After the conclusion of the Second World War and Hitler’s defeat, the international community convened in Bretton Woods to formulate a comprehensive political and economic strategy for the future. Exhausted from the ravages of war, political leaders sought to prevent further conflicts, eradicate fascism, and establish a unified monetary system, as the war had left Europe in ruins.

At Bretton Woods, representatives from forty-four countries came together, prepared to collaborate on a joint monetary system that positioned the US dollar as the primary currency

World War II not only claimed countless lives but also devastated the economies of American and European capitals, necessitating significant stimuli to rejuvenate them. Except for a few nations, the world stood united against the challenges of discontented leaders. At Bretton Woods, representatives from forty-four countries came together, prepared to collaborate on a joint monetary system that positioned the US dollar as the primary currency. This unified trade and commerce framework was designed to be robust, with oversight from institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Concurrently, other political and diplomatic entities, such as the United Nations, the Security Council, and UNICEF, were established to guide global foreign policy.

Economists forecasted that this monetary system would foster financial growth and stability, enhancing international trade competitiveness. The middle and working classes were expected to emerge as stronger communities, facilitating social mobility.

Subsequently, the Reagan and Thatcher era emerged, marked by sweeping economic reforms ranging from free trade initiatives to the nationalization of monetary institutions. Trade liberalisation expanded its reach, including opportunities for underdeveloped countries.

Many South American and South Asia countries have found their workforce in developed nations, leading to significant remittances and economic growth. In addition to adopting democratic models, underdeveloped countries embraced regulatory tax revenues and free trade, creating an interdependent economic system. This interconnectedness was so profound that a mere sneeze from the US could trigger a global pandemic like COVID-19.

Many politicians raised an alarm that they are losing their job sectors to outsiders or immigrants, which needs to be fixed by drastic native-led economic policies

There was a significant economic shift in developed countries. They essentially became reliant on outsourcing as a manufacturing mechanism. Southeast Asia evolved into a manufacturing hub due to its inexpensive labour, while the West concentrated on heavy industries and the service sector. This arrangement proved effective for several decades; however, the job market in the West began to decline. According to economic experts, a cheap workforce outside the West was employed in industries, which led to an imbalance in the Western world. Many politicians raised an alarm that they are losing their job sectors to outsiders or immigrants, which needs to be fixed by drastic native-led economic policies.

Simultaneously, another issue began to emerge. Initially, robust economies and institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank supported weaker economies. However, the stringent tax systems implemented soon became burdensome for ordinary citizens, leading to unrest among the working class. This discontent sparked a demand for more people-centric economic policies. Rather than prioritising financial improvement, political leaders resorted to extreme measures, resulting in a rise in populism that has significantly impacted strong economies more than weaker ones.

The United States and its allies overstepped their bounds, adopting a role akin to that of police officers and attempting to rectify the situations in nations they deemed belligerent

The establishment of international dialogues aimed at addressing conflicts and wars represented a significant advancement in maintaining checks and balances against bullying and authoritarian regimes. However, the United States and its allies overstepped their bounds, adopting a role akin to that of police officers and attempting to rectify the situations in nations they deemed belligerent.

Over the decades, this self-proclaimed moral authority became mired in regime changes and invasions, particularly in the Middle East. The consequences have been devastating, leading to the destruction of countries from Iraq to Libya, and this cycle of turmoil appears to be unending.

This led to a critical question: was the narrative of globalization crafted to deceive the world?

Economic globalization and the political invasions were unparalleled. Suspicion bred confusion and chaos in the developing world, leading to widespread questioning of the West’s intentions. Harvard professor Theodore Levitt introduced the concept of globalization in international trade, politics, and diplomacy through his influential 1983 article, which governments around the globe widely embraced. As certain Western countries enacted new immigration policies, the true essence of globalization became obscured in the markets. This led to a critical question: was the narrative of globalization crafted to deceive the world?

The intertwining of diplomacy and economics became so entrenched that it became commonplace to accept and protect dictators, populists, and fascist regimes. One could describe these policies as a controlling mechanism employed by the developed West over the undeveloped world, keeping them subservient.

When invasions and regime changes led to chaos in Africa and the Middle East, millions of refugees embarked on perilous journeys to reach the West. In response to this influx, Western nations began to close their borders, enacting strict immigration laws and deporting thousands back to their home countries. This trend escalated, with many politicians adopting radical stances and launching campaigns against ethnic immigrants, particularly Muslims, who were already fleeing persecution from their home regimes.

Brexit marked the beginning of a strategy to de-globalize, as countries like France and Hungary also began to shut their doors.

The US president has even gone so far as to suggest that Gazans leave their homes to make way for a tourist resort, all while the atrocities are broadcast live

The United States and its ally Israel have flouted international laws and institutions while engaging in acts of genocide in Gaza. Despite numerous UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, the violence continues unabated, with innocent children and women being killed, maimed, and displaced. The US president has even gone so far as to suggest that Gazans leave their homes to make way for a tourist resort, all while the atrocities are broadcast live.

As the world witnesses ethnic cleansing, it is simultaneously experiencing ethnic flooding across various regions, from the Arab world to Asia. We find ourselves in a reality where some liberal democracies are transforming into fascist regimes, with those in power resorting to increasingly extreme measures to suppress dissenting voices. Who will intervene? Europe? China? The Arab world? All are grappling with the shock and awe of these developments.

The ongoing tariff and trade war between the United States and the rest of the world has caused millions to experience sleepless nights.

The abrupt collapse of international political, economic, and diplomatic institutions is perceived as a wild horse unleashed upon the world, trampling everything in its path.

At the very least, these countries should adopt a policy of non-intervention, which could serve as a prerequisite for accepting the extreme measures imposed by the developed West

Can we conclude that the model of Western democracy has also failed, much like many past philosophies, from socialism to secularism? Are we prepared to acknowledge that the vanguard of globalization is reversing its policies and that de-globalization has begun in the developed world? Yet, can we expect these nations to cease their invasions and regime changes in countries they are now barring entry? At the very least, these countries should adopt a policy of non-intervention, which could serve as a prerequisite for accepting the extreme measures imposed by the developed West.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.