The Awareness Series Manufacturing th Pretext and the Absence of Evidence: The “Chemical Weapons” File Between Political Coercion and Sudan’s International Commitments A Report on the Facts

The Awareness Series

Manufacturing th
Pretext and the Absence of Evidence: The “Chemical Weapons” File Between Political Coercion and Sudan’s International Commitments

A Report on the Facts

Introduction

The recent allegations by the United States accusing the Sudanese Armed Forces of using chemical weapons do not constitute a departure from Washington’s established political conduct in the region. Rather, they represent a continuation of a recurring political approach in which sensitive humanitarian and arms control issues are deployed in pursuit of broader geostrategic objectives.

This politicised campaign has emerged at a time when Sudan is engaged in what it regards as an existential war against the Rapid Support Forces, which the Sudanese government designates as a terrorist militia. It also coincides with sustained military and diplomatic efforts aimed at restoring the authority and sovereignty of the Sudanese state. The timing therefore raises serious questions about the true motivations behind the mounting pressure being exerted by the United States.

I. Technical Fragility and Diplomatic Contradictions: The Absence of Evidence

A careful examination of Sudan’s diplomatic position reveals the fragility of the foundations upon which the American allegations appear to rest. In fulfilment of its international obligations as a member of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Sudan demonstrated considerable openness by establishing a national committee that accompanied an American field team to the locations in question, where soil samples were collected.

Washington’s Failure to Produce Evidence

According to the Sudanese position, throughout an entire year of sustained diplomatic engagement, the United States Department of State failed to provide a single document, technical report, or material piece of evidence capable of substantiating its allegations, whether to the Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan in Washington, D.C., or to the headquarters of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.

Bypassing Established International Mechanisms

Rather than allowing the matter to be determined transparently and conclusively through the relevant international technical mechanisms, Washington proceeded to impose unilateral sanctions. This course of action reinforces the Sudanese contention that the matter is primarily political in character and is not founded upon a credible process of international arms control oversight.

II. The Weight of Historical Memory: The Al Shifa Precedent and the Iraq Deception

When Khartoum invokes Washington’s record of misleading intelligence assessments before the United Nations Security Council, it is not merely defending itself. It is drawing attention to a recurring methodology based upon the manufacture of pretexts for political and military action.

The Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory, 1998

A vital Sudanese pharmaceutical facility was destroyed on the grounds that it was allegedly involved in the production of nerve agents. The intelligence underpinning the strike was subsequently subjected to sustained and serious challenge, while the United States never publicly produced conclusive evidence establishing that the facility manufactured chemical weapons.

The Invasion of Iraq, 2003

The now infamous presentation before the United Nations Security Council, centred on purported evidence of weapons of mass destruction, became a principal justification for the invasion of Iraq and the destruction that followed. The intelligence assessments on which those claims were based were subsequently discredited, and senior American officials later acknowledged grave failures of intelligence and judgement.

Revisiting these precedents serves to remind the international community that the present allegations bear striking similarities to earlier instances in which disputed intelligence was used to construct political justifications for intervention or to exert pressure upon the sovereign decisions of states.

III. Diplomatic Ambiguity and the Conduct of a Non-Neutral Mediator

The contradictions inherent in the American approach to mediation and peace efforts are apparent across several fundamental areas.

Disregard for Sudan’s National Vision

While Washington publicly presents itself as seeking a political resolution to the conflict through officials and envoys such as Massad Boulos, Khartoum has submitted official documents and revised proposals outlining pathways towards peace, withdrawal, and the restoration of stability. According to the Sudanese position, these submissions have been met with indifference and have not received the serious consideration they require.

Overlooking the Principal Drivers of the Conflict

As hostilities continue in El Fasher and El Obeid, and as thousands of civilians endure siege conditions, ethnically motivated killings, and severe public health emergencies, including outbreaks of cholera, Sudan argues that official American discourse has largely overlooked the continued military and financial support allegedly provided to the Rapid Support Forces through regional actors, including the United Arab Emirates.

These allegations have been the subject of international media reporting and investigative commentary, including articles and analyses published by prominent international journalists. From Sudan’s perspective, the failure to confront these claims with equal seriousness exposes a profound imbalance in the international handling of the conflict.

IV. The Strategic Objectives Behind the “Chemical Weapons” Allegations

The latest American campaign extends well beyond concern for the implementation of international conventions. It reveals, from the Sudanese perspective, broader geopolitical and political objectives pursued through sustained diplomatic pressure. These may be summarised as follows:

▪︎ Weakening the military institution and undermining its resolve

Allegations concerning the use of prohibited weapons, together with the unilateral sanctions that follow, are viewed as an attempt to constrain the operational freedom of the Sudanese Armed Forces, disrupt the military balance on the ground, and create an artificial equilibrium intended to reshape the conflict in favour of the RSF.

▪︎ Coercing sovereign decision-making and imposing political settlements

The chemical weapons file is being used, in Sudan’s assessment, as an instrument of diplomatic pressure designed to place the country’s leadership under the constant threat of international isolation. The objective is to compel political concessions and secure acceptance of settlement frameworks that may not serve Sudan’s national security interests.

▪︎ Diverting attention from grave violations

This manufactured campaign also serves to redirect international and media attention away from the grave crimes and abuses allegedly committed by the RSF against civilians, particularly the siege of cities, the atrocities in El Fasher and El Obeid, and the worsening humanitarian crisis. In their place, the international debate is being drawn towards allegations that Sudan maintains are unsupported by credible and publicly verifiable evidence.

Conclusion

A closer examination of the American allegations concerning Sudan’s alleged use of chemical weapons reveals what Sudan regards as a transparent diplomatic strategy founded upon the manufacture of political pretexts intended to reshape both the political and military landscape.

Sudan’s firm position before the United Nations Security Council and within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has gone beyond merely rejecting the accusations. According to Khartoum, it has exposed Washington’s inability to provide verifiable material evidence and highlighted its decision to resort to unilateral sanctions without awaiting a transparent and conclusive determination through the relevant international mechanisms.

The current campaign also revives memories of previous intelligence failures associated with Washington, from the destruction of the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory in Khartoum to the discredited claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. From Sudan’s perspective, the present chemical weapons dossier is therefore not an impartial exercise in international accountability, but an instrument of political coercion intended to obscure alleged regional support for the RSF, divert attention from the severe humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in cities such as El Fasher and El Obeid, and undermine the sovereignty of the Sudanese state and its national military institution.