[oldE]

But the origional question has some validity. There is resentment in the population of any region whose affairs are dominated by another. Whether it be a town, region or country. There is a strong faction in Quebec which seeks soverignty from Canada. (To the point where a PQ member of Parliament refused to provide Canadian Flags for a branch of the Legion in his riding.) Some people in Cape Breton Island (the North Eastern part of Nova Scotia) feel they would prosper if they were governed from Sydney rather than Halifax.
Yes, there are people in the Middle East, Far East and Central America who resent(ed) the presence of the United States of America in their affairs. The phrase G*dd*mned Yankees did not come out of Iraq, but out of the South in the American Civil War.
It has been deemed "in the interests" of the USA to support governments (or oppose them) in several regions either for economic or political reasons. If you substitute "to the advantage " for "in the interests", it might give you an idea how the locals feel about it.
People around the Mediterranean did not take kindly to "Pax Romana", even though many may have prospered from it. The Phillipean reaction to the USA liberating them from the Spanish in part led to the adoption of the Colt 45 as the sidearm for the US Army. The Vietnamese didn't want the French any more than they wanted Americans on their soil. Ditto for the people of the Congo and the Belgians. The Indians couldn't wait to get rid of the British (although they waited longer than the 13 Colonies).
By the same token, every time there is a municipal amalgamation, people in the outlying regions say" they don't know a thing about us in the city" and take every opportunity to proclaim their differences from the rest of the region.
You can wrap it up in better living conditions, more money and jobs, but if you interfere with the self-determination of people, you risk being a target. That is why there was a different feeling for the US soldier after Vietnam as opposed to VE day in 1945. In Southeast Asia, the USA was supplanting an outside power structure. In Europe, it was removing one.
It seems the domination by nation states in some cases has been replaced in part by the interests of corporations. Would the British have been interested in the far East if it had another place where tea and spices were available? The term Banana Republic did not come into use because of the shape of the territories. Britain was not in Egypt in the late 19th century and first half of the 20th because they liked the pyramids. The situation in the Panama Canal zone was similar. Would the USA be so concerned about the fate of the Middle East if there was no oil beneath the arid soil?
I don't know what the answer is, but if you are going to have a strong influence in the affairs of another, there will be resentment.
Les