Since the seventies of the last century no great Western power has aspired to rule all the countries it controls directly. The imperial overstretch so well described by the historian Kennedy has taught the Western powers a new form of colonialism, one that rules by contracts and indirect rule through local powers. But how much does the stick of the military rule alongside this carrot of economic and political dependency?

When describing neocolonialism there are the USA and Europe. The USA used to have only one colony: the Philippians, while the major powers in Europe had colonies in every part of the world. The European countries with former colonies often rely on their contacts with these former colonies to have control in their respected areas. A prime example of this is the Common Wealth lead by Great Britain. The USA uses these old contacts, by keeping a good partnership with old colonizers like Great Britain, but relies mostly on its own network of bases and alliances. Behind the neocolonialism of the USA there is the Pentagonian philosophy of relying on the words of Clausewitz; that war is 'the continuation of policy by other means'. Everywhere where there are policies of the USA, the US Army must from this point of view be able to continue these policies with 'other means'.

The USA can uphold its bases thanks to the alliances it has with the countries where those bases are. For instance Turkey, which is supplied with weapons by the USA and also always can rely on a certain amount of positive attitude from the USA towards its policies. If a country without US bases supports the USA in its ongoing policies, then it will also get support. Like Pakistan, which got support for its nuclear weapons program, after guaranteeing support for the American war on terror. Opposite to these friendly gestures are the negative diplomatic and economic policies the USA can introduce if a country doesn't help its policies, like it did towards France under Chirac.

European countries can not deploy this costly policy of bases, because they simply don't have the economical or political power to do so. The European Union does try to build up an European army, which would be mobile enough to be able to support European policies globally. But because of internal strife between European countries, this is not yet possible.

Like with old colonialism, neocolonialism isn't only an economic and military policy. The attitudes of the people involved make it possible for the power structures to work the way they do. The 'white mans burden' is essential for neocolonialism as a guideline to suppress the new colonies, so they can develop themselves as supportive states for the colonizer. As the 'white man' the Western power takes on the burden of being the father (military and economical might) and mother (foreign aid) figure, while the colony is the child who should be taught to fulfill the role of loyal subordinate and end up as the weak female partner of the strong male West.