Stuart, I agree the globalization process is particularly different when viewed through a peak oil lens. I argued for WTO, NAFTA, etc because I always thought that it was big industry that would benefit the most from higher tarriffs. For instance, imagine how little incentive GM & Ford would have to increase production of hybrids if we had huge tarriffs on Japanese hybrid imports.

However, through globalization we are mothballing domestic production capabilities that will be essential as A. The dollar weakens B. Transport becomes ever more expensive C. Each region has to become more self-sufficient in food, energy, goods.

I have to say that I'm now feeling pretty negative about the WTO model of world trade. We should keep some industries capable of ramping up to meet domestic needs in a crisis.

I tend to the view that globalization is going to be more attractive post peak than a lot of people think (unless we experience a major collapse). We need to remember that ship transport is roughly 100 times as energy efficient per ton-mile as road transport. So for example, here in San Francisco we're going to be almost as close to Mumbai or Shanghai or Tokyo as we will be to New York, energetically, and much closer to them than we will be to, say, Denver.
In addition, there are more options for powering ships than
land transport. Ships can run on any solid or liquid fuel,
as well as wind. For land transport only rail approaches the
versatility and efficiency of sea transport.
Lest we forget: really big ships (and submarines) can also run on nuclear power.