International pressure on the Sudanese army leadership is mounting, as allegations of chemical weapons use move beyond the realm of press reports and intelligence assessments into an intensifying debate over an independent international investigation, amid a new crisis between army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Washington.
UN Secretary-General’s spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, said the organization was prepared to investigate allegations that the Sudanese Armed Forces had used chemical weapons if granted an official mandate, describing continued discussion of the use of such weapons in the twenty-first century as “abhorrent.”
Dujarric also announced the United Nations’ support for efforts aimed at halting the flow of weapons into Sudan, as the United States pushes to expand the existing arms embargo on Darfurto coverthe entire country.
The UN position comes after months of accumulating evidence and allegations. The United States has formally concluded that the Sudanese government used chemical weapons during 2024 and imposed sanctions on Khartoum, before adding further punitive measures this yearoverits failure to meet US requirements related to the issue.
In September, The Washington Post, citing internal documents, video footage, and messages, revealed what it described as a secret program within the Sudanese military establishment that involved diverting chlorine shipments, manufacturing, testing, and storing munitions, and attempts to conceal traces of the program.
An investigation published by Euronews, based on the work of former senior officials at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and testimonies from eight Sudanese nationals, also found indicators that experts described as credible of possible exposure to toxic substances linked to military operations, and called for an official independent investigation to be opened.
But the latest developments raise questions about whether an internal investigation alone is sufficient, particularly as the allegations implicate the military institution itself.
Consequently, calls are growing for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or an independent international mechanism to be granted access to sites, samples, documents, and witnesses, and to determine responsibility all the way up the chain of command.
This coincided with a new diplomatic crisis for al-Burhan. Reuters reported that the United States has yet to issue his visa to attend the meetings of the UN General Assembly, citing sources who said its issuance is linked to his acceptance of a 90-day truce proposed by Washington. The US administration has not officially linked the visa issue to the chemical weapons matter.
Yet the coincidence of the two developments reflects the widening pressure on the army leadership: Washington is pressing for an end to the fighting and for the arms embargo to be expanded, while the United Nations is declaring its readiness to investigate one of the gravest allegations that can confront a party to an armed conflict.
The matter should not remain confined to political sanctions. If an independent international investigation establishes that chemical weapons were used, it should move directly to determining individual responsibility and holding those responsible to account. Investigations should also extend, where the evidence leads, to supply and external support networks, as well as any companies or states proven to have knowingly assisted in providing materials orequipment fora prohibited program.
If the evidence reaches al-Burhan or other senior officials, political or military position should not provide immunity; rather, the findings should lead to individual sanctions and accountability before a competent judicial body.
After the US sanctions, international investigations, expert testimonies, and now the United Nations’ readiness to act, the question is no longer whether the allegations are serious enough to warrant an investigation. The question now is: Who is preventing the investigation, and why?
