The Organization of Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ( OPCW), of which Sudan is a member of its executive committee, has a rigorous fact finding process that includes requesting clarification from any state of possible breaches and sending experts for inspection on the ground and finally sharing the report with the public. In the current case of Sudan this never took place; the only available information is a new report by The New York Times that references four US officials speaking under the condition of anonymity of the Sudanese army using these weapons.

Another report by a recently formed local organisation, with no disclosure of its funding, claiming that chemical weapons were used in Khartoum and Darfur by the army. Significantly, they have not provided a single shred of evidence. In a similar case, another organisation shared a photo of a grenade launcher made by the China North Industries Group Corporation Limited (Norinco), claiming it was used by Sudanese soldiers with the banned sulfur mustard gas before starting a battle in Khartoum. An independent news platform debunked this photo and showed the weapon could not be used to launch chemical weapons.

It is hard to overlook the influence of the UAE— the RSF militia’s main sponsor and a key military and financial partner of the US—in shaping this decision. As the Sudanese army gains significant ground on the battlefield, it is in the UAE’s interest to undermine its reputation and leverage its connections to diminish its power.