Why Is The Iraq War A Behemoth Of An Institution

The Iraq War certainly serves as an example of a failure of international consensus to prevent a breach of the peace, and therefore is an indictment of the UN's ability to maintain global peace and security. Whether or not the Iraq War as a phenomenon merits the wholesale replacement of the UN apparatus with a “new, more democratic international institution” is questionable, however. The UN is a behemoth of an institution, with tentacles stretching much farther than the security realm; democracy is not necessarily desirable nor effective in regards to international relations. First and foremost, advocating for the dismantlement and replacement of the United Nations as an institution fails to take into account the major successes of the organization in a number of policy

While the term “democracy” sounds appealing as a piece of rhetoric, implementation is an entirely different story. The UN was predicated on the idea that the “democracy” of the League of Nations was the precipitating factor that eventually led to its downfall, and so the Permanent Five of the Security Council was seen as a means to remedy this defect in functionality.1 The fact that the P5 retain a veto is what keeps them working within the framework of the Security Council, as they have a legitimate avenue to implement their agenda that acknowledges their unique position in the international sphere. Therefore, a “more democratic international institution” may not only be too vague, but also actually counterproductive to the stated goal of preventing a repeat of the Iraq War scenario. In a democratic international forum, militarily powerful states will undoubtedly be enticed to find external mechanisms through which to exercise their power. This means that a “democratic” international institution is likely to engender more unilateral military action outside of its framework, not