Yes, as creations of states, IOs are inherently political. But sweeping generalizations like this are inaccurate & unhelpful. We know a lot from a vast literature in political science about how/when the interests of powerful states & bureaucrats do (& don't) affect IO behavior. https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1245897282781876234

For instance, both the financial/geopolitical interests of the IMF's major shareholders & the bureaucratic interests of the IMF staff affect the size & terms of fund loans. But the degree to which loans are "politicized" varies widely across space & time.

https://www.amazon.com/International-Monetary-Fund-Global-Economy/dp/0521143586/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Copelovitch&qid=1585885718&sr=8-2

And we know, as my @UWLaFollette colleague Tana Johnson has shown in her research, that IO bureaucrats - many of whom are skilled people with great integrity - often succeed in insulating themselves from global powers' efforts to politicize organizations: http://www.organizationalprogeny.com/title 

So, while we certainly are in a moment where IOs are under attack - most worryingly, from the global hegemon that led their design & who benefits the most from their continued operation - we're nowhere near back to 1918, and the politics of IOs is quite a bit more complicated.

The global order, and the IOs that comprise it, face many challenges, and there are certainly many strong reasons for pessimism. But there are also good reasons for cautious optimism, despite the many challenges we're facing in the current moment: https://twitter.com/womenalsoknow/status/1187084782276100097?s=20