Realities have obviously changed since the British Empire collapsed and the Dawn of American Military Might. Britain can no longer dominate global politics because of American hegemony and super power status. However, it still manages to try to influence policies abroad based on national interests.

There are number of diplomatic events of British Foreign policy for the last 50 years that can be studied.

Based on the definition of neo-colonialism (Control that is economic and cultural, rather than political) , these events clearly exhibit this trend and would be foolish to term it anything else. In some places there is actual proper colonialism with the advent of the new military concept “preemptive strike”. Actual countries have been invaded and occupied with military presence by America and Britain.

The reason you might have seen Britain and America labeled as “colonialists” on Islamic websites is because history shows the majority of countries targeted were those that had a Muslim population or Islamic heritage. Political events such as the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and occupying its lands, the establishment of Israel in the heart of the Muslim lands, the political, economic and social restructuring of Turkey via Mustapha Kemal, the economic and military aid to Israel, the propping up and supporting the Arab dictators, having military bases around the Middle East, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Philippines and countless others in Muslim lands give the blatant proof of why we term Britain and America as colonialists.

I hope that addresses some of the queries you asked.

A.K.P

Are you really saying that things haven’t changed since colonialist times for the UK? So are you saying British foreign policy is still based around a “colonialist mindset”? Proof of intent?

I think I’ve only seen Britain and America labeled as ‘colonialists’ on Islamic websites. Why is that?

Or do you think that the mindset is unintentional and Miliband didn’t even realise he was doing it?

A.M. (UK)