this is bbc news. i'm alive in beirut with special coverage. president trump heals the overnight operations in syria as a success overnight operations in syria as a success declaring mission accomplished. britain, the us and france have bombed three sites in syria. the us, britain and france say they targeted three chemical weapons sites with more than 100 missiles. president assad says it's an act of aggression which will make him more determined to fight his opponents. the secretary—general calls for a political solution. i would urge all members to show restraint in these dangerous situations and avoid any hacks that could escalate matters and make the suffering worse for the syrian people. let us look at these

live pictures coming from the un security council in new york. an emergency session requested by russia on the day after this overnight missile strikes, targeting what britain, france and the usa have said were three chemical sites used for the storage and testing of chemical agents in syria. welcome, and lyse doucet in beirut. you join us for our continued special coverage of the overnight military operations conducted by the united states, britain and france against what they have said were three chemical sites used by president assad's government to carry out chemical attacks. today,

the pentagon described the operation as overwhelming, precise and effective. more than 100 missiles we re effective. more than 100 missiles were said to have been launched one week after suspected chemical attacks on the town of douma on the edges of the capital of damascus. the pentagon has said that one of its strikes targeted a scientific research laboratory in the capital damascus as well as two other sites in the central syrian city of homs. president trump this morning thanked his allies and said the strikes were perfectly executed and he declared mission accomplished. let us look at all of the latest developments with this report from our diplomatic correspondent, paul adams. after a week of talking, an hour of bombing. from a friendship in the mediterranean, a salvo of cruise

missiles, 12 in total. —— french ship. britain acted with tornadoes taking off from their base in cyprus also loaded with missiles, he carefully coordinated operation led by the united states. a short time ago, i ordered the united states armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of syrian dictator bashar al—assad.m the early hours of the morning, explosions close to the syrian capital damascus. the target, one of the head by america and her allies. this is not about intervening in a civil war, it is not about regime change. it is about the limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian

casualties. and while this action is specifically about deterring the syrian regime, it will also sent a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity. syria claims to have shot down more than a dozen missiles, but the attack involved over 100. pictures of the aftermath on serving television, the research centre near damascus has been edges to rubble, and near homs, evidence of strikes on two other chemical weapon targets, syrian officials are defiant. this aggression will only increase our determination to defend oui’ increase our determination to defend our sovereignty, dignity, national security and the security of our citizens. syria has said it is business as usual. pictures released appearing to show president assad strolling to work. the president's

supporters are celebrating what they call a victory over aggression. last night's attacks were almost certainly less widespread than the expected and it seems clear that for now, the bombing is over. right now this is a one—time shot and i believe it has set out a strong message to dissuade him and deter him from doing this again. francis said it will not hesitate to act again, but like its allies, said it is not to provoke. translation: we are not looking for confrontation and we do not see any logic in military escalation. that is the reason why we, with our allies, ensure that the russians were warned beforehand. russia has condemned last night's operation and is calling for a meeting of the un security council, but for all of its debts beforehand, it is yet to respond militarily. syrian forces at the scene of last weekend's alleged attack, weapons inspectors have said they still

expect to reach douma today. syria and russia continue to insist that nothing happened in that location. paul adams, bbc news. and so, today, reaction from around the world to the overnight operations, now at nato headquarters, the secretary—general is speaking, let us listen in. several times in recent weeks, talking about the use of chemical weapons in attacks on people, both in the uk and now in syria, do you feel that the norms against the use of chemical weapons are we doing? you spoke about the need to strengthen deterrence in this, do you feel that nations are more willing to use chemical weapons now? the ban on the use of chemical weapons is under pressure because we have seen several examples of state

actors in syria using chemical weapons and that is also the reason why we have to uphold and support the ban on chemical weapons, and not eroded, and that is exactly why nato allies strongly condemn any use of chemical weapons, and that is also why they support the actions taken bya why they support the actions taken by a worthy allies last night. it is important, especially 100 years after we saw the barbaric effect of chemical weapons used not far from brussels, where chemical weapons we re brussels, where chemical weapons were used during the first world war, to do whatever we can to support and uphold the ban on chemical weapons, and that is exactly what the actions last night have helped to do, and that is also why we will continue to work to strengthen the chemical weapons ban.

if the proof is in the pudding, what is in the pudding, what have you been able to see, what evidence? and why are you convinced that based on this evidence, that this was a correctly timed incorrectly carried out the attack? we were briefed by the three allies and they have provided the lot of information. we have no reason to doubt the assessments and the findings of our allies. france, the uk and united states. we also have to understand that the chemical attack took place in an area where the assad regime forces are operating, supported by russia and iran. we have seen that the syrian regime, the assad regime has used chemical weapons before. we have seen multiple open sources

confirming the use of chemical weapons, and also, the world health organisation has confirmed that chemical weapons were used. so, all this creates a picture, which is more than enough for us to support the actions conducted by the nato allies last night. there has been consultations between nato and many nato allies since the attacks on the 7th of april. i was also briefed by sector a mattress last met before the attacks and we will be in close contact with both the uk and france on the last few days. secretary general, you describe the military operation last night as successful. do you believe that everything that you had from the three states that the stockpile of

chemical weapons has been destroyed and that there is no more need for further military attacks against the syrian regime? and did you not think that this limited operation might complicate the search for a political solution? i did not hear the last question. do you not think that this military operation, even if it is a limited one, might threaten the search for a political solution by the united nations? no, on the contrary, if we had just been silent and accepted the use of chemical weapons, and would have undermined the effort to find a political solution. so we strongly expressed support for a un led political process, the dismal military solution to the conflict in syria, but at the same time if the national community accepts the use of chemical weapons, that would be dangerous. and therefore we supported the actions taken last

night, which were very targeted, measured and proportionate, and actually targeted at chemical weapons facilities. we have been briefed by the allies that conducted the strikes that we have assessed them as very effective, they have been able to the greedy capabilities of the russian and syrian regime and we are, of course, glad and welcomed the detailed brief that we have received from our allies from the effect of the attacks. thank you, very much. mister secretary general, has the united states explained why they decided to strike today on saturday, when the group of the international inspectors from the

organisation from the prohibition of chemical weapons have just arrived in syria to verify all the details ofa in syria to verify all the details of a chemical attack? secondly, whom do you intend to bomb the chief information of this chemical attack would be proven to be wrong? we welcome the fact that the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons is on the ground in syria. we have been calling for that for a long time. but it is important to understand the difference between this organisation and an independent investigation. because the opcw does not have a mandate to see who is behind it. they can provide analysis and assessments about whether a chemical attack has taken place, but

they cannot actually tell us who is behind it. and who is responsible. that is exactly why nato allies in the security council and all nato allies have supported repeated calls and repeated initiatives to have an independent investigation into the chemical attacks in syria, and the senator this —— and these initiatives have been blocked time and again by russia by using the veto in the security council. so actually before the strikes took place last night, the nato allies exhausted all other possible methods to address this issue through the un security council by diplomatic means. but since this was blocked by russia, there was no other

alternative than to react like this la st alternative than to react like this last night. two quick questions. this is not the first time we have been here, a little more than one year ago president from ordered strikes because of the chemical attack. understanding your point that there must be an answer from the international community, what gives you any reason to believe that this restrained, limited strike will not have us back here again in six months when your time when there is another reason that the assad regime may have been exposed to use chemical weapons? to what extent do you hold more school responsible for this chemical attacks? russia provide support to the assad regime and they have done that again and again and they will continue to do so. “— again and they will continue to do so. —— do you hold russia responsible for this chemical attack? the attack that happened on the 17th of april was done in

support with russia —— 7th of april. the attacks last night degraded the capability of syria to conduct new attacks. and at the same time, it will hopefully defer and deter further attacks. you cannot have a total guarantee against new attacks. as long as we have regimes or state and non—state actors willing to use chemical weapons. that is exactly the reason why we must continue to work hard to protect and uphold the ban on chemical weapons. war and weapons is barbaric, but chemical weapons is barbaric, but chemical weapons are in particular barbaric, and that is the reason why we have a specific ban on chemical weapons. if the international community is just accepted the use of chemical

weapons, without doing anything, it would be obvious that we would have risked escalation and more and more use of chemical weapons. so, i am not telling you that the attacks la st not telling you that the attacks last night 's all of the problems, but compared to the alternatives, the do nothing, this was the right thing to do. and deter us further attacks, it degrades the capabilities of the syrian regime to conduct new attacks, and it is a way to support the ban on chemical weapons. thank you, this concludes this press point, thank you. thank you. and that is the response of the secretary—general of nato, making it absolutely clear that he has been briefed all along by his western allies and nato partners. he said he had been briefed before the attacks

on the evidence that was collected by the countries who took part in this overnight military operation. he said that secretary of defence matters had called him just before the attacks in the early hours of the attacks in the early hours of the morning in this region and has said he has been briefed again today on the effectiveness of these strikes. to make it clear, they are speaking with one voice when it comes to the importance, as he put it, of ensuring that the ban on the use of chemical weapons is protected. let us now turn to new york. we have been reporting that the un security council has been meeting in special session, the meeting in special session, the meeting that was requested by russia, who has condemned the overnight operations with the very strong reaction from sergei lavrov and the russian ambassador to the united nations. this has led the un secretary general to call for restraint and to warn the un

security members of the dangers of an escalation in the region. mr president, as secretary general of the united nations, it is my duty to remind member states that there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the charter of the united nations and international law in general. the un charter is very clear on these issues. mr president, the security council has primary responsibility for the main victims of peace and security. if colin the members of the security council to exercise that responsibility. and i call all members to avoid any acts that could escalate matters and cause was suffering for the people of syria. yesterday, he stressed the

need to avoid the situation from spiralling out of control. well, the session was also addressed by the american ambassador, nikki haley, and this is what she had to say. with yesterday's military action, our message was crystal clear, the united states of america will not allow the assad regime to continue to use chemical weapons. last night we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder. i spoke to the president this morning and he said that if the syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the united states is locked and loaded. when our president draws a red line, our president and forces that red line. well, the united states and united nations have both been emphasising

the urgency of moving toward a political solution to this war in syria. but at the security council today, the russian ambassador said that this overnight strikes actually made a brokered solution that much more difficult, let us listen to what he had to say. translation: without a mandate from united nations security council and in violation of the un charter and norms of principality law, and aggression against a sovereign state was carried out. this is on the front line in the fight against terrorism. just as only recall, when the shayrat airbase in syria came under attack, the us used as a pretext to stage chemical attack against civilians. this time in douma, damascus, russian military experts did not find any traces of chlorine or any other toxic agents when they visited the site. not a

single local resident was able to gain from that a chemical attack had actually taken place. that was the russian ambassador to the united nations. let us bring in our state department correspondent. barbara, one of the accusations by russia todayis one of the accusations by russia today is that the united states and its allies did not share any of the evidence with russia. sergei lavrov mocked what he called incontrovertible facts. what are the arguments about not chairing the evidence that they had in washington? the state department has said that the intelligence agency would not necessarily sheer evidence that they had because it is classified. so that could be what the argument is for russia, but i think that the issue here is that they do not have internationally verified, independently verified evidence of a significant nerve

agent attack. they have been trying to get evidence, as much as they could, and we have said that they are fairly certain, in fact, convinced that chlorine was used but they would not rule out a sarin gas attack, but they do not have that, which would have strengthened the case in terms of international intervention, but equally, when asked about the international investigators who are poised, the ocp w investigators, the expressed scepticism that the investigators would find anything because they believe that the russians and the syrians who have sole access to the site will have already been there and prevented any kind of evidence from being found. so they do not really trust the russians. but they have also not come forward with any public evidence that they have here in the us. and do you sense now that a greater effort will be made to

handle the situation? we have been hearing how we have been using this hotline even that did not stop the online strikes, do you think this will be the focus because general mattis has talked about this, that he wants to avoid any kind of direct confrontation with russia? well, i think the fact that the strike was so think the fact that the strike was so limited and that there were no russian casualties, and that they we re russian casualties, and that they were using the deconstruction line the whole time, shows that neither side wants an escalation. the pentagon pointed out that it did not coordinated strikes with the russians and did not tell them where the strikes would take place, they did not about them, but this line is about as this, it is noticed that we are travelling through this airspace, so let us not travel through it at the same time. i think the russians would have figured out that if the americans were travelling over damascus that something was up. anyway, the way that the whole thing worked out shows that neither side wants an escalation. whether that means there

will be more than ever amount to calm things down and work together towards some kind of losing —— resolution, i do not know. relations are very fraught between the two nations, that is not necessarily an obvious outcome. yes, because many have commented that this crisis has been the first time that president from in thwaites has actually singled out president putin, for whom for the most part has been kept atan arms whom for the most part has been kept at an arms length distance in terms of criticising him. exactly, yes, he was very of criticising him. exactly, yes, he was very strong in his criticism of russia and single dad vladimir putin by name, which was unprecedented. and he seemed to get worked up about the attack himself. it was when he saw the pictures of the people affected, especially the children, he seemed to have this gut level this will attack, on top of which he also has the issue of the red lines.

remember president obama said he had set this red line about chemical weapons used but did not authorise a military strike on the end because congress did not support him. but there was the sense in the foreign policy committee that that was a mistake and that had weakened the us influence abroad and president trump has very much played on that as well. so he has set his own red line for the back of the strong reaction that happened the last time they felt the need to make sure that he did not let somebody else closet and that he carried through what he said. but even when he was tweeting about putin and the russians, lookout, the missiles are coming and all of the rest of it, he would also have tweets about, actually, it would be better if we could work together, why can't we do that? even with russia and iran. so he still throws out the stores that are a little bit ambivalent about the

whole thing. —— throws out these thoughts. what about trying to reinvigorate negotiations politically? everyone knows how the un's envoys have tried time and again to get this track going politically and it is not clear whether there is anything significantly new to make it more successful tha n significantly new to make it more successful than it has been in the past. i do not see anything new to make it more successful than it has been. all the main nations have made it clear that this is about chemical weapons, not the civil war and they are drawing the line in the sand. the pentagon has said that they hope that this will put some steam behind the process because it will show how heinous the regime is and what kind of heimans —— heinous crimes that commits. but it does not change the balance of power on the ground. you have the us—led process that has been limping along and frankly, has not really achieved anything on the

one hand. on the other hand, you have a process led by iran and russia that has the most influence in terms of territory in the country, we are backing the syrian regime, and together with turkey and the other ones that have been holding negotiations in meetings about a political solution. this chemical weapons attack and death tax on the chemical weapons site does not give the west any more influence at that table than it had in the past. —— and these attacks on the chemical weapons site. thank you for that. let us go back to nato headquarters and we can join adam fleming. support from the un secretary general for this attack, would you say? yes, he was clear that all 29 nato allies, not just the us, uk and france, are behind a rationale for doing this, which was the first leak degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons

capability. the actual infrastructure that they have to wants these attacks again in the future, although he did not rule out the fact that there could be further chemical weapons use, even after these air strikes. secondly, he talked about deterring the use in future and sending that message to syria that it is not normal, it is not ok to use chemical weapons on the 21st century. and there was a really dramatic moment in that press co nfe re nce really dramatic moment in that press conference when the secretary general of nato gesture and out of the window of the building here in brussels in the direction of the battlefields of flanders, where poison gas was used in the first world war, and he made the point that 100 usable, the world said, we will tackle this, this weapon should never be used again, and there was the danger that that message was being forgotten. the talk in brussels is now about what happens to the rest of the political process. eu foreign ministers will meet in luxembourg on monday for the regular meeting of foreign affairs council where they will issue conclusions about syria and we are

told they can expect more references about russia and iran and the part in all this, about russia and iran and the part in allthis, and about russia and iran and the part in all this, and slightly tougher language that has been used before, that language is evolving to sound more to offer. and under round ten days' time they will be a conference in brussels about the humanitarian effort, with more than 90 delegations from the entire international community getting together to the tettey peaceful solution and also looking at ways of helping ordinary people in serbia who have been caught up in all of this. —— syria. who have been caught up in all of this. -- syria. thank you for that update, adam, not just this. -- syria. thank you for that update, adam, notjust from needle but what lies ahead on the weeks to come as the international committee focuses on syria. as adam said, also the very dire humanitarian situation. that is how that looks at this hour. hours after an unprecedented show of military force by the united states, britain and france, carrying out overnight military operations against what they have said were against the chemical site in syria used for the

storage and testing of chemical weapons. an operation described by the pentagon as perfectly executed and which sent a very clear message to the masters. the message from russia and the syrian leadership is that this was an act of aggression. we will continue to follow all of the developments, but for now, it is goodbye from our teams here in beirut. donald trump went on national television saying that he had approved strikes on syria in response to last week's suspected chemical attack. president putin of russia described the attacks as an act of aggression and a syrian president bashar al—assad said the strikes me the more determined than ever to fight his opponents. we can speak now to the former us ambassador to nato, nicholas burns, who is also at harvard kennedy school. we can speak to him. if you

can hear me. the. thank you for coming on the programme. we have been hearing from the nato secretary—general in the last half an hour, we are very strong secretary—general in the last half an hour, we are very strong support for the actions that have been taken by france, the us and the uk. what do you make of it. we should need to be in all of this. is offering words of support after the event enough?” think it is quite important that all 29 countries stand to support, britain, france and the us, and who quite important that the three countries took action, because chemical weapons are outlawed by the chemical weapons convention of 1997. we cannot see the normalised and assad has used, as you know, chemical weapons against civilians on multiple occasions, including last weekend. something had to be done and this was a very deliberate, very specific targeting of his chemical weapons sites. so i think it was proportionate, there was no reason for the russians and the

syrian government to object, but of course they do, because the other ones that have been enabling it, the russians enabling it and the syrians carrying it out. we have also heard the american ambassador suggesting that the un security council has failed in its duty to hold people to account. primarily because of russians objections, she said. would you see this going out? that has to be the next bed to another the diplomatic process forward. you saw general mattis last evening when he first spoke about the strikes, he immediately turned to the need for diplomatic progress. brad baritt is rushed by russia and iran. and turkey. there is no sunni arab or american vice president, so i would think that these three countries, britain, france and the us, the arab

world would want the qualities into diplomatic faction to argue for a ceasefire and argue for political talks. there are 12 million homeless people in a population of 22.1; million in syria, this is a brutal war, it must stop and that is the next the diplomacy, as well as tending to the refugees, europe has done a great deal, my country must done a great deal, my country must do much more on that front. he has said that is what must be done now, what you think these have actually achieved. what have we achieved, other than showing some action? we're not know the answer to that until we wait and see if assad continues to use chemical weapons in the future, and the next few weeks in humans. we hope that he has been intimidated. someone had to stand up for international law and four civilians, the objects of these

attacks, and if he does it again, i would hope that these same three countries and perhaps others would ta ke countries and perhaps others would take similar action, direct, proportionate, specific to his chemical weapons stocks. and command and control. yes, you had the american ambassador saying that they we re american ambassador saying that they were locked and loaded, what did you make of president trump's tweet, suggesting mission accomplished. do you think that was a sensible phrase to use? it has echoes of george w bush, talking about iraq, when there we re bush, talking about iraq, when there were many yea rs bush, talking about iraq, when there were many years of conflict to, but those comments? it is an unfortunate phrase to use them, but i think the president was correct to congratulate the three allies. the battle is to protect civilians and helped reduce, the battle to stop the war, that is a long way into the future and that is not end now. and what about these inspectors and the findings, will that make any

difference, we know that they are supposed to be going in today, these investigators, to look at this site in douma? will anything different, while that make any difference to events ? while that make any difference to events? i think it should. they are going in and this is the united nations body based at the hague, going in to try to ascertain exactly what type of chemical weapons were used. the only institution in syria thatis used. the only institution in syria that is against this attack is the syrian government. there is no doubt that they did this but there is doubt about the type of gas used. this is the organisation and speak for everyone in the world, we have the catalogue exactly what happened and put further pressure on the syrian government to cease and desist. what do you make of the un secretary general‘s comments today that he fears that the situation in syria could spiral out of control? initially, earlier this morning, we we re initially, earlier this morning, we were hearing russia talking about consequences to others, we also heard president assad suggesting

that this had made him more determined than ever. do you share those concerns of the un secretary general? i think he is right to voice them because this is a very private space and you have syrian and russian and iranian and turkish and russian and iranian and turkish and israeli and american and european eurocrat. you do not want to have an accident. i think you have to thank the arms forces of the three countries, we were very careful not to earn any of the targets at the russians or the iranians. they were very specific towards the syrians. i think that is why it took four, five days to pull this coalition together, they did not want to make a mistake and widen the war. so well done to our three military organisations. 0k, thank you forjoining us, good to talk to you. as we have been hearing, damaged it has set out a legal document for its reasons forjoining the allied strike in the way that it did. the prime minister has been emphatic that it prime minister has been emphatic thatitis prime minister has been emphatic that it is not about regime change in syria but the strike will have

far—reaching implications across the region and the uk representative for the united nations, curran pearce, has been speaking at the un about the strikes. last night, british, french and american armed forces conducted colour—coordinated targeted strikes to degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deterred their further use. for the uk, the royal air force launched storm shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of homs where the regime was assessed to keep chemical weapons, this was in breach under serious obligations under the chemical weapons convention. the chemical weapons convention. the chemical weapons convention is one of the oldest international norms that we have dating from 1899. let me explain why we have taken this action. last

saturday, one week ago, up to 75 people were killed in a barbaric attack, withers to —— with up to 500 further injured in douma. a body of intelligence indicates the syrian regime was responsible for this attack, and we know the syrian regime has a track record of using chemical weapons against its own people. including in eastern ghouta in 2013 and elsewhere in 2017. we had sought to stop chemical weapons using every diplomatic means that we have. but, as you know, russia has vetoed in this chamber, six times on chemical weapons to prevent accountability for previous tax and prevent the establishment of an investigative mechanism. so we had

no choice but to conclude that diplomatic action on its own would not be any more effective in the future than it has been in the past. the united kingdom believes it was both right and legal to take military action, together with our closest allies to alleviate further humanitarian suffering by degrading the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deterring the use of chemical weapons. our capability and deterring the use of chemicalweapons. ouraction capability and deterring the use of chemical weapons. our action was a limited, targeted, and as it proved, effective strike, with clear boundaries. these boundaries expressly sought to deter escalation, to avoid escalation, and we did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. together, britain, the us and france hit a specific and limited set of targets. have

we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised, whether that is in syria or on the streets of salisbury. we can speak toa streets of salisbury. we can speak to a professor of international law at the university of cambridge. you heard some of thatjustification. the british government has also published the legal advice it followed before launching these air strikes. what do you make of what it said in that legal and fries, talking about the humanitarian duplications. there are two lines of possible argument. one is what the politicians have mainly been talking about, which is to make sure the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons remains credible, and it is kind of a global

public policy act to enforce the law, the global policeman. the trouble with that argument is, the local policeman is a collective body, it's the un security council, and unfortunately the council was not ina and unfortunately the council was not in a position to mandate another action to be decisive in this instance. this leaves the alternative that individual states are going ahead and saying, we recognise what needs to be done to preserve international peace and security, even if the council come to it, we will do it. that argument is somewhat weak. the united kingdom, however, have focused on a second branch of the argument, which has not been highlighted so much. that is the argument of so—called humanitarian intervention. it's not really focusing consistently on the need to prevent the use of chemical weapons in itself, its focusing on the victims. the argument is the

people of syria have been subjected to an overwhelming humanitarian threat, and attack, that has killed many, and the use of chemical weapons in that context is by definition indiscriminate, you can't contain its effects. and therefore, there is a special risk for the population that requires protection and, if necessary, requires and justifies forcible protection from abroad. this action was therefore intended to forestall further attacks on the population in syria. what some people find hard to reconcile is this idea that a chemical attack is somehow worse, when you have thousands of civilians dying by normal bombs, or as opposition activists claim, by being tortured to death, there is no action taken, but when they killed bya action taken, but when they killed by a chemical weapon, then the

humanitarian legal advice comes in, and you are allowed to say you have taken action on humanitarian grounds. that is quite right. the doctrine of humanitarian intervention operates no matter what weapons are used to destroy a civilian population. but in this incident and argument was made that a more pronounced trigger event, as it were, would be the deployment, the use of chemical weapons against civilians. civilians are the most vulnerable. they don't run around wearing gas masks and chemical weapons protection equipment. they can't hide in sealed military vehicles. nevertheless, these weapons apparently have been deployed in areas of civilian populations and aimed at civilians. therefore although humanitarian intervention might pertain in other circumstances, at least in this, the most grave and extreme case, where a weapon that cannot be discriminated between civilians and competence, has been deployed in a civilian

area, this is a kind of special case. i thought what was interesting when theresa may was speaking earlier, she said her concern that the use of chemical weapons should not be normalised and also linked the case of the skripals, the nerve agent attack in salisbury, to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in syria. what do you make of that? alleged chemical weapons attacks in syria. what do you make of that7m is quite interesting. the official advice of the government, that we have just been discussing, focuses on me, and really exclusively, on humanitarian considerations, the intervention on humanitarian grounds as the justification for this act. but politically, the prime minister, the french president, they have highlighted the need to make sure that the threat of the use of chemical weapons does not become the new international norm. there is

this idea that they have a broader global community role to ensure that the legal environment in which we all operate, that dictates the way we live, because we should be assured that when we sit down on a park bench in salisbury, we will not be sitting down next to somebody who has been poisoned through chemical agents, that these kinds of expectations can be maintained. strictly speaking, though, that goes to maintaining acceptable international environment, a function that ordinarily should add here in the un security council. whereas in this case, the council has been unable to act, and some states argued they act on behalf of the international community, even if they cannot really point to a formal mandate to do so, and that is certainly controversial. thank you, good to get your thoughts. marco weller, professor of international law at the university of cambridge. we can go live to downing street and

political correspondent ben wright. talking about this publication the government has done on the legal case, the advice it has received before launching the attacks. theresa may said earlier it was right and legal. although we have seen a right and legal. although we have seen a leader of the opposition jeremy corbyn saying it was questionable. it certainly hasn't silenced the political argument around the legality of this. as you heard from professor weller just there, for a number of years now britain has used humanitarian justifications to explain why it thinks military action is needed. the uk government did it in regard to kosovo. the legal advice we have seen to kosovo. the legal advice we have seen today is almost exactly the same legal advice the government issued in 2013 when david cameron tried and failed to get parliament to approve military action against president assad for use of chemical weapons then, five years ago. so the humanitarian argument is one that

the uk government has used for some time, and is almost alone among countries making this sort of case. that is particularly because in the uk, since the iraq war in 2003 and the controversy around the government's legal advice, which wasn't published, the legal justification for action has become a very big part of the political debate. that's the conversation on the legal side of things, but also the legal side of things, but also the discussion about parliament is not getting to talk about this or vote on it. theresa may has talked today about prerogative power. yes, which she does have. the government is entitled to use the crown prerogative powers to go to war. that is a right that it has. in recent yea rs that is a right that it has. in recent years it has been challenged by an evolving convention that a government will go and seek the approval of parliament before embarking on military action. and

that convention really stands, i think, in modern times from 2003 and the iraq war when tony blair decided that required the approval of mps. since then, prime ministers have sought the green light from the house of commons first, either before military action, or once or twice after action. notably in 2011 when david cameron joined twice after action. notably in 2011 when david cameronjoined air strikes against colonel gaddafi's regime in libya. he agreed it could happen, and then went to the house of commons a couple of days later to get approval. but there is no sign in this instance that the government has any intention of getting parliamentary approval retrospectively. there will be a debate in the house of commons on monday. theresa may will make a statement and mps will be able to chip in to have their say, but there is no sign the government will ask for their approval even after the event. it could be the convention around parliamentary approval for military action is changing again. in the prime minister's view, there

was a time imperative to take this action, to stop chemical weapons being used again, and send a clear message to president assad that this is completely unacceptable. but the political row is raging and i think it will rumble on into next week, primarily because the question remains, what happens if the government finds itself in this position again and chemical weapons are used in a week or two weeks? will we see this action repeated and at what point will parliament have a say? she didn't really answer that question today. she was asked repeatedly in the news conference if she would act again if there was another chemical attack. we had from the americans that they are locked and loaded, if that were to be the case. theresa may did not commit on that. not at all. she swerved the question, as she has done for the last few days. she doesn't want to go to parliament. she didn't want to

in the run—up to this military strike. i think a big in the run—up to this military strike. ithink a big reason in the run—up to this military strike. i think a big reason for thatis strike. i think a big reason for that is there is no guarantee at all that is there is no guarantee at all that she could win the vote. she is very that she could win the vote. she is very aware that she could win the vote. she is very aware of david cameron's experience in 2013 when he made the case to mps, summoned them back from their summer holidays and lost the vote. it was a political and diplomatic catastrophe for david cameron men and meant the us called off its plans to launch air strikes against president assad then. theresa may does not have a majority in the house of commons. she is running a minority government, relying on the dup to get votes through. the labour leadership is certainly opposed to this action and would vote against it. i think a number of labourmps would vote against it. i think a number of labour mps would vote with the government, but the numbers are dicey and there is no guarantee she would get their approval. there was a time imperative, it seems, and president trump i think, certainly, led on the timetabling of the strike. but theresa may does not and

will not risk a defeat in parliament on this. thank you to ben wright joining us live from downing street. in the past howard the secretary—general has been giving a briefing at nato headquarters in brussels saying all the nato allies we re brussels saying all the nato allies were supportive. all nato allies expressed full support for last night's actions. it was intended to degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities. and to deter further chemical weapons attacks against the people of syria. nato strongly condemns the repeated use of chemical weapons either syrian regime. chemicalweapons of chemical weapons either syrian regime. chemical weapons cannot be used with impunity. the secretary—general of the nato speaking in the last hour. the

regime in syria remains defiant and claims to suffer no fatalities and little actual damage during the air strikes. there have been demonstrations by supporters of the assad government. this protest took place in damascus early on saturday morning, just a few hours after the raids. you and others and the united states can't shake us. they will not shake the syrian people. we've been hearing trump for a week. his words turned out to be more powerful, their missiles were destroyed in the skies in damascus, didn't affect us in any way. we felt proud of our army and our armed forces. these strikes have given us more determination, it hasn't affected us. we've seen worse than this. one of our colleagues from cbs has been

to one of the sites, the facilities that were hit in damascus. the mood is surprisingly calm, we were just heading over to one of the areas driving past that research facility that was bombed early in the morning. we spoke with a number of people getting bread and groceries in the morning, they said they were woken up at around aam, they heard a number of very loud fads, but they said they can fall back asleep, but they said in many ways they have got used to these types of phones, the signs of your strikes as this war has gone into it each year. we've been on the ground here for a couple of days. there was almost a nonchalance, almost disbelief that these strikes would indeed take place, many people questioned the basis for them altogether. stay with us here on bbc world news, plenty

more reaction to come. hello, we finally had a decent spring day, most of us have seen the sunshine today and looked glorious earlier on. the early morning mist lifted, the waves crashing onto the beach there. the sunshine has been extensive beach there. the sunshine has been exte ns ive a cross beach there. the sunshine has been extensive across most of england and wales, northern ireland, centraland southern parts of scotland. what cloud we have seen will melt away over the coming hours, will be lift with clear skies to take us through most of the night. the exception to that story is down through the north—west. a band of rain approaching cornwall and pembrokeshire. for most of us, a dry

night. a bit colder than that across parts of north—east scotland. looking at the weather for tomorrow, a completely different weather day. because we've got no pressure coming our way, this is the low, this area of cloud are spiralling around into the low—pressure centre. that's what we see with old areas of low pressure coming our way, we will have a cloudy day on sunday with spells of rain working in, feeling cooler and will turn windy at times across the west. these bands of rain extending in across england and wales, we will see some downpours during the day followed by some sunshine. that rain will threaten northern ireland and scotland but probably during the afternoon and the north of scotland should stay dry. temperatures 11—15d. that's not the end of the warm weather. we're going to see a return to it, not a return to unsettled conditions, high pressure is building to the east,

dragging in warm airfrom linear continent, temperatures will rise significantly next week. we could see highs of 25 degrees somewhere to the north—west of london, but fairly widely most of us will see those temperatures pushing up into the high teens to low 20s towards the middle, end of next week. monday looks like a decent state, dry weather for england and wales, south—westerly winds, bringing a thicker cloud and rain are getting into northern ireland. clouding over the west scotland with the best of the west scotland with the best of the sunshine in the north—east. those temperatures will build towards the middle of the week. that's your weather. this is bbc news. i'm reeta chakrabarti. the headlines at 6pm... the us, britain and france have taken joint action for the first time in syria, bombing three chemical weapons sites

with more than 100 missiles. we are prepared to continue this response until the syrian regime stop—searches of chemical agents. —— stops its use of chemical agents. four british tornado jets were involved in the operation. theresa may said there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force". we cannot allow the use of chemical wepaons to become normalised, either in syria, on the streets of the uk or elsewhere. parliament should be consulted and be allowed to do give on this but instead the strikes were once last night.