Abstract

Globalization is a notion with wide use, but also with multiple meanings. Globalization has not only become one of the most fashionable words for academia, politicians, businessmen, but also for any participant in the spectacle of human transformation. For the latter, globalization is something that fills their lives for better or worse, especially for bad. It comes from somewhere, it is not known where, and it acts relentlessly, especially when the problem arises that some, usually most, tighten their belts and accept new sacrifices. In themselves, they wonder and want to know who produces it, for what and for whom, in whose name it occurs and why it intervenes in all discussions that justify the decisions that are made over their heads and especially against them. In this regard, the authors have inserted some definitions of globalization, as justifications for supporting or rejecting globalization. Globalization is a legal process of social development, being linked to progress, economic competitiveness and market liberalization. The spearhead of globalization has always been argued by economic reasons, augmented by market interests. The development and diversification of globalization during the Cold War have been supported by the multiple applications in the field of production, sales and consumption of scientific discoveries.

Keywords
globalization, deglobalization, reglobalization, progress, effects
                                          

Introduction
       
Economic progress has massively influenced market demands. The Cold War specific globalization was possible due to the emergence and consolidation of the institutions functioning with an international vocation. The most representative were briefly developed throughout the chapter. The political foundations of the world order specific to the Cold War derive from the political coexistence of two major ideologies, capitalist and communist; they have created international institutions meant to serve the general development, to facilitate the requirements of globalization, but also to ensure the victory of the general principles of social organization. By major political consensus, United Nations Charter, Declaration of the Unated Nations General Assembly on International Law on Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States, in accordance with United Nations Charter – Resolution 2625 of 26st October 1970, Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1975, as well as numerous other decisions of the United Nations General Assembly created the legal infrastructure on which the forms of globalization required by market laws expanded and diversified. Globalization has asserted itself to the extent that the police factor has upheld the following principles of international life: Failure to intervene in matters within the national competence of a state. Peaceful settlement of international disputes. Giving up force and threatening to use force in international relations. The right of peoples to decide their own destinies, equal rights of states, cultivating good interstate neighborhood, observance in good faith of the obligations assumed, sovereignty and independence of states. Globalization – as an expression of the post-Cold War world order, was intended to be promoted by a single great power, followed with obedience by the other countries that formed the winning coalition. A process in which the United States of America, based on the declared exceptionalism, became the supreme referee, ready to order and defend the rules of the game designed by it to all competitors. The United States has claimed this right by virtue of the victory in the Cold War, a right without legitimacy, since some of the United States actions have not been accepted either by existing international entities or by some countries belonging to the Euro-Atlantic current. The illusion of a single world power assumed by the United States of America was called into question on July 1st, 2005, by the public declaration of two member states of the Security Council, the Russian Federation and China, but also by countries that not many years ago formed the bloc, capitalist countries. Of course, a world – with its processes of globalization – completely devoid of threats is relatively utopian; but a world that effectively manages threats to the processes of globalization is, of course, desirable. This objective can be achieved through the continuous improvement of international political mechanisms for the harmonization of major state interests. The evolution of the concept of globalization was dominated by the two great political currents of the Cold War: capitalism and communism. Both political currents had an idealistic essence that stemmed from the belief that the flame of supporting one’s own intimate processes represents “principled realism.” However, the spearhead of globalization processes was not related to political interests, but to market interests, technological research, purchasing and consumption behavior stimulated by market interests. The victory in the Cold War left the vehicle of globalization with a single speed, and this was not adapted to the new requirements of the future. This time the “power of force”, which stemmed from the bloc’s policy, found itself increasingly challenged by the “power of law”, a kind of mirage of the world to come. As such, we appreciate that globalization has entered a process of theoretical and methodological clarifications, which seems to bring a new stage of globalization, based on a political foundation of participatory international political management, supporting a logic of extensive interstate cooperation. The reinvention of globalization is already related to the reinvention of the global order through documents of universal character, legally binding, both in the definition of humanitarian interference and preventive actions, in correlation with state sovereignty. The optimistic note was a future of peace and prosperity for all, not through force, but through stronger cooperation within the United Nations. The international community as a whole hoped that, naturally, an era of confrontation would be followed by an era of cooperation, and that the bipolar system would be replaced by a multipolar one, enshrined in international law defended by international bodies. As an expression of the general legitimacy of social development, globalization is an ongoing process. He can stagnate, but he cannot be stopped. As such, we believe that the current globalization is not going through a period of deglobalization but, on the contrary, of re-globalization. However, globalization requires political will to redefine the international political framework on the basis of newly established principles of international law. It all has to start with redefining “good” in international relations. Deglobalization or anti-globalization are theoretical approaches, and not only, of those who defy the laws of social development through self-isolation and autarchic illusions. The world expects the current countries engaged in hegemonic efforts to become promoters of peace, international security and peaceful coexistence, fundamental landmarks in the management of international tensions of any kind.

The key issue of the future is when countries with the current hegemonic inclination will return to involvement in the leadership of the world edifice, with a convincing vision of a global community of shared interests, as a fundamental condition of global stability. Countries with a hegemonic appetite will feel the need to transform current hegemonic approaches into interstate management based on shared beliefs. An international community based on shared interests does not presuppose a world government, it does not presuppose a nation of global governance, but a common governance generated by behavioral consensus. Broad and institutionalized international cooperation, as a hotbed of globalization, excludes any unilateral trade barriers, any distortion of political, economic and any other predictability. Political globalization, based on a constitution of globalization, has as its central axis general harmony. This process is now slowed down, but it must be developed and encouraged, necessarily institutionalized, in order to promote the common destiny of mankind.

Globalization through Political Coexistence and Economic Competitiveness

Lately, it is estimated that some words have become very common. With their help, different people often try to explain situations and states that are only relatively suggested and less explicit. From this perspective, globalization is a notion that fits into everyday use, having a lot of meanings.

According to Zigmunt Bauman, “The word globalization is on everyone’s lips; a marota quickly became a slogan, a magical incantation, a passport capable of opening the gates of all present and future mysteries. For some, globalization is something we must achieve if we are to be happy; according to others, the source of our unhappiness lies precisely in globalization. It is certain, however, for everyone that globalization is the relentless destiny to which the world is heading, an irreversible process that affects us all, equally and in the same way.” ( Bauman & Zigmunt, 1999).

Undoubtedly, the history of mankind is the history of the evolution of the trinomial of space, speed and time. Large and small social events are the cause and effect of combining the three components of the equation of social becoming. In this context, globalization has not only become one of the most fashionable words for academia, politicians, businessmen, but also for any participant in the spectacle of human transformation.

For the latter ones, globalization is something that fills their lives for better or worse, especially for bad. It comes from somewhere, it is not known where, and it acts relentlessly, especially when the problem arises that some, usually most, tighten their belts and accept new sacrifices. In themselves, they wonder and want to know who produces it, for what and for whom, in whose name it occurs and why it intervenes in all discussions that justify the decisions that are made over their heads and especially against them.

Globalization has become ubiquitous; for some it is synonymous with general progress, while for others it has become a real scapegoat, being the cause of everything that goes wrong in the world, especially in areas where poverty is spreading. From now on, economic and financial crises are caused by globalization. They are no longer linked to human actions, speculative capital and governments, crises and failures are generated by globalization.

Some governments blame globalization for the loss of national sovereignty, others justify their political actions to relinquish national sovereignty by integrating into supranational entities, on the grounds that local power is shrinking in the face of the confusing growth of financial market influences and supranational structures. For many political leaders, globalization is to be blamed for drastically reducing the number of jobs, increasing social inequality, and working conditions wearing the cloak of sadism. Many people, if they cannot fight globalization, carry out virulent attacks on the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the G7 + 1 Group, so on, but their actions are becoming more chaotic and destructured. On the other hand, there are many politicians and economists who defend the processes of globalization, but question the practical way in which some world bodies and developed countries have acted in imposing the requirements of globalization. Although the affected peoples were presented as actions to raise the standard of living, attempts to impose total freedom of movement of capital in developing countries, given the lack of institutions capable of managing huge financial flows, had as a consequence, financial crises broke out, followed by deepening poverty and general dissatisfaction. Thus, in many developing countries in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America, people’s hopes for a better life, through the global policies of some world institutions, have crumbled. They find that they live either worse than before or the same, and at the same time they are powerless in the face of the overwhelming advance of globalization, which becomes ubiquitous, by twinning local power with globalizing power, everywhere and in all areas of social activity. Against this background, many voices have been heard that, in principle, are not against globalization, but are categorically opposed to the way in which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have exported globalization to many developing countries, in which, through engineers followed by acts of corruption, the original beneficent purposes were misappropriated. At the same time, many theorists and organizers of socio-economic practice are on the side of those who argue that, overall, globalization has positive effects on the world’s population, through its social convergence, being convinced that both costs and benefits will not be uniform, some will be more won, others will be at a loss, but it is hoped that most will be satisfied. These point of views are based on the belief that globalization is the undoubted bearer of high efficiency and productivity requirements, which combine beneficial effects with negative effects on all those who disregard the laws of quality and morality. As such, it is argued that the process of globalization in which we find ourselves has more positive than negative consequences, in line with the requirements of the general laws of economic and social progress. For proponents of globalization, “in reality, the main losers in globalization are now those peoples and countries who are unable to join the process of globalization and lag behind, mainly because they lack credible institutions – political, legal, economic or social. On the contrary, the main winners are those who benefit from being able to be open to it, attracting foreign trade, capital and technology.” (Dehera, 2007). Proponents of globalization have argued and continue to argue that markets, supranational institutions, and firms with international interests are, more than most governments, at the forefront of expanding globalization. For them, it is easy to understand that markets are developing more efficiently where governments are less involved, but the idea is that governments still have an important role to play in maintaining relative economic stability and ensuring some social protection. That is why “today’s globalization and technology are an unfinished revolution. They lack social regulation. Until a new global framework of social rules is established, the current state of unrest will persist“ (Cohen, 1999, quoted in Gheorghe & Udrescu, 2020). When one tries to define the agent responsible for the general framework of social rules, everything acquires generalizing nuances, which do not exclude the existence of a world government, somewhere above all governments. The speeches of two important statesmen, Tony Blaier and Bill Clinton, at the January 2000 Davos Summit, which supported globalization without engaging their governments in any way, are edifying in this regard.

The press of the time insisted that Tony Blaier was the supporter of the creation of an open world economy and a global society, a vision possible in the next century only if we wisely benefit from the benefits of globalization and create an ethical basis for training in this hour of all. countries, and, through an international ethical commitment, to reach the aid of the poor, to the elimination of the actions causing genocide and of the great environmental problems.

Of course, for the representatives of the great world economies, globalization is a necessary process, which aims at a sum of pragmatic ideals, which exclude any dogmatic ideological ideals. Indeed, globalization seems to be a certainty with a lot of uncertainties. What is certain is that now we are talking about globalization, globalized economy, global environment, global policies, global terrorism, etc. Also, the definitions of globalization are as numerous as the variants of approaches to the phenomenon through which they were recorded.

Thus, for the Romanian economic environment, globalization represents, as the case may be, “a way or system of reception and long-term approach of the great contemporary problems, determined by the interaction of multiple economic, technical, political, social, cultural, ecological etc. processes and phenomena. and the expectation of their settlement in a broad perspective by the international community. In such a globalist vision, the ensemble acquires properties or attributes that the components do not possess.“ (Nita, 1999). The definition suggests the complicated process of interdependent planning of the great problems of mankind by the international community, understood as an important international “actor”. The great difficulty lies in the fact that the whole international community does not act synergistically, optimally, but as a sum of entities, often with special and often contradictory interests! However, it is easy to understand that the object and subject of globalization consists of state entities, some initiating and supporting globalizing phenomena favorable to them, while others are in a position to bear the negative consequences of these processes.

From another perspective, “Globalization is a dynamic process of liberalization, openness and international integration in a wide range of markets, from labor to goods and from services to capital and technology.” In the final analysis, globalization is based on freedom: freedom of to trade with the rest of the world and to capitalize on the relative advantage of each country, the freedom to invest where capital gains are higher, at a tolerable level of risk, and the freedom to open business in the country of your choice, whether it is a business that makes higher profits or a larger market share or seeks, individually, better wages and / or working conditions“ (Dehera, 2007). The definition insists on liberalization, openness and international integration, freedom of action being the watchwords, the object of globalization being the large global geographical areas, in which, of course, are state entities, its subject remains undefined, it can be about successful companies everywhere. In our point of view, globalization is the international institutional framework through which companies promote their own interests, without the need for protective action and intermediation of states, because, through their political actions, they, in advance, have created the generally accepted framework of behavior. economic. In such a context, capital can move freely, companies can do business everywhere, citizens can move freely, the national legal framework is subject to the global legislative framework, and the basic principles of human action are subject to the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and profit. Globalization after the Second World War proves to be the expression of the intensification of multiple interconnections- political, economic, cultural and, last but not least, military. The globalization trend after 1980 is perceived as a qualitatively superior step in social development, a consequence of the real revolution in the field of information and data processing technologies. This process of aggressive intensification of interconnections has, obviously, a contradictory character, involving both integration and fragmentation, homogenization, as well as diversification, globalization, as well as localization, enrichment, and impoverishment; obviously, of some by others. Looking back in history, it can be said that global ideas and actions have followed the evolution of society. For any individual, global are the actions that have exceeded his concrete space and time. We believe that, for the man of the primitive commune, the organizational regulations of hunting territory and of gathering fruits and roots constituted premises of “globalization”. The subjugation of feudal populations has also been a premise for globalization. The great empires of antiquity and feudalism can be understood as tendencies to extend and consolidate the power of a state over large territories due to global interests – globalism appropriate to the world known since then. In the broad process of global expansion, as a reality of balance, states and border delimitations were imposed, in which global power belonged to a well-determined person, king, emperor, etc., as a recognized representative of national entities. In antiquity and feudalism, the state, represented by its ruler, had unlimited powers over all citizens, property and goods related to a certain division and border configuration. Even the wars fought in those times were carried out of the will and in the name of the emperor, the king, the ruler.

The dawn of capitalism emerged amid the consolidation of private property in workshops, factories, enterprises and companies, along with that of finance, followed by the gradual conjugation between large landowners and central state authorities, especially in connection with property. But these economic-political entities, aware of the need for a central protective authority, initiated the elimination of the state led by an autocrat, to replace it with a state of representation, regulation, built on the basis of democracy understood and applied at their level by large landowners: called “bourgeois-democratic”, to face and justify his political rise in order to remove the autocrat and the great feudal lords, his supporters (the stage of revolutions led by Cromwell, Robespiere, so on). Since then, nation-states have become instruments of private and financial property, designed to provide the legislative framework for property development. The desire to eliminate external competition and the undisturbed development of their own businesses determined the companies inside the borders to extend their activity from a certain local spectrum to a national framework, under state protection, this being the form of manifestation of the monopolistic interests of the companies. their national expansion of firms, after which, through wars and colonial domination, they gained international status – with the express help of the nation-state – then acquired transnational status, but this time to the detriment of the nation states they subjugated economically. In recent centuries, large industrial, commercial and financial companies have marked the evolution of human society. Technological development has made it possible to manage business worldwide. In their expansion, some of the firms have encountered difficulties as they have come into conflict with the national policies of the target states, including the policies of their own states. Since then, transnational corporations have expanded their interests around the world, and thus become truly global.

Gradually, more or less in full knowledge of the facts, various representatives of academia and communication began to explain and popularize the economic concepts of globalization. So, Teodore Levitt (Levitt, 1983), in the 1980s, he first sensed the process of market globalization. For economic reasons, it has largely replaced the concept of product, followed by the product cycle, with that of the globalized market. As moments of globalization, he was able to distinguish the following: first, products are sold in developed countries, until they no longer meet the demand for economic criteria. In such a situation, as a second moment, the products can be sold in less developed countries, until they are exhausted. When moving to the second stage, called the global stage, the same product is sold virtually worldwide, using the same techniques and methods, which has the effect of reducing costs and harmonizing consumer tastes on a global basis. Levitt argued that the definition of an activity from a market point of view is superior to product-related definitions. The activity of a company must be seen as a process of consumer satisfaction and not as a process of production of goods, because the products are transient, while consumers and their primary needs will always exist. A global firm selling the same product to all consumers can focus on the similarities between foreign markets, vigorously promoting the idea of imposing global standardization of services and products. Such a company achieves, of course, significant savings from the standardization of production, distribution, marketing and management, its efficiency being imposed in terms of increasing the value transmitted to consumers in the form of higher quality products, safer and cheaper. In reality, many companies are successfully marketing their own products in an international market, which is becoming more and more global. In such a market, competition no longer takes place between what is produced in the factories but between what the factories add to the resulting product in the form of packaging, services, advertising, consultancy, financing, delivery conditions, storage and the like, appreciated by consumers. Levitt and other experts have never set out to argue that the tastes of people everywhere are becoming more homogeneous today, thanks to modern communications and transportation, and as such, people are increasingly sensitive to global brands. They succeed in this globalized market because they are distinguished by several advantages. An important advantage is mass production, resulting from the standardization of packaging, labeling, promotion and advertising activities. In the case of advertising, the savings result both from standardized advertising and from the fact that the media are increasingly covering the territories included in the spectrum of globalization. Another advantage is given by the possible increase in sales, due to the fact that travelers find that their favorite brands benefit from the same advertisement in other markets. Perhaps, without realizing it, the famous professor Teodore Levitt has become an authoritative voice of economic globalization, to which only hopes of competitiveness, efficiency and profit are linked, and the winners of globalization are found on the market, while the losers fall into the line without end of collateral losses.

In turn, Michael Porter (Porter, 1990) tried to make a semantic distinction between a multinational company and a global one. For him, a multinational company was a company that operated in several countries, but which did not unify its operations from a strategic point of view, the final economic result being the sum of the results of the entities operating in different countries. Unlike the international company, the global company could be distinguished by superior operational management, which pursued a global strategy, with perfect coordination and complex integration between different national operators, generating synergies that resulted in the whole being more important than the sum its parts (Udrescu & Gheorghe, 2016). With even more radicalization, Kenichi Ohmae (Keniki, 1990) has defined the global company as one that no longer has a national identity, operating on a global scale as a denationalized entity. In this case, they resorted to Nestlé, which is a Swiss company with only two major Swiss executives out of ten, which does business in more than 150 countries but has insignificant activity in its country of origin, Switzerland.

Indian professor Sumantra Ghoshal, in Management Without Borders, edited in 1989, and Professor Christopher Bartlett, in 1997, Individualized Corporation, identified four forms of managerial organization in the globalized economy (Keniki, 1990):

The first type of multinational organization identified is the multi-national or multi-native company. Its strength lies in the increased capacity to react locally. It is a decentralized federation of local companies (such as Unilever or Philips), linked together by a network of controllers (who left the company in their home country to hold important positions abroad).

The second type of global firm is represented by United States corporations like Ford in the early part of this century, and Japanese businesses like Matsushita. Their strengths are overall efficiency and cost advantages. The facilities are spread across the globe, often centered in the home country, making standardized products, while overseas units are used as distribution systems to capitalize on the opportunities offered by the global market. The central unit exercises strict control over strategic decisions, resources and information. The third type is the international company. Its competitive strength is given by its ability to transfer knowledge and skills to those places abroad that are less advanced in this respect. It is a federation coordinated by local companies, controlled by sophisticated management systems and a corporate leadership. The position of the parent company tends to be limited in scope, supported by the superior know-how of the center. According to the two authors, global competition forces most companies to adopt a fourth model, given by the transnational company, which combines local responsiveness with global efficiency and the ability to transfer know-how, according to economic principles: better, cheaper and faster. The transnational company is individualized as a network of specialized or differentiated units, which pay attention to the management of integrative links between local companies, as well as between them and the center, the branch becoming a separate unit, without simply being an extension of the parent company, and production and technological development take place where there are favorable conditions, through the exploitation of know-how, cheap labor and indigenous raw materials in order to capitalize on all the opportunities that appear in the world market. So, the major agents of globalization are not local firms, even national ones, but large multinational and transnational corporations, which belong to certain countries. They integrate markets into global processes, increasing the movement of capital and trade from regions to global scale. And, in this general process, the states of the world are transformed, with or without permission, into the means of globalization. However, economic globalization has become increasingly aware, both as a result of the natural law of qualitative transformation of quantitative accumulations and as a result of institutions actions with a globalizing vocation created to coordinate the world order after The Second World War.

Globalization and Deglobalization-The Requirement of the World Order

Anti-Americanization and anti-globalization

The University of Westminster in Missouri is known as a place steeped in history where the Iron Curtain speech was given on March 5, 1946. On May 6, 1992, Gorbachev lectured at the same place, a speech appreciated by historians as the message of the victory in the Cold War is possible, but without declaring that the U.S.S.R. considers itself defeated. The former leader of the Soviet Union wanted to emphasize not the victory of the West, but the detachment of the two political blocs from the vicious circle in which they are through the countries alone, as well as the victory of sound judgment, reason, democracy and common human values. On the issue of guilt, Gorbachev considered that both great powers, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., bear the brunt of major mistakes. The optimistic note was a future of peace and prosperity for all, not through force, but through stronger cooperation within the United Nations. Becoming wiser now after the bitter experience of the Cold War, Gorbachev believed that nations would choose to act less selfishly and to balance the balance of interests more fairly. On such a political vision, globalization could acquire new valences. The international community as a whole has hoped that, naturally, an era of confrontation will be followed by an era of cooperation, and that the bipolar system will be replaced by a multipolar one, enshrined in international law defended by international bodies.

As an expression of the general legitimacy of social development, globalization is an ongoing process. He can stagnate, but he cannot be stopped. As such, we believe that the current globalization is not going through a period of deglobalization but, on the contrary, of re-globalization. However, globalization requires political will to redefine the international political framework on the basis of newly established principles of international law. It all has to start with redefining “good” in international relations.

One of the global solutions is what N.A.T.O. Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described as an “employment strategy”. A responsible employment of state actors, regardless of power and size, in compliance with the rules of international law. Such a strategy would pave the way for a multidirectional and functional globalization, to the detriment of sectorism, with integrated multipolar mobility. Following the model of the national rule of law, globalization requires a global order based on an international constitution, a “Constitution of Nations”, which guarantees the rights and obligations of states and gives them what Kant imagined through Eternal Peace (1795). Perhaps something in the form of the European Union that “by promoting cooperation and not conflict and stimulating trade on the continent, has made national governments richer and more able to direct their energies towards public services. European states have set aside options for war, control of capital and tariffs, but it would be difficult to say that they have become weaker in this way. Sovereignty is no longer primarily the power to exclude, but acts across borders through the cooperation of states in the field of government and through the transfer of powers, through treaties, to international bodies.“ (Hirst, 2001).

With the awareness of the American formula of globalization, globalization processes began to know an increasingly pronounced anti-Americanism, but also anti-globalization positions, condemning the compromised economic effects nationally, seen as consequences of American globalization. Victory in the Cold War, celebrated by capitalism, promoted the United States in a dual position: on the one hand as the dominant but illegitimate power to dictate the alignment of the world to its future interests, and on the other hand as the flag bearer of a new doctrine prosperity, profit and effectiveness, but without social justice. Feelings that included more and more social categories: skeptics, Marxists, environmentalists, populists, extremists, chauvinists, so on , but also government positions that have expressed hostility in almost all international bodies that have endorsed the idea of globalization: the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, so on. Trends in hegemonic globalization have begun to diminish, with hegemonic anti-globalization being emotionally accompanied by anti-Americanism, even by social segments belonging to N.A.T.O. member countries. There is more and more talk of social injustice, interference in internal affairs, the threat of force, the idea of sovereignty becoming questionable even by countries considered to be strong. To the extent that hegemonic globalization is perceived as not driven by the legitimately regulated free market, the consequences are downright dramatic, with the hegemonic market suddenly becoming stingy. Violent political passions, even terrorist actions, are argued on many levels, justified by the beliefs that justice is violated, that international law is disregarded. Of course, the hegemonic market is profitable for the one who dominates, but it displeases all those who have been ignored in its planning, but followers of the market democracy that promises political and economic emancipation for everyone.

Feelings of hegemonic deglobalization are accompanied by accusatory feelings towards various minorities who have local economic success. In some parts of the world, markets concentrate a great deal of wealth in the hands of successful entrepreneurs, which can generate and generate the envy, dissatisfaction and hatred of the poor, globalization is accused of favoring the privileged, even within a rule of law state. When the privileged are of another ethnicity, everything can turn into xenophobic political fuel and accusations of globalization by generalizing the detrimental local economic effects. Against this background, it is not surprising that attacks on hegemonic globalization have such a strong cultural motivation, since globalization is synonymous with the exploitation of the poor by the rich. There are many elitists in Western countries who see hegemonic globalization as a reward for Americans in exchange for security arrangements, arrangements that undermine national traditions. France in particular has become a worthy voice against hegemonic globalization, which it considers irrelevant to the need to respect national diversity. So, attention is drawn to the confusion between universality and forced westernization, between global security and hegemonic security, a confusion that makes N.A.T.O. be considered “clinically dead.” While the U.S. wants a hegemonic globalization, supported by the European Union and N.A.T.O., Russia, China, Turkey and other countries are working for a globalization focused on international support. The contrast between the U.S.A. and all the other countries is great, but it is transformed in the media into accusations of cultural superficiality, of rapacity, of disregarding international law, of open aggression. The cultural hostility of some important states towards hegemonic globalization induces a tendency to give up the benefits of globalization. Since hegemonic globalization is in question, it is considered that “The anti-globalization argument has an immediate more pragmatic dimension.” America would benefit – at least in the short term – from the rebirth of protectionist sentiments.“ (Brzezinski, 2005). A threatening political option, because “If this were to happen, the anti-globalization creed would become a powerful tool for mobilizing broad masses. He could even provide the ideological platform of a coalition not only of popular movements for various causes, but also of states ready to oppose American hegemony. Then the most fanatical and hostile political ideologues could exploit the perception of American unilateralism, the lack of interest in the poorest and weakest, and the arbitrary use of power to turn America into the number one global enemy.“ (Brzezinski, 2005). This alarm signal is already worrying a lot of people.

Deglobalization through reglobalization.

The victory in the Cold War did not consecrate globalization but, on the contrary, directed the globalizing processes towards a hegemonic globalization, specific to the period of confrontation. Basically, globalization has stagnated, the hopes of nations to assert themselves in a democratic environment have been largely misled, the number of threats of force and the use of force in international relations has multiplied, important international agreements have been ignored, so on. As an opportunity for all states, globalization has been diverted to be considered a general framework for the benefit of privileged countries. Attention to the global good, hope to improve the human condition, strengthening the principles of security and national sovereignty were abandoned. The pursuit of open markets and the unilateral lowering of barriers in hegemonic globalization have led to the idea that globalization is an end in itself, no longer a mirage of improving economic and living conditions around the world. A group of countries have set up a system to ask others what they refuse for themselves. Instead of being the engine of globalization, states that have declared themselves privileged have become a major obstacle to globalization. Since these states have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the benefits of globalization, it is moral to become part of overcoming the difficulties arising from the agreements that have facilitated globalization. A declining world economy encourages resistance to globalization, and recourse to unilateral trade barriers only increases hostility to hegemonic countries around the world.

Deglobalization and anti-globalization are theoretical approaches, and not only, of those who defy the laws of social development through self-isolation and autarchic illusions. The post-Cold War world dreams of a legitimate world order that unleashes the processes of globalization, devoid of hegemonies that publicly develop vassal countries, impose their own peace and label everyone else as terrorists, anti-democrats, radicals, aggressors, so on. The world expects the current countries engaged in hegemonic efforts to become promoters of peace, international security and peaceful coexistence, fundamental landmarks in the management of international tensions of any kind.

The key issue of the future is when countries with the current hegemonic inclination will return to involvement in the leadership of the world edifice, with a convincing vision of a global community of shared interests, as a fundamental condition of global stability (Gheorghe & Udrescu, 2019). Countries with a hegemonic appetite will feel the need to transform current hegemonic approaches into interstate management based on shared beliefs. An international community based on shared interests does not presuppose a world government, it does not presuppose a nation of global governance, but a common governance generated by behavioral consensus. Broad and institutionalized international cooperation, as a hotbed of globalization, excludes any unilateral trade barriers, any distortion of political, economic and any other predictability. Political globalization, based on a constitution of globalization, has as its central axis general harmony. This process is now slowed down, but it must be encouraged, developed and encouraged, necessarily institutionalized, in order to promote the common destiny of mankind. Bilateral and regional agreements must be framed in a general framework of globalization, as a natural evolution of relations between states, based on common behavioral rules. Any selfish hegemony, regional or with global pretensions, feeds unsuspected enemies. The involvement of strong countries in the political globalization of the future presupposes communicative efforts to direct them, making it possible for other nations to join in a direction motivated by the morality of the general good. Power for the sake of power, threats for the sake of defending hegemonic interests are not successful formulas for the future, they are a regrettable blindness to reality, a reality condemned by history, because it involves throwing humanity into a chaos of conflict, uncertainty and insecurity.

Conclusion

Reglobalization through deglobalization will be a sustained process of civic responsibility. First of all, it is necessary to recognize globalization as the most appropriate form of trade development, required by economic competitiveness. From this perspective, there is a need to take over in the new architecture of globalization everything that is considered useful from the current global infrastructure, everything that diversifies and emphasizes the production and profitable exchange of products and services. Secondly, all countries, regardless of size and power, must guarantee rational and transparent policies of self-defense and cultivation of assumed security. Third, strong countries must commit themselves in good faith to pacifying the regions where they have cultivated states of violence. Fourth, all countries must see in the constitutional world order a general framework for eliminating the dangers of resolving disputes through the use of force and dictation. Fifth, countries must also commit themselves in good faith to creating an internal political culture that values global interdependence and interstate harmony. Reglobalization promises a real olympic competition, in which the winners are stimulated and appreciated, a competition in which states accept competitiveness, without having the opportunity to make accusations of injustice and impoverishment. Constitutional globalization has as its hope the cooperation of states on the basis of an unambiguous international law. Only through collaboration can the general security situation be improved. The security of strong states is dependent on global security. It is wiser and more economical to cultivate collaboration than to waste resources to cultivate anyone’s threat. The costs of the multivectoral threat are becoming increasingly unsustainable. Devide et impera policies, while currently attractive to some states, are essentially lacking in vision. They require costs and result in marginalization. The recognized power of some states must be found in the creation and implementation of global policies. The exercise of influences stems from the fact that interstate relations do not presuppose perfect equality, but require the freedom of acts of will. The supremacy of some states does not necessarily imply relations of subordination, but possibilities to ensure that interstate relations cultivate and respect the general principles of sovereignty. Declared partnerships are proof of overcoming disagreements but also a common commitment to promote mechanisms to support world order. A global re-convention, in which new horizons can be foreseen, must be the priority objective of the group of powerful states, beyond their short-term interests. Under the protection of the specific world order specific to the Cold War, the national Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, Japan, Germany, China have asserted themselves, it is hoped that a new world order will bring prosperity to even more countries, increasing general prosperity. U.S.A., Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, so on, strong countries, it is necessary to decide on a global convention, from which to result the implications of a new reality of the world order, in which the defense of the principles of coexistence to become constitutional order. These countries, considered to be stronger, are obliged by human laws to jointly promote international security, on which the process of globalization depends so much. A real overseas alliance, based on a common security perspective, must result in a shared strategic understanding of sovereignty, coexistence and collaboration. This requires extensive and serious dialogue, not mutual incriminations and defiant actions. Strong countries together have much to show the world, but they will only be able to be followed with confidence if they have a common vision of national security and sovereignty. Strong countries have sufficient military forces, as well as economic and financial resources, but are lacking in their own capabilities to overcome narrow interests. Instead of amplifying diverse challenges to international security, of which strong countries are no strangers, a source of inspiration is needed to build the confidence of all states in the world order centered on security and sovereignty.

Together, America, Europe, Asia and other geographical regions would be able to reduce military spending and direct them to basic and technological research, disperse threatening clouds of confrontation and war, bring confidence to the Eurasian space, pacify the Middle East, would leave religious extremism without threat to human demons, would promote the freedom of movement of capital, goods and labor, would expand individual freedoms, stimulate collaboration and market competitiveness, so on.

The West, led by the United States, has campaigned for democracy and human freedoms. This new religion of humanity made possible the end of Cold War. These objectives are noble and practical, as long as the conditional exercise of democracy and freedoms is abandoned. Strong countries, but especially the West, must be aware that democracy and civil rights are elements of culture and regional civilization, which require, more than anything, world peace. Democracy and Western-backed freedoms in the Middle East and North Africa appear to have done a disservice to the ideas of democracy and civil liberties and also compromised people’s hopes for security and world order. As after the French Revolution, too many expressions of democracy, too many disinterested supports of human freedoms turned into tragic actions since they became forms of manifestation of fanaticism of any kind. The sufferings triggered by the interventions in support of freedoms demanded by different social groups have turned into elements of denial of the very notions of freedom, democracy and prosperity, have become insurmountable obstacles to the processes of globalization. Democracy, freedoms and the development of the market need to be defined in good faith in the common interest, and this interest should be the political belief of countries considered strong.

Reglobalization, as a new qualitative stage of globalization, requires a new world order, an order of defense and guarantee of national sovereignty and security. Globalization requires a world order that accentuates and diversifies globalization processes, which cannot be achieved through deglobalization. Deglobalization socially and politically suggests a stalemate, stagnation and reconsideration, regularization suggests further processes through a management of them that focuses on qualitative changes, meant to support the general progress.