Globalization: Friend or Foe, Con or Pro (though not in that order)

After much internal struggle, meditation and the deepest thought in order to find exactly where we fundamentally I realised that my opponent and I have two extremely opposed views.The first opposing view is that I see the best way to avoid war is to prevent is, whereas my opponent prevents to 'cure' it (I shall explain this later).The second opposing view we have is that whilst I see the default state of two countries being non-globalization, my opponent would see it as globalization (I shall go on to explain this later too).The first fundamental issue we have is as follows. Whilst my opponent sees having one government ruling over several states, or nations, as a good way to cure war between the countries I prefer to prevent this even being necessary in the first place. The United States of America were formed far back, when Europeans tore the land of the people who, back then, were termed 'Red Indians' For Christopher Columbus', somewhat bizarre, error of thinking he had reached India because he assumed the entire Caribbean and United States did not exist as a huge chunk of land in between his westward venture from Italy to India. (although back then where he left was technically a region of Spanish rule). They tore apart the natives limb by limb, using the power of the gun against mere sword, arrow and spear. The few native families who escaped and hid developed a tradition of scalping the meant they managed to kill (for example if a man went to urinate in the forest they would be waiting very silently and patiently by trees in camouflage to silently kill him and leave the body behind without a scalp, often scalping him alive and struggling by having men restrain him and cover his mouth (the natives would never hurt women because the native American society is severely matriarchal). My point is that the great and supposed peaceful place you call America has had vile and brutal wars, enslavement of blacks and has indeed stuck its military in regions of the world which would love for it to get lost from (although admittedly the Arab nations seem to have hated them for no reason and now many are allying with American and British troops in the hopes of creating an Arab version of 'democracy' which would simply be a non-violent dictatorship). So all this blood-shed and horror actually originated from the human urge to try and globalize. To intermingle people who want to remain independent and alone. If we are to consider war as bad, then certainly globalization should be viewed as bad also.The second fundamental issue is that the default position of a country to another, according to my opponent, should be to want to engage in globalization with it. According to my opponent, if you are Nigeria and I am Kenya then we should automatically feel the duty to work together and share our resources, intermingle our cultures and impurify our way of life with yours. If ever there is a clash, only then should we pause globalization, and perhaps restrict it to just exporting and importing, which really can't be truly considered the full scale of exporting. According to my opponent if you are China and I am USA then I must demand you to give me all your resources, information, secret research projects and private economic plans for the future because globalization's core philosophy is that information shared is information used well, secrecy between nations and countries is to be seen as bad and a huge offset to the default relation between countries if you see it through my opponent's eyes. I, on the other hand, am quite the opposite. I think that not globalizing should be default and that it should only be done when is essential for government's to work together towards a common goal or opposite, thus complimentary goals (such as one country wanting to export huge quantities of textiles and the other wanting very cheap textile imports). I think globalization should be kept to the minimum and thus the default position of two nations should be, I tell you what I need to and you do the same to me. No obligation to share, to care or to intermingle people and destroy the very reason humans are the dominant species of the planet; variation in both physiques and ways of life.