But the beneficiaries of this New Man's Burden did not appreciate it and liked the Old Man better. So they overthrew the regime that had allowed these things, which led to the big neighbor going in on the official invitation of its new neighbor to restore justice for its economic interests. This repeated itself for a while and eventually the locals became just irritated enough to try for something completely different. So a group of armed gangsters rose up against one evil overlord and replaced him with another one. And the big country reacted with a frightened yelp that was followed by a blundering invasion that permanently soured relationships between the regions in question in ways that led to directly motivated terrorism by the small country aimed at the interests of the big one.
What is this referencing?
The United States' relationship with the former Spanish province called Cuba, the Teller Amendment, and the revolving door invasions and US backed coups and countercoups that produced Castro, the Bay of Pigs, and Cuban foreign adventurism during the Cold War.
One of the greatest problems IMHO with democracy has always been that democracy has been treated on a 'this is for me but not for thee' basis. If, however, democracies do not in fact allow democracy to exist in other parts of the world in the fear that their interests might not receive respect, does democracy have meaning as a concept? In my opinion I would say that only insofar as democracies adhere to their ideals outside their territorial boundaries, regardless of the price their interests might potentially pay, does democracy have a meaning as a force in geopolitical terms instead of as a buzzword for 'cough up the dough or else.'