Individual government sponsoring a World Embassy
In the absence of the UN, it is certainly possible for one or more individual governments to take the lead and sponsor an early-form of World Embassy, as a more-desirable and acceptable alternative to Global Guilds. For many countries, such an approach would be the most practical, and cost-effective, way for them to enhance their defenses against globally-defined threats to their own national security. Ultimately, to sponsor a World Embassy is in a government’s enlightened self-interest (just as Global Guilds would be for major industries). Even though, as a result, the countries involved would also improve the odds for everybody across the whole of the international community.
This could happen in a variety of ways, but perhaps the most attractive – and certainly the one to try first – would be to take the lead in promoting the formation of an independent organization intended ultimately to end up under the umbrella of the UN. After all, although there are several potential homes for a World Embassy, by far the most natural (although not the easiest to engineer) is for it to be strongly associated with the UN. One way this could develop would be if the idea was instigated by one or both of the two P5 countries that ‘punch above their weight’ on the UN Security Council but that no longer dominate competing national interests – namely the UK and France. That step would in turn open the doors to explicit sponsorship by the USA. As one of the truly-powerful P5 members, the USA’s premature public support might otherwise be misinterpreted as a self-interested power-play and damage the World Embassy’s prospects of gaining the tacit support and eventual membership (or at least avoiding the active obstruction by veto) of the remaining two P5 members.
Pursuing a UN-route directly would inevitably prove too slow. But from the start it would be useful to begin lobbying for general support from the Secretary General and key members, with the goal that the World Embassy later eventually got closer to the UN once it had ‘proved itself’, and after it had become immune to some of the obstructions that the UN itself represents. In the extreme, if the UN proved completely unsupportive then a World Embassy could nevertheless operate perfectly well in many other environments, moving to a new home only if it became especially attractive to do so. Indeed, the very fact that alternative eventual homes to the UN were completely possible would only increase the pressure on the UN to do what was necessary at least to support the idea or risk being seen as ‘once again unfit for purpose’.
There are also numerous other government-routes by which a World Embassy could be formed as an alternative or supplement to Global Guilds. Either Canada or Switzerland, for example, could form a multi–nation coalition as a neutral and centralist international body. Any European country could sponsor the idea within the EU (although the EU carries its own bureaucratic hurdles). Or a well-positioned country could use its diplomatic links to broker a semi-formal coalition of China, Europe, India and the USA to experiment with a joint organization. There are, in reality, a large number of legitimate routes that all potentially lead to an effective form of World Embassy. In practice, and to the great discredit of global politics, none of them is likely.