Kim James 
Based on what we see going on in and to the world, and no matter the tremendous signs and symptoms we examine into the G20 Summit in Osaka, we can say we have reached a brand new crossroad in history, wherein the global network faces a set of “to be or no longer to be” dilemmas, which has far-attaining implications. The real issues or contradictions of the world are not among civilizations, opposite to what some humans claim. Yet, we will use a cultural angle to investigate the demanding situations going through the world and sell inter-civilization dialogue to guide human development globally.
But being a journalist, I’d prefer to ask, in preference to answer, questions:
Question No 1: Should the sector thrive as a worldwide village or retreat into islands of isolation?
The query is whether or not we can undo the inter-dependency constructed by a few of the economies internationally over the past centuries. At the instant, there are indeed humans, albeit a minimal number, attempting hard to halt the momentum of monetary globalization and disrupt the worldwide department of exertions. They even visit the volume of advocating the decoupling of the world’s largest economies. Such efforts, absolute confidence, will show a workout in futility or, worst, foolishness.
Globalization is in keeping with the pursuits of all.
As a result of globalization, maximum contemporary products of the world are effects of worldwide industrial collaboration. The market performs a decisive role in allocating sources and capital correctly, making it possible for human beings international to revel in great commodities and services at lower priced charges. To say globalization is in keeping with the hobbies of all parties is to the country the apparent, regardless of the reality that evolved economies that are perched on the top of the fee chain gain most from the method.
Some problems have come along with globalization, the growing wealth gap for one, and it makes feel to improve the global governance device to be more open, inclusive, balanced, and equal so that extra human beings can experience globalization. But it’s miles ridiculous to give up ingesting for worry of choking. Trying to dismantle the globalized economic machine-to overthrow all monetary and trade theories due to Adam Smith and David Ricardo-is, not anything but a fool’s errand. It is not possible to artificially sever the flows of capital, technology, commodities, and abilties, and for the sea of the world economic system to recede into isolated lakes and rivers, to borrow an analogy from President Xi Jinping’s speech at a global financial discussion board in St. Petersburg, Russia, final month.
Question No 2: Should we embody a shared future or revert to the law of the jungle?
In 1966, in a piece of writing titled “Why Is There No International Theory,” British student Martin Wight expressed dissatisfaction with short-sighted realism and is known for a profound historical vision. In the conventional feel, global politics is a theory of survival, and worldwide, family members these days aren’t plenty exclusive from the ones of the past. Zero-sum is the call of the game. It’s corresponding to the belief of “you lose, I win,” or “you die, I live.”
But the arena has undergone dramatic changes given Wight’s time and his inquiry. As we’ve discussed above, the fundamental distinction lies within the ever-increasing inter-dependency of some of the global gamers and, due to that, the rising de facto community of hobbies, wherein egocentric pastimes of nations are interwoven, interrelated, and feature inter-merged.
