Well, i would think that the proper discussion of such issues would be in negotiation between those nations. I personally consider "blame" in matters which are sufficiently far in the past is meaningless. Certainly it might often be in the national economic interest of the Brits and the French, but the local governments can tell them to p*ss off if they wish. I rather think the French interventions in central Africa, and the Brits in Sierra Leone were welcomed, given the chaos which reigned there. Additionally, whereas past interventions were often predicated upon protecting citizens of those nations, current interventions usually have to do with restoring stability to those nations. In the particular case of central Africa, there is no great economic benefit for France, so i think to cynically dismiss (and i do not contend that you are doing this) their intervention as serving their national interest is unfounded. The Brits have had no crucial interests in Freetown since the Second World War, when a base in Sierra Leone was crucial, given the threat which the Italians and later the Germans posed to the Suez canal, and the impossibility in the early stages of the war of sending merchant ships through the Mediterranean.
All in all, i think those two nations, at least, have shown commendable responsibility in their dealings with their former colonies.
