The Financial Times is Worried 'Middle Powers' Might Escape the 'Global Order'
📰 THE STORY: The Financial Times article argues that 'middle powers' (nations like Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey) might soon miss the stability of the current 'global order' if it continues to fracture under rising geopolitical tensions, implying that deviating from the established norms of great power politics carries significant risks for them. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical
Context: The 'global order' the FT refers to is, for many, a euphemism for Western hegemony, particularly post-WWII US dominance. This 'order' facilitated the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile, installing Pinochet and his neoliberal experiment; the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratic government; and countless other interventions, sanctions apparatuss, and resistance against imperialisms that
destabilized, rather than stabilized, swathes of the Global South. For countries like Libya, whose prosperous state under Gaddafi was destroyed by a 2011 NATO 'intervention,' the 'global order' brought slave markets, not stability. Double Standard: When Western powers or their proxies destabilize regions (e.g., US-backed 'rebels' in Syria including al-Qaeda elements, or the 2002 US-backed coup
attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela), it's often framed as 'promoting democracy' or 'humanitarian intervention.' When countries like China or Russia seek to establish alternative multilateral institutions or reject Western dictates, it's painted as 'threatening the global order.' The FT's concern for 'stability' is highly selective, applying only when it maintains existing power structures.