
The end of internationalism: Are rich nations turning their back on the world? - hooch
http://www.smh.com.au/world/nick-miller-the-end-of-internationalism-20160810-gqpcyj.html
======
3princip
Good. This top-down world governance project needs to be abandoned. It's
hegemony wrapped in a nice package of development aid (and military
interventionism under the surface)

>there is a gap at the global governance level. Who's in charge of that? Where
do you address yourself, you know?

What is it with the international elite, looking down at the world from their
quaint old chateaus and cushy jobs, who believe all the worlds problems will
be solved if someone could give them more money for their advice and add
another layer of government/bureaucracy on top? Why is the ICRC pushing this
agenda?

Stop it, firstly stop the interventionism! Military and economic. Stop bombing
the ME, stop acting holier than thou and imposing this narrow globalist set of
ethics onto the world. Stop trying to grab power and pretend it has some
altruistic component. It's causing chaos.

These problems are not going to be solved by a world government.

Quite contrary to the opinion expressed in the article that Brexit and Trump
are symptoms of a problem, I consider them symptoms of a public trying to stop
these crazy globalist agendas.

~~~
JimmyAustin
What you call a top-down world governance project, I call a expansion in
international co-operation after the disaster that was the first 2 World Wars.

That international cooperation has undoubtable made the world a safer place.
It has seen the expansion of the middle class in BRIC. Between 1981 and 2005,
poverty dropped from 84% to 18% in China, 80% to 42% in India, 17% to 8% in
Brazil. Between 1990 and 2012 the average global life expectancy jumped by a
full 6 years! Hell, if you lived in Liberia, it was 20 years!

Compared to the chaos of the first half of the 20th century (not to mention
parts of the second half), the world is absolutely peaceful and a better place
for just about everyone.

~~~
FussyZeus
To be totally fair though that peace owes a big part of itself to the MAD
concept and the fact that all the strongest nations worldwide have enough
firepower pointed at each other with itchy fingers on the triggers to
annihilate the planet 5 times over.

Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying that the hippies were wrong and we
got a lot further by threatening each other than we ever did holding hands and
singing songs.

~~~
viewer5
Did the major nations of the world ever hold hands and sing songs? Has that
actually been done? I'm not super up on my world history, but I don't remember
that ever being a thing.

~~~
ethbro
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations)

------
chatmasta
It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized
technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda
and top-down international cooperation.

If you believe in the principles of decentralization as they relate to
technology, can you not apply the same axioms to the world?

To me it seems intuitive that the world is better off governed as a web of
many different institutions (nation states) with varying interests, as opposed
to hierarchically under a singular power attempting to coalesce around an
impossible consensus.

Of course, not all the "nodes" (states) are equal, which is why we have
"spheres of influence." Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a
singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar
world that has naturally developed after World War II. You don't see China or
Russia trying to export their hegemony onto the rest of the world, yet the
United States continues its attempts to "export democracy" into areas like the
Middle East. Why not let the Middle East develop into its own pole of power
along with the US (the "West"), Russia, and China (the "East")?

The world would be much better off if the global elites allowed the spheres of
influence to develop naturally and peacefully, without trying to push those in
the middle one way or another. Some cultural differences are simply impossible
to overcome, and any attempt to ameliorate them only ends in violence. One
might argue it's not even in the world's best interest to "overcome" cultural
differences. One of the great tragedies of globalization is the emergence of a
monoculture (go to any club in the world, for example, and you hear only
American music) that could cause people to sleep walk into the control of a
single world power.

~~~
hx87
> It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized
> technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist
> agenda and top-down international cooperation.

You and I must read very different parts of HN, since in every article
concerning globalism, the top comment, or one of the top comments criticizes
globalism.

If there is one phenomena that does permeate HN, it's 2edgy4me contrarianism-
for-the-sake-of-contrarianism, and even that isn't very strong here.

------
gonvaled
The rich nations have exploited the world for hundreds of years. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to exploit resources, since low hanging fruits
are already gone and there is much more concurrence in exploiting; even a
reverse movement in which the developing world is claiming its share in the
world product - even leading to emerging powers.

No wonder the rich world is retracting, there is little to gain and much to
lose: now the strategy is closed borders, strong security policies,
withdrawing from international programs, and fight by proxy with the existing
and upcoming world powers for areas of influence, without being directly
involved in order to avoid the backslash that the increasingly harsh policies
that will be required in order to continue exploiting world resources will
cause.

The rich voter demands from its government only one thing: increase our
standard of living, whatever it takes.

------
coldtea
> _Are rich nations turning their back on the world?_

Compared to the era where they carpet bombed the world, had 2/3 of the global
population as slaves in their colonies, etc?

------
hclivess
Yes, the article comes with a premise that there was no slavery or
exploitation. Only based on the post WWII sentiment.

