It is western liberal democracies that try to broker peace and profitable trade. Mantain a glabl order.
The rest is anarchy.
It was the British - a "western liberal democracy" - that broke up India along religious and ethnic lines, causing decades of bitter conflict. That's not exactly "broker[ing] peace and profitable trade".
Of course, we could write this off as an error of judgement; An unexpected consequence of a well meaning act.
If they hadn't done the exact same thing in Ireland. And in Palestine.
Western liberal democracies are keen on peace, prosperity and free trade
in western liberal democracies. Elsewhere, not so much. The British Empire was about getting as much as possible from the colonies for as little as possible in return; And if the people living there didn't like it, well, that's what the Royal Navy was for.
When British Naval (and French, German, Belgian, and Dutch Military) power was sapped by the destruction of WWII, the colonial powers had no option but to allow the colonies their independence. They didn't have to give them a good start though - indeed, strife and conflict was deliberately engendered, to minimise the risk of any new powers (military or economic) arising that might challenge the interests of the colonial nations.
The conclusion that anarchy is endemic to post colonial culture is exactly the one the colonial powers wanted to present. Ethnic, tribal, religion, and race based conflicts were deliberately provoked, just so the colonials could say "See! We told you they couldn't manage without us!".
And you have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.
Insofar as developing world (and for that matter, Middle Eastern) cultures are incapable of peace, order, rule of law, and democracy, they are like that because they were deliberately made to be that way - by the very "Western liberal democracies" you hold in such unjustified esteem.
Sindoor (Vermillion) that married Hindu women adorn the hair-parting with.
