I think you're confusing the role of domestic regulatory bodies, international governmental bodies, and foreign policy (including, sadly, warfare). If anything, nobody "regulates" most of the places you mention, in large part due to imperialist interventions from the US and NATO. Though it's a bit odd to include the Balkans on that list considering they're still struggling with the breakdown of a dictatorship and subsequent creation of various new states, had a genocidal civil war where the UN proved itself utterly ineffectual in stepping in, etc. International society failed them, true, but the responsibility for what happened isn't on anyone but the people in power there at the time. Vietnam is a reasonably well functioning (if extremely corrupt) one-party state that has done an amazing job at rebuilding after yet another US imperialist shitshow. It's definitely not perfect by any measure, but considering what it went through, it really isn't bad.
But, again, how does this relate to trade regulatory bodies? Yes, those can absolutely be (and very often are) instruments for imperialism, but ... that's not applicable in this case whatsoever. And I utterly and completely fail to see how the fact that the west has generally screwed over, exploited and brutalized the rest of the world for the past few centuries is relevant to whether or not trade regulation is a good thing. Trade regulations can (and do) exist outside of western countries, after all.
It's also pretty naïve to talk detrimentally about "democracy" in relation to US warfare - the US is barely a functioning democracy at all, with its current legislation, governmental practices and power relations being much closer to an oligarchy. That they love to propagandize their imperialist warfare through racist and colonialist ideas of "exporting democracy" and similar BS is just how they try to sell it to the general public. The US drive to war is backed by massive corporations, their owners, and the deeply self-interested US military, and has near zero relation to the more democratically controlled parts of US society. Like, when was the last time an elected US official argued for cutting military spending? They would be buried under a mountain of propaganda and slander and would be pushed out immediately, regardless of actual public opinion.
... let's see:
So, yes: these bodies are too often utterly ineffectual (or even sufficiently corrupt to work against their intended purpose), in no small part thanks to concerted political efforts from pretty much all politicians in the countries with the most global economic power for the past ~60 years (yes, saying it was since Reagan was a bit optimistic - Milton Friedman's lunatic ideas gained traction in the 60s). But, and this is crucial: is the fact that these systems have been broken (not are broken, but have been actively broken, on purpose, by people wanting to do so) an argument against effective regulation? That makes no logical sense - if anything, recent history shows us what happens when you don't have effective regulation. The problem isn't the systems or the intent behind them, the problem is that every single effective measure at their disposal has been systematically dismantled over a period of decades. Deregulation only further entrenches power in the hands of those who already have it. And that power allows them to hijack any alternative system that is invented - crypto becoming an investor darling is an apt illustration of this.
It's uncanny, almost as if that is exactly the point of what I said.
Or maybe because their major shareholders somehow differ from them? I project a bright future for all mankind! Or who knows, maybe I'm just the next run-of-the-mill nutjob? I guess time will tell, eh?
