Is there any difference between the USA slavery and current US foreign policy?

I find no difference between historical slavery in the USA and the current US foreign policy. The idea of slavery is based on the absolute superiority of white men over other human species (even white women). This presumption led to the possibility to treat them like animals. The idea behind the superiority of the US over other countries is based on the same presumption - the long-term US experience shows that other people do not deserve any compassion.  Actually, this compassion exists in the reverse order of their other countries possibility to harm the USA.

In this sense I do not understand why people in the developed countries outside the US protest against slavery, not against the USA, which considers them as serfs. The only reason I can see behind such behavior is that all developed countries consider less developed countries as slaves. This is a long term tradition and to blame historical slavery is easier than the current suppression (nonequivalent exchange).

Instructively, the countries outside the well-known slavery-involved club (remarkably this the club of the most developed countries and their fortress-bank-countries) do not follow the protests against slavery. They have no guilt feeling and can blame only slavery beneficiaries, i.e. the USA, the UK, Japan, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, The Kingdom of Netherlands, etc. However, some US satellites have the slave-master relationships in a different incarnation: subsidies from the EU or trade agreement with the USA  still rule this world and blaming the slavery beneficiaries is risky for their subsidies. The satellite opinion means nothing - these countries are like slaves.

A few countries are free from the slavery guilt and subordinate bonds. These countries can blame the historical slavery beneficiaries and the current US foreign policy considering others like slaves. Why don't they do that?