Now firstly it is important to define Internationalism since commonly it is divided into three different major categories.
1] Hegemonic Internationalism example: Globalization [Colonization]. Main player: USA.
2] Liberal Internationalism example: United Nations. Main player: Everyone else.
3] Revolutionary Internationalism example: Communism. Main player: China.
Now there are many subcategories, but these are essentially a good starting point for discussion and no doubt argument.
As a democratic socialist my focus is around “liberal” Internationalism, I intentionally use a small “l” to avoid any association with authoritarian communism. I actually prefer the term One World Internationalism. I joined the Peace Corps in Chad and Niger and my work has taken me to a number of different countries both “free” and “not” and once culture shock is overcome I found most people worry about the same damn things, but to different levels of exigency.
Hegemonic and revolutionary internationalism are polar opposites and lead to conflict in one form or another they directly conflict with the ideals that lead to the formation of the United Nations. They also only “function” when the problems are local (regional) not global e.g. climate change, pollution, mass extinction and pandemics. The vaccine rollout and the “me first” attitude a prime example that ignores how viruses actually work (mutation).
Both hegemonic and revolutionary internationalism have interests in handicapping the United Nations and then complain incessantly about its intentional malfunction. Rather to try and repair its inadequacies it’s more profitable to exaggerate them.
Nativism and nationalism are the weapons of both hegemonic and revolutionary internationalism, you only have to listen to the propaganda and cringe, both are rising internationally and reduce any chance of combatting the global problems we all face. In other words “united we stand, divided we fall” in its most existential meaning.
Just a thought.