The authors have very clearly brought forward the dynamics of “transnational relations” in the contemporary world and have adequately merged the genesis of these relations with the evolution of modern contemporary world. The authors have mentioned multinational business, enterprises and revolutionary movements; trade unions and scientific networks; international air transport cartels and communication activities in outer space as some of the practical faces of transnational relations. A great many arguments and parallels can be drawn but let us first see if we can find the presence of transnational relations in the working of Pakistani society.

Looking at the simmering crisis of Yemen War and its effects on the region, the resolution by the government of Pakistan suggested neutrality for the country to adopt. The parliament (supposedly the voice of the whole nation) apparently does not enjoy the monopoly over this domain and a group of religious clerics announced recently that they will themselves send their men to fight the war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen if the government of Pakistan does not send the Armed forces to battle them. Not that Pakistanis haven’t tried to bring peace in far off countries by sending small armies before, the sheer and blatant stand as a parallel decision maker in a conflict that usually falls under the domain of the ‘State’ has left questions that could be better grappled with under the light of this piece on “transnational relations”. The revolutionary movements, as mentioned by the authors (in the case of Yemen), have not only prompted various states to clarify their positions but has also resulted in deep diplomatic troubles. Pakistan might not have outer space engagement with other international states to develop its “transnational relations” force; it sure has the apparent potential to provide ample freedom to those who want to further the “transnational relations” agenda by sending mercenaries to fight a war their government has declared a neutral stance on.

The authors have also mentioned the relation between the concept of transnational relations and a new found imperialism. It is true to a large extent that multinational corporations have shown capacity to step out of their registered work domain and act as a secondary state actor, as the author mentioned in the IBM France case to help curb the French government to gain nuclear weapons), there are multiple sides regarding this conflict. The imperialism of corporations if one can call it is more like a war tool if one can construe such meanings out of that. States have used them before and the economic hegemony is not well catered if the non-state corporations working under “transnational relations” do not support the host state to exercise its hegemonic ambitions in other matters.