destiny. It is this factor which makes neo-colonialism such a serious threat to world peace. The growth of nuclear weapons has made out of date the old-fashioned balance of power which rested upon the ultimate sanction of a major war. Certainty of mutual mass destruction effectively prevents either of the great power blocs from threatening the other with the possibility of a world-wide war, and military conflict has thus become confined to ‘limited wars’. For these neo-colonialism is the breeding ground.
Such wars can, of course, take place in countries which are not neo-colonialist controlled. Indeed their object may be to establish in a small but independent country a neo-colonialist regime. The evil of neo-colonialism is that it prevents the formation of those large units which would make impossible ‘limited war’. To give one example: if Africa was united, no major power bloc would attempt to subdue it by limited war because from the very nature of limited war, what can be achieved by it is itself limited. It is, only where small States exist that it is possible, by landing a few thousand marines or by financing a mercenary force, to secure a decisive result.
The legitimacy of colonialism has been a longstanding concern forpolitical and moral philosophers in the Western tradition. At leastsince the Crusades and the conquest of the Americas, politicaltheorists have struggled with the difficulty of reconciling ideasabout justice and natural law with the practice of Europeansovereignty over non-Western peoples. In the nineteenth century, thetension between liberal thought and colonial practice becameparticularly acute, as dominion of Europe over the rest of the worldreached its zenith. Ironically, in the same period when most politicalphilosophers began to defend the principles of universalism andequality, the same individuals still defended the legitimacy ofcolonialism and imperialism. One way of reconciling those apparentlyopposed principles was the argument known as the “civilizingmission,” which suggested that a temporary period of politicaldependence or tutelage was necessary in order for“uncivilized” societies to advance to the point where theywere capable of sustaining liberal institutions andself-government.