Sudan’s army faces new pressure as US reopens chemical weapons file

THE HAGUE – Sudan’s military leadership is facing a new international challenge as the United States revives the issue of alleged chemical weapons use, adding diplomatic pressure to a conflict already marked by battlefield losses, political deadlock and a deepening humanitarian catastrophe.

The US push at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) comes as efforts to negotiate an end to Sudan’s war remain stalled and Washington seeks greater pressure on the rival factions fighting for control of the country.

At meetings in The Hague, the United States called on OPCW members to prevent Sudan from holding leadership positions within the organisation, arguing that a country accused of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention should not help oversee the global system designed to prevent the use of such weapons.

“The credibility of our institution is at risk,” the US delegation said, urging member states to choose only countries in “full, verifiable compliance” with their treaty obligations.

The move places further pressure on Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of Sudan’s army, whose forces have been fighting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo since April 2023.

Both commanders are under international sanctions over allegations of war crimes linked to the conflict.

Washington said its assessment was based on independent technical analysis and concluded that Sudan’s armed forces used chemical weapons in 2024 and remained in non-compliance with the convention in 2025.

The Sudanese military-backed authorities have strongly rejected the accusations, describing them as politically motivated and insisting that Sudan remains committed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Khartoum has said it is willing to cooperate with international institutions through legal and technical channels but rejects what it considers premature conclusions.

The dispute comes at a sensitive moment for Sudan’s military leadership, which has resisted several international mediation initiatives while insisting that any settlement must address the future of the RSF and the structure of the state.

Analysts say Washington’s decision to highlight the chemical weapons issue gives it an additional tool to pressure Burhan’s government and raise the cost of refusing international proposals for a political settlement.

The chemical weapons allegations carry significance beyond legal questions, as the OPCW is one of the world’s most rigorous international monitoring organisations, with extensive verification mechanisms.

A prolonged dispute could further damage Sudan’s ability to rebuild relations with Western governments and international institutions after years of political isolation.

The US has already imposed sanctions targeting Sudanese authorities after determining that they failed to meet conditions required to restore compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The measures include restrictions affecting trade, financial support and access to international lending mechanisms.

Meanwhile, the war inside Sudan continues to fuel one of the world’s largest displacement crises, with millions forced from their homes and humanitarian agencies warning of widespread hunger.

The chemical weapons dispute illustrates how Sudan’s conflict has expanded beyond the battlefield, becoming a wider international struggle over accountability, legitimacy and the future of the country’s governing institutions.

As diplomatic pressure mounts, Burhan faces a difficult balancing act: maintaining control at home while confronting growing demands from international actors for accountability and political compromise.