UPDATE 1-Military intervention in Syria would need U.N. approval -Brahimi

Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:51am EDT

(adds quotes, background)

GENEVA Aug 28 (Reuters) - Any U.S. military action taken in response to apparent chemical weapons attacks in Syria would need to be approved by the United Nations Security Council, international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said on Wednesday.

"I think international law is clear on this. International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says," he told a news conference in Geneva.

"I must say that I do know that President Obama and the American administration are not known to be trigger-happy. What they will decide I don't know. But certainly international law is very clear - the Security Council has to be brought in."

Western leaders have made clear they are ready to take action without Council authorisation, citing precedents for foreign intervention to protect civilians.

Brahimi said it seemed that "some kind of substance" had been used near Damascus on Aug. 21, killing hundreds of people, but that he awaited evidence from Western powers as well as U.N. inspectors currently visiting the sites.

Brahimi moved his headquarters from Cairo to Geneva earlier this month in hope of overseeing preparations for an international conference on ending Syria's civil war. The meeting is known as Geneva 2, since it would follow a June 30, 2012 session when major powers reached agreement that they wanted a political transition, but failed to stop the war.

"The Russians and the Americans are both telling me they remain committed to Geneva 2, but what will happen, I think, we will know only if and when this military action takes place," Brahimi said. (Reporting by Tom Miles and Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
yolajo wrote:
Well, I think UN have no role to play here, Lets go back to the UN disapproval to get into Iraq 2001 but that doesn’t stop Bush from carrying on his attack on innocent Iranians that lost millions of their lives.

Best on my opinion, as long as america keep on predicting overiding UN decissions, better UN to be scrabed, because two governments doesn’t fit into a single portion.

Aug 28, 2013 9:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.