(continuation of) supranational union: structural difference and their point of collision

Moreover with the creation of ISU the centralisation of power in international arena, as is the case with U.N, will decrease sufficiently and the channelization of power will take place because ISU will use supranational unions to resolve regional conflicts. Take for example, the ongoing upheaval in the middle east or even the already gone one in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia. at all the places that saw arab spring and was overseen by united nations the dictator ship has been replaced by anarchy that seems to have no end and while places like Egypt and Tunisia that remained untouched by United Nations are functionally peaceful.  This is because the heavy weights of united nations are acting on the track defined solely by their national interest and anything that is coming on its way is considered an off the table option. Be it that of interest of the citizens, stability of the conflicting nations,  stability of the region. So providing a comprehensive solution to conflicts in international arena is beyond the scope of United Nations.

While, if instead of U.N inter-supranational union was present it could deliver this responsibility efficiently and effectively. The reason is inter-supranational union would use supranational unions membering countries in conflict, incase of Libya it would be AU, to resolve the conflict. Therefore the solution to the conflict would include stability of the region, stability of the nation, interest of their citizens. And since all the three are integrated to one another because stability in a region can be achieved only through political stability of all the nations and since nations can be stable only through a peaceful mass, therefore regional unions of nations i.e. supranational union are the best option for resolution of conflicts in a region. Incase supranational union fails to find a solution ISU will intervene directly for imposing the best solution for citizens of the conflicting nations. In the next section we will analyse separately different situations that may arise in the world politics and the behaviour of ISU in that particular situation.


supranational unions: structural difference and their point of collision

Before I move on to discuss the topic I would apologise to the readers for not being able to update my blog since last four months.

I have discussed the concept of inter-supranational union and its importance in my previous articles. This article will also discuss the importance of inter-supranational union but through a different angle i.e. discussing supranational unions it will reflect on why inter-supranational union is important.

I had send my first article on ISU(inter-supranational union) to one of the leading journal of international relations and though i was denied publication I received a review(I am thankful for it) on the article pointing different corners which need to be looked into to concretely develop the conception of inter-supranational union. One of which was how the ISU will deal with structurally different supranational unions? to elaborate, will NATO, which is a completely military organisation and ASEAN, which is an economic organisation or European Union, which is both economic and military organisation, equally hold the membership of ISU?

Straightly, yes. Because firstly, the purpose of inter-supranational union will primarily be to act as conflict resolving body between two supranational unions or two nations membering different unions. And since the conflict can emerge between structurally different unions, as between A.U and NATO in Libyan issue in 2011, so membership of structurally different unions to ISU only can make it a practical alternative to United Nations. Moreover, if military and economic supranational unions are not brought to one platform then nations fearing subjugation[any form] from militarily powerful countries or unions will tend to military organisation on the lines of NATO thus making world order vulnerable to instability.  Take for example, the Libya issue concerning NATO and AU. If African Union was a military organisation then NATO on account of stiff military resistance may not indulge in a full fledge war in Libya fearing an attack on its own land from AU but the military nature of A.U would destabilize the economic co-opeartion between NATO members and AU members. So the impact of military conflict will leave direct impression on economic co-opeartion as well as other agreed areas of co-operation, which, of course, is not desirable.

I understand that  a paragraph after four months takes me ahead of Midas. So now I have decided to keep my posts short but regular.