Is globalization in retreat as a social force toward world peace and prosperity?

Today, we are witnessing a profound re-examination of the principle undergirding our commitment to the integration of all peoples as bona fide exemplars of the human race.  Whether one lives in Africa or in the United Kingdom, each of us is committed to loving one another; and if not loving, at least respecting. one another.  ( In Christian terms, we are to love one another even as God so loved the entire world that He gave His only begotten Son for mankind's sake.)

Indeed, the Globalization-movement itself is divided--to my mind, split in two over the question of what nation should be designated  to lead into the future.  1)  There is the view every now and then that a new nation should be chosen; and built to become the leader in trade.  2)  And then there's the view that the United States should continue as the leader to promote trading organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, that identifies members to conform to accepted accounting practices to keep the books among the trading partners and to promote free trade among its members.

From the Middle Ages, when trade was expanded internationally, certain states with a naval flotilla was designated by trade and commerce financiers as the dominant nation promoting trade world-wide:  The Netherlands, England, now the United States.  While promoting commerce, these great powers also have encouraged cultural exchanges and argued for racial and national respect among those following their lead.

Of those who hold to View 1, China has usually been thought to be the next successor in trading dominance.  While the United States has been unofficially singled out as the leader in the free world, time and again it has been described as lapsing from its calling to be an advocate for free trade.  To be sure, all nations have reservations in endorsing such a concept when they find it necessary to protect some home industry, e.g., France to permit large import duties on foreign wines.

Those of View 1, also see financial advantage in building up a country through increased trade and building excessive military strength to enforce the organization's power over international trading lanes.