Cooperation or disintegration?

Could the UN system be the final arbiter of conflicts any more in a world riddled with and where rivalry, self-interest and greed govern supreme in the inter-state relations of nations?  Could the permanent members of the United Nations’ Security Council continue any length as responsible countries to look after the maintenance of world peace and take on the mantles of supreme powers, as they, themselves, appear to be the perpetrators and sources of human destruction and disintegration in view of what could be seen in the Middle East, and the Arab world?
It seems to me if the rival world powers’ interests in their so-called spheres of influence were within balance and control, particularly, in aligning with the particular individual countries, like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel and Palestine, the present hue and cry for peace would have been abated.  The actual and sometimes the imaginary spheres of influence in this geographical enclave, particularly, by the two nuclear-armed rival world powers, is virtually disturbing the peace of all mankind and all creations that dwell on our spectacular but fragile planet earth.
The disengagement or absence of the arbiter in Syria according to the superficial division of the spheres of influence has led to the wanton destruction and disintegration of her people and material.  On the other hand, the non-inclusive political system in Iraq, coupled with the miscalculation by the master of the sphere of influence in leaving behind heavy and a generation of modern armory and sophisticated war arsenals has made that division-ridden country pay a heavy cost in human and materiel death and destruction by the rise of the dark-flagged Caliphates.  The smiting of the unfortunates including religious and racial minorities seems to be horrendous and beyond imagination. 
When we try to think for a while about international affairs outside the Middle East, one could observe the flagrant violation of other countries’ sovereign rights under the pretext of historical ties, which is true, or the protection of nationals residing in another country, and sometimes take over the territory of another through a camouflaged election ploy. The issue of sphere of influence is becoming these days contrary to the precincts of international law and order.  The UN Charter stands for “the development of friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” 
The time we live in is precarious.  No one country these days should pride itself with a loose-loose theory.  Possession of nuclear and thermo-nuclear war arsenals will not anymore help any major power in any actual theater of war since one cannot come out a winner; so, priding oneself in owning these war arsenals except for deterrence purposes has no more value, nor would it add value to statesmanship.  If ever one resorts to that weapon, in the final analysis, one has to be sure of mutual extinction.  Therefore, there should not ever be any strategic error in priding oneself with or in directing this materiel lest mankind and world civilization fall into total abyss.
There was a time among academics as to how to recommend any plausible change in the UN system in the light of the fact that the time was over for the permanent members of the Security Council to protect and maintain world peace as they, themselves, were the sources of conflicts and human sufferings.  It ended only in unresolved polemics.     It seems to me, forgetting all the political squabbles that the super-powers are caught in today, the international societies could still count on them for they can still work in unison for creating a new world order where the present sources of conflict would not exist anymore, and where respect, equality, dignity and sovereignty of nations could be upheld, and where human rights and peoples’ all round freedom could be maintained.  As such, our world will surely but steadily smell the smell of happiness and not anymore, the smell of human misery, woe and cry.  There will prevail once again world peace, human development, and smooth inter-state relationship, for peace is always one and indivisible.  Let us hope for that bright day to arrive so that mankind will be able to laugh and not to weep.   
Besides, the press-world should be careful enough not to funnel and transpire negative views and not to play one super-power against the other biased.  Such a move would not help to narrow partisan differences among the big powers—this is not to say that factual statements should be discouraged.  The problems of our world need our positive views and uninterrupted greasing of their wheels in order to help uproot their ugly stems for the good of mankind.  So, the super-powers can still work through cooperation and lend their good-will through compromise, negotiation, transparency, and statesmanship for peace to prevail in every corner of our globe.  Let differences and disintegration among powers and mankind wither away.  Thank you.