I would say your argument necessarily assumes that American hegemony has been a net good for the Global South, when in fact it has not. Foreign aid and development funds have created incremental progress in vital areas such as treatment for certain infectious diseases and emancipation of women globally (which is important; I’m not arguing that it’s ALL bad), but the countries on the receiving end of those funds have unequivocally stated that they’d rather engage with the West as equal partners in trade and economic integration rather than be subject to asymmetrical policies that only perpetuate their status as cheap wells of natural resources and labor. The fact that the current Administration is rescinding that aid without considering the repurcussions gives immense weight to their arguments, in my opinion.
I think an unrecognized issue is that Pax Americana was good for living standards in the West, but its implementation necessitated the creation of an underclass to subsidize that growth; much in the same way that domestically, we have an underclass of wage-earners, incarcerated laborers, and immigrants that subsidizes the outsized wealth of a few individuals. I think, given the circumstances, it’s not unreasonable that people living in the periphery would rather take ANY change than continue living under the boot of American neoliberal economic ideology.
While the devil you know could possibly be better than the one you don’t, the world is ripe for a transformation that recognizes the shortcomings of the West. Without having that conversation, I don’t see how you can expect people to sign in to the notion America should remain at the top of the international order. The argument that ‘it could be so much worse’ is actually quite condescending.
Depending on who wins the next presidential election in Colombia: either hunting down drug cartels or invading Venezuela.