At times I have thought colonialism of a sort was good - after Britain's intervention in Sierra Leone polls were done which showed that huge numbers wanted a British administation and that the British High Commissioner and the leading General could have run for president and won. But those kind of sentiments pass quickly. In 2002 there was a lot of discussion around "New Imperialism" that highlight the risks associated with the assumption that "poor exploited Africans" would welcome "honest administrations" of any kind. A extract from a newspaper of the time discusses it better than I can:
"Mr Cooper has made waves by arguing for a "new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle."
The case for the new imperialism is an appealing one. If a country is descending into chaos and threatens its neighbours, send in well-trained troops and sort the mess out. It has worked out well in Sierra Leone, where UN intervention was not quite enough. It needed a bit of British steel as well.
The danger is that new imperialism can slip into the old imperialism. The local population may be grateful at first to outside administrators for restoring order. But once these advisers start pushing their weight around, and old arrogant attitudes creep in, the honeymoon can wear off pretty quickly.
For the new imperialism to work, the outsiders must not overstay their welcome. They should dispense advice and aid, help rebuild, encourage clean government then get out. The timing is crucial. Leave too soon and all the good work may collapse, linger too long and gratitude turns to resentment. But who said imperialism was easy, old or new."