[cousin_it]

The author of this critique seems to think that this amounts to "Colonialism", and would be another example of powerful Western nations taking advantage of weaker third world countries.

No, you've read it all wrong. Actually the critique argues that cononialism worked well and was a good arrangement for all involved. It also argues that the plan can't work today because it would constitute a threat to both the host regime (unflattering comparison, brain drain, etc.) and to current Western ideology (because colonies would demonstrably work better than native-run democracy) - not because the plan is morally bad and thus somehow unworkable. I pretty much agree with this analysis.