Currently the Non Alignment Movement (NAM) is debating on how to deal with Neo Colonialism. There are three main divisions in the committee of how to deal with Neocolonialism. Some wish to simply reform it, as they argue that it is not entirely a bad thing and has benefits. Others wish to abolish Neo Colonialism completely. Finally, there is a third group that wishes to recognize the possible benefits of Neo Colonialism and find a compromise.
Countries such as China and India claim that Neocolonialism has a lot of potential, and wish to change it for the best of all countries. Countries with this position cited that countries have a lot of economic gain from Neocolonialism, and that it benefits them. So if NAM focused on reforming and helping Neocolonialism evolve, the global community would also evolve.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is countries such as the Philippines and Chad, who believe that Neocolonialism is just “old colonialism in the modern times,” and wish to abolish it completely, as it was before. The countries on this end cited concerns such as cultural and social downsides that are rampant with Neocolonialism. In doing away with Neocolonialism, they state that NAM will be able to do away with many problems in modern society.
The third group however is more centrist in nature, as they see both the upsides and downsides, wishing to find a compromise that everyone can benefit from. Countries such as Guatemala and Honduras recognize the problems seen in Neocolonialism culturally and socially, but also see the benefits economically.
In using neocolonialism to benefit all, the global community could be developed well. But how much is too far? And how much is too little when considering the possible benefits of Neocolonialism? When looking at NAM as the situation develops, all of these questions are worth taking into account when whatever actions are decided as a global community.
Countries such as China and India claim that Neocolonialism has a lot of potential, and wish to change it for the best of all countries. Countries with this position cited that countries have a lot of economic gain from Neocolonialism, and that it benefits them. So if NAM focused on reforming and helping Neocolonialism evolve, the global community would also evolve.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is countries such as the Philippines and Chad, who believe that Neocolonialism is just “old colonialism in the modern times,” and wish to abolish it completely, as it was before. The countries on this end cited concerns such as cultural and social downsides that are rampant with Neocolonialism. In doing away with Neocolonialism, they state that NAM will be able to do away with many problems in modern society.
The third group however is more centrist in nature, as they see both the upsides and downsides, wishing to find a compromise that everyone can benefit from. Countries such as Guatemala and Honduras recognize the problems seen in Neocolonialism culturally and socially, but also see the benefits economically.
In using neocolonialism to benefit all, the global community could be developed well. But how much is too far? And how much is too little when considering the possible benefits of Neocolonialism? When looking at NAM as the situation develops, all of these questions are worth taking into account when whatever actions are decided as a global community.