UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday, Sept. 3, that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense, or with Security Council authorization. His remarks appeared to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without UN backing.

He also suggested that a U.S. attack could lead to further turmoil in conflict-ravaged Syria, where the United Nations says over 100,000 people have been killed in the country’s 2-1/2-year civil war.

Ban was speaking to reporters after President Barack Obama won the backing of two top Republicans in Congress in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.

“The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter, and/or when the Security Council approves of such action,” Ban said. “That is a firm principle of the United Nations.”

Obama said on Saturday he was “comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.”

Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Jaafari had sharp words for the U.S. administration.

“Who asked Mr. Obama to be the bully of the world?” He said. Jaafari also raised media reports suggesting rebels launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack with the aid of Saudi Arabia.

The United States has bypassed the United Nations in the past when the council was deadlocked, such as during the Kosovo war in 1999. At that time, Washington relied on NATO authorization for its bombing campaign, which forced Serbian troops and militia to pull out of Kosovo.

Ban also questioned whether the use of force to deter Syria or other countries from deploying chemical arms in the future could cause more harm than good.

“I take note of the argument for action to prevent future uses of chemical weapons,” he said. “At the same time, we must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate a political resolution of the conflict.”

“The turmoil in Syria and across the region serves nobody,” he said. “I appeal for renewed efforts by regional and international actors to convene the Geneva conference as soon as possible.”

Ban said that if UN inspectors determine that chemical weapons were used in Syria, the Security Council, which has long been deadlocked on the civil war, should overcome its differences and take action.

He also reiterated that the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction is an international crime of the highest order.

“Almost a century ago, following the horrors of the First World War, the international community acted to ban the use of these weapons of mass destruction,” Ban said. “Our common humanity compels us to ensure that chemical weapons do not become a tool of war or terror in the 21st century.”

“Any perpetrators must be brought to justice,” he added.

Samples and other evidence taken at the site of the attack in the suburbs of Damascus that the United States says killed more than 1,400 people, many of them children, arrived at European laboratories on Wednesday, Sept. 3. Ban told diplomats last week that analysis of those samples could take two weeks.

The United Nations has received at least 14 reports of possible chemical weapons use in Syria. After months of diplomatic wrangling, UN experts, led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, arrived in Syria on Aug. 18 with a 14-day mandate to look for evidence.

The UN team was initially going to look into three incidents, but its priority became the Aug. 21 attack. The inspectors have also been looking into Syrian allegations that the rebels used chemical weapons three times last month against the Syrian army – allegations that Washington has dismissed.

The UN team will only determine whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a limited military response to the Syrian regime’s reported use of chemical weapons against civilians.

The resolution that grants President Barack Obama limited authority to launch the military strike was approved on a 10-7 vote, with one member voting “present,” The Washington Post reported.

Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey have been testifying at hearings on Capitol Hill Tuesday and Wednesday.

Before passing the resolution, senators on the panel approved an amendment to expand it, specifying the goal of U.S. military intervention in Syria should be to bolster the Free Syrian Army, The Hill reported.

The amendment, sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chris Coons, D-Del., included language that the goal of the U.S. strikes should be to reduce Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons.

In the House, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee showed division over a possible military strike on Syria as Obama’s security team explained it.

During a hearing Wednesday, Sept. 4, committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., voiced skepticism that the United States could avoid an escalation in fighting, The New York Times reported.

The House version of the authorization would limit Obama’s authority to 60 days, prohibit any U.S. forces on the ground in Syria and prevent Obama from using force beyond the initial punitive strikes, unless he certifies the Syrian forces again used chemical weapons.

According to analysis conducted by Think Progress, lawmakers in the House are leaning towards a “no” vote with regards to approving a strike against Assad to retaliate against his alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilian last month outside of Damascus.

Compared to earlier in the week, lawmakers in the House are now more likely to vote against authorizing a strike. The website reported Thursday morning that 199 U.S. representatives are expected to shut-down any strike against Syria, with 49 lawmakers in the House looking towards voting yes.

Obama faced growing pressure from world leaders on Thursday not to launch military strikes in Syria at a summit on the global economy that was hijacked by the conflict.

The Group of 20 (G20) developed and developing economies met in St. Petersburg to try and forge a united front on how to revive economic growth, but failed to heal divisions over a U.S. plan to wind down a program to stimulate the world economy.

The club that accounts for two thirds of the world’s population and 90 percent of its output looked as divided over therapy for the economy as it is over possible military action following a chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Obama arrived in Russia’s former imperial capital with a showdown looming at a dinner hosted by President Vladimir Putin, with a debate on Syria the main course on the menu.

“Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price – it will cause a hike in the oil price,” Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said.

The BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – echoed that remark, and the Pope, who leads the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, urged the G20 leaders to “lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution.”

European Union leaders described the August 21 attack near Damascus, which killed up to 1,400 people, as “abhorrent” but said: “There is no military solution to the Syrian conflict.”  

     — Reuters, UPI, TAAN