Neocolonialism (also Neo-colonialism) is the geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business

globalization, and cultural imperialism to influence a country, in lieu of either direct military
control or indirect political control, i.e. imperialism and hegemony.
[1]
The term neo-colonialism
was coined by Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah
According to the Global Humanitarian Assistance Organization, Humanitarian assistance is aid
and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity
during and in the aftermath of emergencies. The characteristics that mark it out from other forms
of foreign assistance and development aid are that

(Leader 2000)
According to Mohammed Haneef Atmar, current humanitarian aid policies and practices in
Afghanistan are determined by Western foreign- policy goals, rather than by the actual conditions
required for principled humanitarian action. Humanitarian aid in Afghanistan acts as a fig leaf
for political inaction, and as a foreign-policy instrument to isolate the Taliban. The humanitarian principles
of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence are secondary to foreign-policy interests, and are
abandoned when they conflict with them. While Afghanistan received the highest per capita aid in its
history during the Cold War, humanitarian budgets were cut dramatically after the Russian withdrawal in
198889, despite continued human suffering. While donors may have legitimate foreign-policy concerns
regarding the Taliban, argues Atmar, subordinating humanitarian principles to other political objectives
has resulted in the loss of Afghan lives. For instance, Atmar states that, if humanitarian aid agencies were
able to receive unconditional humanitarian resources and allowed to work with the public health
authorities, they may be able to save the lives of children; one out of four children die before five years of
age, and 85,000 die each year from diarrhoea.

Atmar, continues

While aid/politics has a long and complex history in Afghanistan, the current politicisation of
humanitarian assistance to the country is indeed the pursuit of domestic and foreign policies of key
donor states by humanitarian means. The new and unusual properties attached to the humanitarian
aid policies seem to have more to do with the donor policy of isolating Taliban rather than the actual
conditions required for principled humanitarian action.

This conflicts with Kant. Donors are using the humans as a means to access other goals, or ends, like
retrieving access to the Taliban.























The role of the ballot is to evaluate the consequences of the Plan and the
Alternative and determine which saves more lives. Any other framework
condemns innocents to suffering.

MURRAY, 97
[Alastair, Professor of Politics at U. of Wales-Swansea, Reconstructing Realism, p. 110]

Weber emphasised that, while the 'absolute ethic of the gospel' must be taken seriously, it is inadequate
to the tasks of evaluation presented by politics. Against this 'ethic of ultimate ends' Gesinnung he
therefore proposed the 'ethic of responsibility' Verantwortung. First, whilst the former dictates only
the purity of intentions and pays no attention to consequences, the ethic of responsibility commands
acknowledgement of the divergence between intention and result. Its adherent 'does not feel in a
position to burden others with the results of his [OR HER] own actions so far as he was able to foresee
them; he [OR SHE] will say: these results are ascribed to my action'. Second, the 'ethic of ultimate ends'
is incapable of dealing adequately with the moral dilemma presented by the necessity of using evil
means to achieve moral ends: Everything that is striven for through political action operating with
violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the 'salvation of the soul.' If, however,
one chases after the ultimate good in a war of beliefs, following a pure ethic of absolute ends, then the
goals may be changed and discredited for generations, because responsibility for consequences is
lacking. The 'ethic of responsibility', on the other hand, can accommodate this paradox and limit the
employment of such means, because it accepts responsibility for the consequences which they imply.
Thus, Weber maintains that only the ethic of responsibility can cope with the 'inner tension' between
the 'demon of politics' and 'the god of love'. The realists followed this conception closely in their
formulation of a political ethic. This influence is particularly clear in Morgenthau. In terms of the first
element of this conception, the rejection of a purely deontological ethic, Morgenthau echoed Weber's
formulation, arguing that: the political actor has, beyond the general moral duties, a special moral
responsibility to act wisely ... The individual, acting on his own behalf, may act unwisely without moral
reproach as long as the consequences of his inexpedient action concern only [HER OR] himself. What is
done in the political sphere by its very nature concerns others who must suffer from unwise action.
What is here done with good intentions but unwisely and hence with disastrous results is morally
defective; for it violates the ethics of responsibility to which all action affecting others, and hence
political action par excellence, is subject. This led Morgenthau to argue, in terms of the concern to
reject doctrines which advocate that the end justifies the means, that the impossibility of the logic
underlying this doctrine 'leads to the negation of absolute ethical judgements altogether'.

Junbo 07
During a trip to Nigeria last February, Britain's then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, remarked that what China was
doing in Africa now was much the same as Britain had done 150 years before. Like Straw, some Western
scholars and politicians maintain that China is a new colonizing power, exploiting Africa's natural
resources and harming its quest for democracy and human rights. Conversely, on June 18, Chinese Prime Minister
Wen Jiabao said in Egypt, where he started a visit in Africa, that the cap of neo-colonialism could never adorn the head of China. It's clear there
exist two contradictory opi
nions on China's image and actions in Africa: colonizing power or capitalist benefactor? Classic colonialism beginning from the
15
th
century commonly consisted of foreigners occupying distant lands, controlling their economic and
political affairs and exploiting their material resources though unfair or one-sided trade practices or
simply by force. By that definition European states acted as colonizing powers in Africa and Asia, but they went far beyond colonialism
through the slave trade, proxy wars and imposing cultural norms. After World War II, de-colonization movements blossomed in Africa and Asia,
which finally overthrew and buried the colonial system. Unfortunately, a new colonialism paradigm
subsequently emerged and quickly grew in 1960s as some Western nations became new colonizing
powers through capital investments and high-tech production. This neo-colonialism embraces all
aspects of classic colonialism except for occupying foreign lands, since all states in Africa remain technically
independent. In this neo-colonialism, the exploiting power controls weaker states' economic resources
and political systems and exploits their wealth under name of liberal capitalism. So where does China fall? Is it a colonizing
power or not when it engages Africa, especially as more and more Chinese began to arrive on the continent from the beginning of the 21
st

century? Obviously, China hasn't occupied any African country. And as a country with a deep historical memory of being colonized by Western
powers, China doesn't want to control Africa's economic and political systems. The Chinese government neither appoints military consultants to
African governments nor constructs military bases on the continent. Moreover, China hasn't used deceitful means to steal and exploit African
resources. Relations between China and African countries are grounded on reciprocal benefits, which is not just a slogan but a fact.
Financial aid and other investments from China without political conditions are very helpful for African
economies. For instance in 2005, the rate of China's contribution to Africa's total economic growth was
at least 5%. Simultaneously, China buys African resources at a fair price to fuel its rapid economic growth. Though China is not a
colonialist, it is a successful capitalist in Africa. The path it has taken on 1 that continent is consistent with the logic of market capitalism - liberal
trade based on fair contracts. Of course, we cannot be blind to the possibility of China becoming a colonizing power someday. The day
might come when African national economic systems have become so dependent on Chinese
investments and export commodities that their domestic and foreign policies would in effect be
decided by Beijing. With its increasing investments in Africa, there is the possibility that Chinese
business people will push African national industries aside and bankrupt national economic systems;
meanwhile, more and more companies from China enter Africa, but they simply focus on profits
regardless of their harmful influences on African societies, such as environmental pollution, excessive
development, and exploitation of local labor. However, this worry should not be taken too seriously. Africa's economic
development heavily depends on Chinese investments or exports, but we should not forget that China will also depend on Africa's resources
and economic growth. This interdependence indicates that both can still benefit from each other, which is not the same as what those old and
new colonizing powers did in Africa, where the benefits went disproportionately to the colonizing powers. It may be that individual states come
to rely on China more than China relies on them, but if Beijing keeps to the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs, the political
systems of the individual states whose economies heavily depend on China will not end up being controlled by Beijing. China cannot be
recognized as a colonizing power but only as a hegemonic power if it can influence African countries' domestic affairs without undue
interference. In practice, China not only buys natural resources from Africa but helps the continent construct infrastructure such as schools and
hospitals, and provides it with technology. And, most important, China cannot escape from trade regulations as a member of World Trade
Organization. Although capitalism implies exploitation to many, China's capitalists have to limit their exploitation within the framework of WTO
and abide by local laws. If Chinese business people are intent on destroying local national economic systems (for example, the local textile
industry), African governments have the power to stop them, because all these states are sovereign. To some degree, Chinese business
people's influences on African society may include environmental pollution, excessive development of resources and collusion between them
and local officials. But these phenomena can be removed by rule of law. Anyway, one bad example does make a power a colonialist. Thus it can
be seen that China is not now and will not likely become a colonizing power. China can demonstrate that by strictly keeping the promise written
into the Beijing Declaration of 2006, which declares that Sino-African relations are based on political equality and economic cooperation, it will
restrain itself from any harmful societal and political influences while engaging Africa, the last virgin land of capitalism. Dr Jian Junbo is an
academic visitor at Durham University, United Kingdom, and a lecturer at the Center for European Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.