They're related, though. Most other hegemons sought absolute domination and a weakening (and impoverishment) of everyone else. The US was generally confident in its security and prosperity that it allowed others to become prosperous, too.
Yes this is I think the key thing... the "rising tide raises all boats" strategy. The deal was, if you play by the US rules and let their corporations in, they'll leave you alone or even give you back something useful in return.
Now the rug pull... you've been operating this way for the last 50 years, and suddenly the US is out to extract as much from you as possible no matter how close an ally you are or how friendly to their corporations you are.
I'm tired of the both-sidesing that I see on places like HN to justify the current administration's actions. The US historically didn't shake every country down (even allies!) under the implicit threat of its military might, because global stability and prosperity was good for US business interests.
It did try to overturn unfriendly regimes but it was far less brazen and reckless about this, operating over longer timelines, and the instability caused by those disastrous interventions seemed like it was a lesson learned (but now has clearly been forgotten).
South Korea and Taiwan were definitely not first world countries when they started. Not even inhabited by white people (so less likely to be favored by 60s America, for example).
The Persian Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE).
Israel also wasn't developed in 1947.
Let's not ignore facts when they're inconvenient.
In the Western Hemisphere the US track record has been a total mess but in the Eastern Hemisphere I'd say about 30% of the time US allies tripped on their own feet on the way to prosperity.
Your whole side topic here is an exercise in ignoring the inconvenient facts of murder and destruction in favor of some supposedly rosy alliance narrative.
Yeah I remember elementary school too. Where people don't care if one of the kids is an a*hole because "he's nice to me".
