Well, part of the problem here, right from the get-go, is that you are using "evil" in the simplistic sense, while you are in the context of trying to decide between two different sets of self-organizing principles.
In a practical sense, if that other country exists in isolation from the rest of the world, there are no problems to be had. If it has to interact with a country with very different values, there will be a conflict. The winner of the conflict isn't "good" or "evil", but rather simply determines what sets of values are carried forward.
There are also internal cultural debates over what is good and evil. One of the more interesting ones has huge political implications: there is a set of tribal/family values, and a set of civilization values that more or less work together, but are very much often at odds because they often indicate very different conclusions in various matters. These conclusions are usually resolved by each keeping to its own context, but the contexts always leak out, just as you spoke in terms of a country being evil.
At a very (VERY!) simple level, the tribal/family set of values is organized around "share and share alike", while the civilization values are organized around various notions of private property, which is kind of an antithesis of "share and share alike". The tribal values work well when people know each other and are familiar with each other, but tend to work poorly with strangers. The civilization values are particularly good at dealing with strangers in a peaceful and constructive way, but no one would want to live in a family organized under such principles.
So there is a general tendency to impose the tribal/family values into the civilization context, because the tribal/family values are generally more intuitive, closer to what we think of as morally good and evil, and tend to accuse the civilization values as being evil or broken, because the values around private property don't generally account for being kind and generous. But when one naively tries to implement those tribal values on the scale of a civilization, they often don't work, or work but also have awful unintended consequences. The problem is one of scale: without the familiarity with individuals, the tribal values fail to account for the possibilities that the civilization values do. But we'll never get away from this problematic dynamic of values: human beings evolved around tribes/families, and they're suited to our emotional/moral understandings, but we're now being organized on huge scales of hundreds of millions of strangers.
Anyway, that long ramble was intended to say that I sorta-kinda agree with you, but I sorta-kinda don't. There can be competing sets of values both within a society and external to a society. In my opinion, good and evil don't apply at that level. But if you go to the tribe/family level, you'll see the same sets of good/evil values repeated over and over, differing only w/r to traditions and customs, in all countries/nations. And if you go to the civilization level, you'll see a different set of values consistently in play over and over, differing only in terms of traditions and customs. (Yeah, that's kind of vague, but it's difficult to say precisely without writing a book and citing sources, etc.)