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)<p>>there is a gap at the global governance level. Who's in charge of that? Where do you address yourself, you know?<p>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?<p>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.<p>These problems are not going to be solved by a world government.<p>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.
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.<p>If you believe in the principles of decentralization as they relate to technology, can you not apply the same axioms to the world?<p>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.<p>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")?<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>The rich voter demands from its government only one thing: increase our standard of living, whatever it takes.
><i>Are rich nations turning their back on the world?</i><p>Compared to the era where they carpet bombed the world, had 2/3 of the global population as slaves in their colonies, etc?