2. Establish e.g. EU humanitarian intervention taskforce. And the same for ASEAN? And maybe even North America when it's ready to re-join the global community again? [ :) ]. I think the key is to de-couple things from Russia and China at least until they themselves begin to be responsible citizens in the global community.
So perhaps the issue we see now is that we have lots of humanitarian hotspots around the world and we need another organization than the UN to deal with it? Can they co-exist?
Even North Korea has been admitted to the UN. In fostering discussion and enabling rational diplomacy between nations, it has been a success.
This is the point of the UN. Major powers get to block things with a vote instead of with force.
Not necessarily disagreeing that UN is dysfunctional, but your proposal is not constructive (and biased).
Oh, and the UN is a red herring. NATO does as NATO wants - UN approval is only useful in improving their domestic cases for going to war.
No, Syria wasn't invaded by NATO - instead, NATO poured, and continues to pour oil on that fire, because instead of making the situation better, it would rather fight a proxy war with Russia.
Despite our best efforts at supporting the rebel groups, and bombing Assad, he's still in power. Given that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that had the conflict been left to resolve itself, he would have won fairly quickly - or at least, by now, most of the country would be under his control, as opposed to a five-way horror-show. We'd also probably be seeing a lot fewer beheading videos on Twitter.
NATO's perspective on the whole conflict, start to end, was not humanitarian - but rather as a question of "What can we do to stick it to the Russians, and topple Assad?"
Quick check: what is more valuable: one men or one hundred?
What those people need is humanitarian aid, not billions of dollars in Tomahawk missiles and AR-15s.
You are not passed my quick check, so I assume that difference between us is fundamental. See [1] if you want to understand West.