With the emergence of multi-national entities, like the European Union, and the American "War on Terror", which they see as a sovereign right to wage wars on other nations, some people bemoan the loss of sovereignty by nation states.
But loss of "national sovereignty" is not a problem, it is a solution in the making.
"National sovereignty" is an international equivalent of the "freedom" of the pre-medieval English barons to do what they pleased. In the end their "freedom" was replaced with that of a single "sovereign" - the King, responsible for the government of Britain as a whole, but the powers of that sovereign became severely limited and controlled.
Today's Afghanistan is governed by a group of rival "sovereign" warlords, brought back to power by the removal of the Taliban, who had a measure of unipolar sovereignty within Afghanistan before they were overthrown by the Americans. The present American-backed Afghan government is seeking to achieve a local unipolar sovereignty, but with little success so far.
Similar developments are taking place in the Global World. The sovereignty of nation states is being replaced by that of larger entities - like the European Union, or American occupation.
But where will it lead the world?
In the end people shall finish with one single world governed by a single law by a global government which will have very strictly defined, limited and controlled powers. It will be government without politics, the powers of which will be limited strictly to the purpose of government, and use of these powers for "political" purposes will be a major crime.
But this will happen as a result of the Americans trying to rule the world and making a big mess out of it. This will happen because the only way out of this mess will be abandonment by the Americans of their unipolar sovereignty and submitting themselves to the rule of a global law. Just as in Britain the sovereignty of the Sovereign Monarch had to be limited by the rule of law.
The British Kings had yielded their sovereignty to government institutions not because this was their intention from the start, but as a result of a long and painful struggle - they tried to hang on to their "sovereignty" as long as they could. This is how people learn - by painful experience.
And what about all the national and ethnic differences?
They will have as little importance as the local differences between the various states in America, the counties in Britain, or the provinces in France. People will be different, but their differences will give them neither rights nor privileges - they will be all equal under the law and responsible for the results of their actions.
Will it be a European-style "democracy"?
No, it will not. The European-style "democracy" is based on party-politics rooted in the European feudal class structure, which mutated into the Socialist myth of "class-struggle" and "left-right" politics. The essence of this party-politics is attempts by various groups to use the powers of government to favour themselves at other people's expense. Even in Europe party-politics are becoming fast obsolete. They have still less basis for existence in the rest of the world.
Will it take long and will it hurt?
This will depend on the ability of the Americans to learn how to rule the world. Will they choose to run in circles, or will they follow the straight path?