اخبار السودان – وطن نيوز
اخر اخبار السودان اليوم – اخبار السودان العاجلة
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-02-06 10:54:00
Alaa Khirawi khirawi@hotmail.com From the first moment of the outbreak of war on April 15, 2023, Sudan was not just a battlefield between two generals, but rather an open laboratory in which military calculations intersected with international law, politics with technical evidence, and propaganda with facts on the ground. What began as a power struggle within the heart of the state quickly turned into an all-out war that affected cities, villages, hospitals, and markets, and produced one of the largest displacement crises in the contemporary world. As the fighting expanded, accounts of serious violations began to accumulate. Indiscriminate bombing, siege of cities, systematic starvation, and use of means of fighting that exceed the limits of what the rules of war allow. Amid this bloody scene, in the fall of 2023 and early 2024, the first disturbing reports of the use of toxic substances on battlefields appeared. These reports did not come from one party, but rather from field testimonies from civilians, medical organizations, independent monitoring teams, and video clips showing fighters wearing gas masks. At first, these allegations seemed to some to be part of an information war, but their repetition and expansion of their area, from Khartoum to Al-Jazira, Kordofan, and Darfur, turned them into an issue that could not be ignored. At the beginning of 2025, the issue moved out of the local debate and onto the international stage. In January of that year, the US Treasury Department imposed personal sanctions on Army Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan under Executive Order No. 14098, in a move that Washington linked to obstructing the civil transition and the conduct of forces in the war. Then came a more serious moment in April and May 2025 when the US administration announced, based on the Chemical and Biological Weapons Prohibition Act, that it had reached an official determination that the government of Sudan had used chemical weapons during the conflict. At this point it is no longer just a political accusation; It became a written legal process, transmitted to Congress, later published in the Federal Register, and became a reference for every subsequent debate about the Sudanese state’s responsibility in this war. Since that date, the balance of debate has changed. It is no longer just a question; Who started the war? Rather, the most urgent question has become: How is this war being conducted, with what tools, and at whose expense? Can a crime of this kind be allowed to pass without an impartial, international technical investigation? This is where the real story of this article begins; The story of a serious accusation, a tense official reaction, mounting international pressure, and a Sudanese refusal to allow an independent investigation under the supervision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a refusal that will make the question of truth an arena of conflict as much as it is an arena of war. When an authority insists that the accusation is a “political conspiracy,” and then at the same time closes all doors to mechanisms for impartial technical verification, it is not defending its innocence as much as it is defending its “right to ambiguity.” In the file of accusations related to the use of chemical weapons in the Sudan war, the ambiguity is not a minor detail. It is the last line of defence. Because impartial international examination does not judge the speech, but rather the effect. Samples, supply chains, wind maps, exposure time, injury pattern, and material residues in soil and water. It is precisely here that rhetoric collapses, and science begins to speak its decisive word. From the American perspective, the story did not begin with a passing media statement, but rather with gradual and dated official procedures. On January 7, 2025, the US Treasury Department announced the inclusion of the Commander of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Hamdan Daglo “Hemedti,” among sanctions related to Executive Order No. 14098. Then, on January 16, 2025, the Ministry of Treasury announced the inclusion of Sudanese Army Commander Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan on the same list, with the same legal reference (Executive Order No. 14098). What is most important here is that the Treasury Department statement did not present the sanctions as a “political dispute,” but rather as a response to a course of war and obstruction of a settlement, with references linked to the behavior of the forces in the field. On the same day, the US State Department supported this step with a separate statement linking the sanctions to the context of the war and the sources of weapons. Then came the most dangerous shift; Not only a political description, nor an “internal intelligence assessment,” but a legal designation under a US law prohibiting chemical and biological weapons. On April 24, 2025, the US State Department said that it had reached a “determination” that the government of Sudan used chemical weapons during the year 2024, in accordance with the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Ending Act of 1991. This designation was announced publicly on May 22, 2025, with a package of “measures” and sanctions effective after publication in the Federal Register (the State Department has indicated an approximate effective timing of June 6, 2025). Then, procedural documentation came in the Federal Register dated June 27, 2025 to explain the type of restrictions/exceptions (aid, export control and certain licenses, with humanitarian exceptions and partial waivers for reasons of “national security interest”). The reaction inside Washington did not stop at the executive branch. On May 23, 2025, positions were issued by Congress welcoming the administration’s decision and demanding that the legal determination be translated into broader political pressure and accountability. The same discussion also appeared in international coverage, detailing that the measures include restricting US exports and restricting access to government credit lines. At the level of American diplomatic discourse at the United Nations, the accusation continued to be present in subsequent briefings. The United States Mission to the United Nations condemned “the use of chemical weapons by the Sudanese Armed Forces” in an official speech to the Security Council on December 22, 2025. (Website of Congressman Chris Smith, Reuters and the US Mission to the United Nations) On the other hand, the de facto government in Port Sudan chose a defensive path based on two pillars: Political denial, and practical rejection of any path that could turn denial into a test. The United Nations has documents showing how the Sudanese response was transmitted to the Security Council through official letters in late May 2025 arguing against “unilateral measures” and pushing to question the legitimacy of the American measure, while referring to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the need to respect multilateral frameworks. Regardless of the content of the denial, the fundamental point of conflict here is not the “statement” but the “mechanism.” Who has access to the sites? Who takes the samples? Who ensures the chain of custody? Who announces the results? Internationally, the scene was more gradual and cautious, because most capitals know that the chemical file is sensitive and is usually managed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, public positions began to insist on the principle; Any allegation of chemical use must be met with an independent professional investigation. A clear example of this is the British position; British Parliament documents convey that the Foreign Secretary (according to official answers published later) stressed on May 23, 2025 that any use of chemical weapons was “unacceptable,” and demanded that the Sudanese Armed Forces cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to facilitate a comprehensive and impartial investigation. Then came a second wave of interactions through human rights organizations and investigative media, which increased moral pressure on the demand for investigation. On October 9, 2025, Human Rights Watch spoke about “worrying” reports about the possible use of chlorine gas, and recalled the US sanctions on Al-Burhan in January 2025, noting that Washington had not published its detailed evidence publicly. In November 2025, France 24 (Observers Section) published an investigative report on the path to obtaining chlorine “imported for purification” and how it could be turned into a tool of war, with visual materials documented and verified. The Conflict and Arms Trade Analysis Foundation (C4ADS) supported the investigation through a statement talking about tracking a supply chain linking the source abroad and the transfer path inside Sudan. At the regional/African level, statements do not usually appear that go directly to “naming the chemical” as much as they focus on stopping the war, protecting civilians, and the unity of the state, but the continent’s institutions have been reminding us of the centrality of accountability and breaking the cycle of impunity within their broader approaches to the crisis. At the European level, late EU statements in 2025 focused on “accountability” and supporting documentation and investigation of violations in general, a context that intersects with the chemical file as a violation of the highest degree of seriousness. Let the most dangerous question rear its head again and again; Why does someone who declares his innocence refuse to have this innocence tested in an independent laboratory? Because an impartial international investigation, under well-known mechanisms such as fact-finding and technical evaluation mechanisms, will not limit itself to asking, “Was a chemical agent used?” Rather, it will go directly to what every armed actor fears in a war without controls. Chain of decision and responsibility. When did the use occur (chronologically)? Where was it located (geographically)? Does the injury pattern match the wind direction and material properties? Are there traces in the soil and water? What is the “chain of custody” for samples? Can munitions/containers/transport routes be linked to a specific supply structure? This type of investigation leaves little room for rhetorical denial; It makes denial merely a “narrative” in the face of “evidence.” The irony is that when Washington moved from sanctioning individuals (January 2025) to “legal determination” using chemicals (April/May 2025), it was implicitly saying that the file had gone beyond the stage of political discretion to the stage of “international responsibility,” even if the technical details remained unpublished to public opinion. When accusations are transferred to the Security Council as official documents and letters exchanged, the rejection itself becomes a “political fact” that can be recorded. One party demands an investigation and one party refuses or maneuvers about its format. Therefore, whoever trusts himself and asks for an investigation should not run away from it, because the investigation clears the arena and closes the door to political investment in the accusation. As for those who reject impartial investigation and then brandish loose internal committees or mobilization speeches, they are not defending a truth, but rather defending the “monopoly of the narrative.” The monopoly of the novel in crimes of this type means in practice; Keeping the door ajar to escaping accountability, leaving the victims without full-fledged judicial evidence, and leaving the international community facing the possibility of the crime being repeated. Between this and that, there is one truth that does not change; The chemical accusation, whether later proven in full detail or remains disputed beyond “local whispers” into a written international record of proceedings; Treasury Department sanctions (January 2025), US legal determination (April 24, 2025) and public announcement (May 22, 2025), published in the Federal Register (June 27, 2025), official controversy in Security Council documents (May 2025), then continued condemnation in subsequent US words (December 2025), with accumulated human rights and media pressure. Thus the circle is complete; From bullets fired at dawn on April 15, 2023, to laboratories searching for traces of toxic gases in scarred soil. The chemical file in Sudan is no longer cafe talk or war propaganda, but rather a documented path with successive steps that cannot be jumped over. US Treasury Department sanctions on January 7 and 16, 2025, then the official legal determination on April 24, 2025, the public announcement on May 22, 2025, and the publication of the decisions in the Federal Register on June 27, 2025, leading to the confirmation of the accusation in the corridors of the Security Council on December 22, 2025. This sequence is neither a coincidence nor an improvisation, but rather the path of a superpower when it decides to turn doubt into a legal obligation. On the other hand, the military authority in Sudan chose to take refuge in denial, resort to internal committees, and refuse to open the door to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the only body capable of transforming discourse into science, and claiming laboratory results that cannot be disputed. Whoever escapes impartial examination does not do so because he is confident, but because he knows that the laboratory does not know courtesies, and that the expert report is not subject to threats or propaganda. The meaning of this moment goes beyond the person of the proof or the nature of the war; It is a test of a simple rule of international law; Crimes committed against civilians are not erased by denial, but rather proven or disproven by independent technical investigation. If there is one lesson that emerges from this whole process, it is that the truth may be delayed, but it does not dissipate. And justice, whether it comes from The Hague, from international committees, or from future Sudanese courts, is moving slowly, but it is not retreating. The file has moved from the battlefield to the record of legal history, from the clamor of rhetoric to the rigor of evidence, and from the Sudanese borders to the Security Council table. Anyone who thought that time would erase the truth will discover that chemistry does not lie, that documents are not forgotten, and that when a scientist records a crime, he is paving the way for accountability, sooner or later.
