Did globalisation transfer wealth from rich to poor countries of the world?

Comments on Zha Daojiong (Peking University): "How can Xi get along with Trump?" 4/04/2017

The following paragraph may need some more thinking:
“Second, China’s wish for a stable trade and investment relationship with the United States will be easier to meet if its public diplomacy can empathise with those Americans who feel left behind by the forces of globalisation. This can begin by acknowledging that the history of globalisation has been one of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor countries of the world. At the same time, though, the delivery of lower-cost consumer products from emerging economies has helped lift the welfare of needy consumers in societies like the United States.”

It does not seem to be a sound or indeed even a correct argument that “the history of globalisation has been one of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor countries of the world”. It is hard to understand how that transfer has ever occurred. It is likely to be a nonsensical point to argue that way.

History is likely to be full of transfers in the opposite direction, due simply to the asymmetric power between the two. How could and indeed why would the rich countries have allowed that to happen?

It is likely that some of both poor and rich countries have benefited from globalisation, even though it may also be a fact that not every country has been a significant beneficiary of that process. Further the benefits to any country are not likely to be equally shared by all members within that country. And that is likely the main source of oppositions to globalisation in some quarters.

Finally, concession for concession's sake in diplomacy and step over the appropriate boundary is likely to produce laugh stocks.