> So much like we allow children time to learn in school before we expect them to compete in the job market, we should allow developing countries to employ protectionistic policies
This sounds a bit paternalistic and condescending. I guess that first and foremost the "first world" should stop financing horrible dictatorships and wars in the ex-colonies. That would be a good, honest start.
When you do that and even take down the dictator (Gadafi), you end up with a worse government, or no government at all. We can all agree Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator supported by the US, look at Iraq now, is it better off without Saddam?
There is no clear cut, and it seems like whatever the west is doing or abstaining from doing it's going to attract hate. We all hate that the Saudis are free to be horrible, but what is the alternative? A new Iraq?
What if you just let them be, you might say? Then you end up with 8 year long wars like Iran-Iraq. Or with genocide like in Yugoslavia in the 90s.
I think we can all agree China is a horrible dictatorship, how exactly can we stop financing it, since we rely so much on their factories?
> We all hate that the Saudis are free to be horrible, but what is the alternative? A new Iraq?
That's a false dichotomy. I think that many people who oppose the war in Yemen would settle for an end to military support and arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and possibly other economic sanctions.
Whether that would lead to a positive outcome for Yemen, though, is another question, and highlights your point about the problems of abstaining.
This sounds a bit paternalistic and condescending. I guess that first and foremost the "first world" should stop financing horrible dictatorships and wars in the ex-colonies. That would be a good, honest start.