I think the analogy to torture is a little bit stretched but there's nothing controversial about the underlying facts. 1) there is a consensus among the global

I think the analogy to torture is a little bit stretched but there's nothing controversial about the underlying facts. 1) there is a consensus among the global business elite, and some of the government elite, about how things ought to be run: Western-style democracy with the flow of goods and capital as unrestricted as possible. 1b) Partially this is self-interest, and partially it's a belief in a near-Randian libertarianism that has become dogma in the American right, despite it never having been really tried. (Because they can't get their agenda implemented in stable democracies). In this philosophy, government is a parasite that first feeds off of, and then strangles, the true activity of free people: business. 2) But almost no country believes in doctrinaire free markets, especially poor ones struggling to develop a mixed economy. 3) When great crises arise, these government and business elites are needed to funnel money and talent. They use the opportunity to advance their agenda. 3b) In certain cases, they don't mind making crises, and will even make them worse, in the belief that the world will then reorder itself to the state they deem to be natural and good, where markets rule. The extreme version of this is Iraq, where planners seemed less concerned about providing stability than free markets. An even more insidious form: see the documentary "Our Brand is Crisis". You will see American consultants considered to be left-wing, like James Carville, manipulating a crisis in a Third World country to elect a leader whose faith in the market is not shared by the public. This is all caused by people who are good and nice and believe they are helping the countries involved. No conspiracy theory required.