Great article--but I don't think the above is true.

They're actually not dependent, for the most part.

They just want the advances that Western technology brings--which was largely due to Western culture embracing rationality in a way that allowed it to understand how reality works via science.

And they don't want to rebuild it themselves from first principles using the collected knowledge of humanity (a process that would take many decades even though a huge portion of the knowledge is easily available), and in some cases they don't want to embrace those aspects of the culture. (Much of the West is itself retreating from some of the key aspects, which will eventually leave the West wanting the advances that Chinese technology brings, or technology from wherever people keep their egos in check enough to continually ask reality, "Hey, does it work like this!", and believe reality when it says, "Haha, nope!")

If you have the willpower to deny yourself jeans and cellphones and and whatnot, focus on education, agriculture, and manufacturing, you can face the rest of the world as an independent equal, probably in three or four generations, unless you're a really tiny country.

But who wants to make that tradeoff? Even China, who arguably did it more than anyone else, shortcut the process tremendously by not only developing internal capabilities at a frenetic pace (once they took off the Cultural Revolution handcuffs) but also engaging heavily with the West to accelerate the development of their manufacturing, technological, and educational capabilities.

So you have to make a more sophisticated argument to hold a position like this. If people are free to associate as they will, and people choose to associate with the West because they want a better life, it's not up to Western countries to let them in just because seeing other people have what you view as a better life makes you want a better life, too.

If you were going to try to continue to hold this position, you would need to argue that the globalization that has helped Western countries achieve a seemingly-desirable standard of living has come at the expense of the rest of the world, due to the power imbalances, and that compensation is due to the people of the rest of the world for those historically unjust actions. That's the start of a good case, but I don't see how to tie it from there to "hey, Europe must be for everyone, not just Europeans, even if Europeans want to keep it European" as opposed to any other alternative (e.g. Western countries have an obligation to invest in modernization of other countries where the economic advantage goes to those countries, not the sources of capital in the West).

Fundamentally, I think the issue is deeper: are groups of people allowed to exclude others even if they manage to build nice things for themselves that others want? Under what circumstances? I don't think we have a clear answer as a society (or species, for that matter) as to what the set of "right" answers might be. People should be able to live where they wish--that makes sense. Also, people should be able to reap the rewards of long-term sacrifices they make to improve their community--that too makes sense. Put both together, though, and people who sacrifice can end up rewarding those who move in to take advantage of the benefits--which seems not right.