Again, in the name of "democracy" by "civil people"...again by the people of fundamentalism - what is going on in Syria (Anti-Globalisation by actual violence in the name of "democratic revolution" to seek to see the "new" fanatic fundamentalism middle east alienated from foreign investment enabling diverse opportunities of freedom in sexuality,fair education, religion, medical services and high level of social welfare

U.N. still has its crucial role as peaceful political mediator for everyone to protect human rights of all but that should be stick to peaceful non-arm endeavours to seek cease fires.
That is the only what U.N. is expected to be no matter how it seems to be unworkable because the only resolution that the U.N. is supposed to conclude is to convince both sides into constructive cease fires and peaceful talks for prosperous future for both sides otherwise the U.N. itself could be a part of conflict with their 'political 'opinions' which may be discriminative or cetainly having strong tendency against which of the parties of conflict.
So, what problem the U.N.recently demonstrated is NOT its 'unworkableness' to stop the 'violence' by the gov't but rather is its tendency of too much 'efficiency' only in dragging down the governments' self protection as if there were no legimacy in any govts, only if it is a govt, to protect their own people from certain fanatic violent 'people' in seeking 'democracy' no matter how their 'democracy' is meant to 'democratically build a nation of fanatic fundamentalism/nationalism which against democracy seeking equal human rights and freedom for all, no matter how their 'democracy' intends to build fundamentalistic fascismfreedom. Recently, the UN seems to be lost in the name of 'democratic' manner to against relatively clutural/religeouse diverse seeking for further democracy matuareness..
But such UN will be probably reaching to the point of doubts due to its too much formalistic
point of view which always only see nation as 'dictator' althogh national violence by any govt should be the last resort in which every govt should reckon as a measure only allowed for the limited case of self-protection especially to protect their people only on the verge.
Then, now, what we see is the worst and the very much unthinkable situation where the govt is being attacked by their own people under certain political conflict between modest and clutural religeous freedom/diversity in the govt and the certain level of fundamentalism which seeks fascism/nationalism/discrimination, say seeking a 'new'
national far right fundamentalism fascism govt of anti-human rights initiatives for the 'ppl' in the manner of 'democracy' at its point of allowing discriminative 'political parties' to be included into the law making as 'political' power....

Then, the more the U.N. is trying to be workable in the sense of physical power, the more the U.N. is unworkable at its point of materialization of delivering equal human rights protection, cultural/sexuality/religious diversity and freedom and so on, which is the problem in which the U.N. recently encountered (or shall i say, invited), which causes a lot humanitarian issues and disastrous difficulties of the people who are living in the nations in/after conflict where the U.N. too much, without any real compassion i would assume though, active in its role of armed "mediator" which could not actually failed in mediating and only end in sided to the "people"only with the "formalized" gauge which are ridiculed by certain fascism led "people"s anti-human right initiatives supported arms and violence against not only govt but also people have rights to live in peace, not in the violence by the "people" seeking to reach the point of fascism by certain "democratic manner" - say "election" after the fear by the violence of the "people" seek democratic form to materialize anti-human right fanatic fundamentalism led nation.
So, what the U.N. should back to the mission of being departed from any violence but political and peaceful negotiation/talks to resolute constructive results for protection of human rights and freedom for diversity of all the people.

And that is the reason of the U.N.  It is not what people established the U.N. to see the U.N. is an initiative to launch armed one sided violence to oblige another side to be bent over another in the name of materialize the formalism of "democracy" in the manner of materialize fascism / anti-human right fundamentalism seeking to advance discrimination and oppression against women, immigrants, diverse sexuality and education and investments.

International "mediation" by violence does not make sense in the first place.

That is NOT mediation. That is not the reason of U.N. existence. No. Not at all.
Violence in the name of mediation will also damage its legitimacy rather than its relatively inefficiency to resolute the conflicts.

And in the cases where the "people" with arms intend to materialize anti-human rights fundamentalism fascism led nation against the existing govt, the rule that the U.N. should not use violence /arms what so ever is more definitely applied to.

As you see, in the name of "civil revolution to seek "freedom" in Egypt, the rights of freedom of religious faiths of Christians/Jewish peoples/any others will be utterly banned by "law" in the parliament of "democratic". Also Egypt "new""democratic" government laid which is led almost all by the hard-line fundamentalism, a "new" "democratic" law will be established soon with "bipartisan" that direct women - all women - not to go out without permission of men, not to work, not to commit to any types of policy making or political expressions etc...  Egypt women got angry with its conservatism of the "new""democratic" law despite the fact that the far right fundamentalism and nationalistic conservatism is the obvious consequences from what the "civil revolution" had intended in the first place. I am strongly worrying about what is going on in Syria as well. What is going on in the middle East in the name of "civil" "democracy" led by strong feeling of hate against all the freedom of religion, sexuality and education that have been departed from the Islam "origin" or say, fundamentalism that are what the "revolution"by "people of democracy" actually intended while making people to find its origin of "departure from their origin (fundamentalistic nationalism)" as western culture. Assad is a man from London University, Mubarak is a friend of Israel, Gaddaffi is(was) a man of a friend of America. .. you know... What caused the violence is not, it seems to me, the governance itself by them, rather, is a simple but horrible fundamentalism which only seeks fascism which enforces people into the hate to other cultural diversity and immigrants, generosity towards other religious faiths or beliefs into diverse sexuality or freedom in education and development/investment from the world. I would strongly insist that there must be certain multicultural political peaceful inspections towards what causes the violence in syria as I also had insisted  so in the conflicts between Israel and Gaza in which international voices only attacked and ignored the rights of Israel's  self-defense. One thing what I would like to add here is .. more than 2000 national guards were killed in Syria already. by whom? by which arms? by which arms from where? from who? obviously, some fundamentalists have been strongly supporting the "civil revolution" in the name of "democracy" actually designed only by fundamentalism and far-right nationalism/fascism. So, what is happening now in Syria ??which has been, rather, seemed to be an anti-western culture nation which is actually is just in between U.A.E. and Iran. And the side of "civil""democratic" power is probably, seemingly as it was in Egypt, quite close to the far right hard liner, fascism in the nationalism and fundamentalism. So, this is my conclusion, it is not a war between civilians and Assad govt. rather is a war between far right fascism fundamental political armed milita supported by certain "money" who has supported African CONGO "civil"milita who killed civilians a lot in the name of "civil revolution seeking "democracy"" =actually gangs who seeks fundamentalism to expel foreign nations' investments, which seems to me that there have been on going "anti-globalism" killings that  actually expelled foreign investments towards under developed countries in order to bring investment money back to their own developed countries, in order to bring all the under developed countries back to the ear of under developed without foreign investment, without foreign humanitarian monetary supports for education, medical health initiatives and welfare that are supposed to be equally provided and guaranteed for everyone on this earth. Then, I would not agree with any NATO backing on the side of fundamentalism nightmare. U.N. is to be peacefully meditating between the fared people - civilians - and the Syrian govt without intercepts by the well-armed "democratic""protesters" who have been surely supported by certain rich and fascism oriented hard-liners who are seeking to see the alienated middle east Islamic nations which are isolated from any constructive investments for the people as "underdeveloped" "fanatic"  Islams despite the fact that they are not! And what probably such fascism rich will seek to see is ... a "new""democratic" "revolution" in Israel thrown into a fanatic far right fascism and nationalism fundamentalism ... hope not.

I truly and sincerely would like to expect to see that the U.N. will invent a new strategy to tackle such a people's violent asking to materialize "democracy" in their radical activities easily escalated to certain amount of armed violence to the extent which killed more than 100 policemen (Egypt) in a main city, or say, to tackle a "revolution" of the people seek to build a fascism nation - with or without knowing by themselves - where any freedom of diversity in religious faiths, sexuality, education, commerce or investment, job etc. or say any human rights are almost banned to build a nation of fundamentalism expelling foreign culture and conflicting against each other (for arm/mineral/metal industries and dynamite industries?) without violence.

And the same thing can be said to the case where a violence of fascism govt kill many people in the name of "legitimacy" of the national govt. And in such a case, the U..N.'s inefficiency in ceasing violence of the fascism govt could become an issue though. But both are the case where the U.N. should be remain in its role of mediator without arms and violence, off course that is the legitimacy of the U.N. But only for the case the fascism won't stop killing the people, and with no alternative is left for the U.N., then, certain types of sanctions can be workable as a resolution.
But, it is strange, why, only for the case where certain fanatic nationalism or fascism far-right people raised their violence to seek their "democratic" manner to drag their relative democratic and human right oriented govt, the U.N. allowed the NATO bombed the govt instead of using peaceful and patient long-term economic sanctions....  set for the Iraq, for example.
Strange... is not only about the U.N. and NATO for the case of Egypt, Libya and Syria.. Strange is the huge amount of people who madly got angry about the US/UK intervention against Saddam Hussein fascism fanatic fundamentalism led govt ....

Anyway, the U.N should be peaceful mediator that is supposed to be very much convince and fair for the govt and the people to stop violence that is a reason of the U.N. in the first place. And this is applied to the case where the govt is being in its self-defense for the govt employees and the people with the govt attacked by the people, or vice versa.