We’re seeing neocons and globalists on the right trying to pose as being something else. Neocons like Bolton are trying to reinvent themselves as phony “nationalists.” They are trying to ape libertarian and nationalist sounding language to push the same old policies.
People who don’t want war with NK are not globalists. Globalists are for confrontation with NK, although they vary in how hard they push it. The anti-globalist position on NK is to withdraw US troops. No one in the globalist establishment is talking about that.
Trump has brought together the anti-globalist right, which was in the wilderness for years, with mindless neocon influenced robots who will vote for any candidate with an R after their name. Those people are picking up language from the now trendy anti-globalization right and using it without understanding it. So we are seeing a lot of confusion.
Two things, globalist position to do nothing is applicable to North Korea and any other far-left nations causing trouble or radical Islamist states causing trouble (they couldn’t apply that to post 9-11 Afghanistan but otherwise have done so).
As for my view about nations not being equal being racist, I assume that was a joke comment but if not, what I mean there has nothing to do with race, the notion that nations are equal (one country, one vote in UNGA) is absurd if one starts from the principle that all humans are equal under the law. Obviously they are not equal in attributes, but under the law, in theory, equal ... but therefore if one nation has 300 million people and another has 300,000 then these nations should not be considered equal on any basis, one has 1,000 times as many equal human residents as the other. Although matters of national sovereignty blur the comparison slightly, the larger country is fairly close to being 1,000 times more significant than the smaller country. Where this rule begins to get asymptotic is towards the upper end, the U.S.A. is basically the equal of China and is not twice as significant as Russia with half the population.
A compromise applied to the U.N. should be something like this — ten votes in the UNGA for the larger nations, and a sliding scale for those with populations below 60 million, which would be flattering for France, Germany and the U.K.
The idea that Antigua and Barbuda is the equal of China or that Swaziland is equal to the United States is just plain ridiculous. And having a voting system in the world’s only international body with legislative power (albeit small relative to national sovereignty) is not just ridiculous, it is dangerous.