Who Speaks for the Trees?

I've recently been following this story about an invasive species: The Emerald Ash Borer.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_24509610/emerald-ash-borer-puts-colorado-alert?source=most_viewed
It's pertinent to me, because as a home owner in Denver, I had contemplated planting an Ash tree in my own yard.  Now, I am forced to reconsider for the obvious reason that there's a high probability I would have to remove it at some point in the not to distant future.  But being a local, I also remember references to Dutch Elm Disease, and growing up, I never knew what a chestnut was (other than from the Christmas song) and research has revealed to me that a blight on American Chestnut trees in the early 20th Century virtually wiped them all out, to the point where the chestnut is a relative rarity in much of North America even to this day, at least as compared to other nuts.  Going back even further, the Black Death in Europe was triggered by pre-modern trade.  So what does it all mean?  Well this got me to thinking about the negative consequences of globalization inadvertent or otherwise.  There have always been implications in this regard from international trade but sometimes people bring an invasive species with them on purpose such as with cats, dogs, sheep, cattle etc. and other times it is accidental as with various pest bugs, rats, diseases and the like.  But whatever the case, the consequences can be significant if not dire.  Any of us who have traveled have likely gone through various agricultural screening processes (I distinctly remember a friendly beagle used to sniff out food).  In our daily lives we might think that a single seed or a smudge of mud as trivial so its rather suprising just how damaging this 'clash of biological spheres' can have on the environment, our wallets and government budgets.  But it also occured to me that there might be similar unforeseen consequences to our communications with one another across borders.  Perhaps the disasters in the natural world informed (in part, or subconciously) Huntington's thesis on the 'clash of civilizations'.  Not that I subscribe to his position, but certainly, there have been plenty of manmade disasters in the form of wars, slavery, poverty and genocide which can also be viewed as darker aspects of globalization.  Certainly we can see in reactions from some sections of the public in Middle Eastern societies to what is accepted behavior in the West, as a potential source for conflict but what are the unforeseen sources?  Is there something truly alien between two civilizations that can lead to devastation in the future?  I'm going to take a more optimistic view on this and say no, not no unequivocally, but no in the sense that I think that as a species, we've been through the worst of it.
Unlike, birds, bugs, and bacteria, we have the ability at least, to communicate with one another even if we're unable to agree with or understand each other.  Secondly, I think that communications technology allows us more potential to foresee potential conflicts and even offers a virtual sphere in which to play out those arguments and can mitigate (though admittedly online quarrels sometimes escalate out of the web and onto the streets) what enters the physical realm.  Finally, and ultimately, we are part of a single species with a shared genetic history and common psychology.  Whatever our differences, I believe we are better equiped to sort through them than might a host and its parasite.  Still, it would be wise to remain vigilant concerning the unexpected costs of globalization, both in the physical realm and between cultures.