American contradiction
Amgad Fareid Eltayeb
The U.S. Department of State has announced its government’s intention to impose sanctions on Sudan, alleging the use of chemical weapons in 2024. This accusation comes despite the complete absence of local reports from within Sudan, independent evidence, or any corroborating accounts. According to Reuters, U.S. officials attempted to reconcile this discrepancy by claiming that the alleged use of chemical weapons was limited in scale, occurred in remote areas, and was ultimately ineffective.
This decision appears to be part of the lingering legacy of Molly Phee, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, whose record was marked by a deeply problematic and overt bias against Sudan in its war against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Notably, these chemical weapons allegations only surfaced after the U.S. government officially designated the actions of the RSF as acts of genocide—a decision that Phee reportedly opposed vehemently but which ultimately prevailed, resulting in sanctions against RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti).
The justification offered by U.S. officials—that the alleged weapons use was minor, isolated, and ineffective—is unconvincing and logically incoherent. It fails to meet the threshold for sanctions of such magnitude, and the lack of any notification to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)—of which Sudan is a member of the Executive Council—is particularly troubling. Standard international protocol mandates such notification when credible information on chemical weapons use arises, and the failure to do so casts further doubt on the veracity of the U.S. claims. This raises the suspicion that the decision to impose sanctions—despite the absence of any real U.S. funding or lines of credit to Sudan—serves no real purpose other than to apply political pressure in line with the United States’ habitual coercive diplomacy, or perhaps to appease the United Arab Emirates by signaling a tough stance against Sudan, which now openly confronts Emirati aggression.
The appropriate and rational response for Sudan is to demand, through the relevant United Nations mechanisms, that the United States present the evidence upon which it bases these serious accusations. Sudan should call for the establishment of a UN-mandated investigation committee composed of neutral and independent parties, explicitly excluding the United States due to its evident conflict of interest. Simultaneously, Sudan must highlight this blatant abuse of international legal norms, which are increasingly enforced selectively—especially as the international community continues to ignore the UAE’s egregious aggression and its ongoing provision of arms and support to the RSF, enabling the continuation of grave violations, atrocities, and acts of genocide.
