This week saw atrocities committed during the two-year long war in Sudan under the spotlight in both Washington DC and London. In the US, the State Department notified Congress yesterday of its determination on the use of chemical weapons by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), triggering sanctions to begin in 15 days. The sanctions include restrictions on US exports and financing to the Sudanese Armed Forces. The State Department demanded that they “cease all chemical weapons use and uphold its obligations” under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Meanwhile, in London, protesters took to the streets close to the Palace of Westminster. They were protesting the use of chemical weapons in Sudan and some protesters wore yellow vests similar to protective clothing and masks against chemical weapons to symbolise the threat to Sudanese civilians. The protests featured banners written in Arabic and English that urged the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) to participate in peace negotiations, which the SAF has thus far refused to do. They also highlighted the vulnerability of civilians who have no protection against chemical weapons. When interviewed, protestors said that the population in Darfur, already experiencing famine, had no access to equipment to protect themselves against the SAF chemical-weapon bombings reported by official sources in the United States.
Britain has called on the SAF to desist. Addressing the 108th Session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons earlier this year, Britain’s permanent representative to the Council, Joanna Roper CMG told delegates: “We are extremely concerned by reports which suggest that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have used chemical weapons in Sudan. Sudan, like any other State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, must abide by its obligations.”
Also this year, the US Treasury Department said: “Under [General Abdel Fattah] Burhan’s leadership, the Sudanese Armed Forces’ war tactics have included indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure, attacks on schools, markets, and hospitals, and extrajudicial executions.” Indeed the US at that time announced sanctions against al-Burhan, for documented atrocities by his troops, including indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the use of starvation as a weapon of war.
In January 2025 the New York Times reported on several U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, claiming that chemical weapons were a factor in the US decision to move against General al-Burhan. According to the New York Times report, two officials briefed on the matter said the chemical weapons appeared to use chlorine gas, a substance that, when weaponised, can cause lasting tissue damage and in confined spaces can cause death by suffocation. In the view of the officials who spoke to the New York Times, it was clear that General al-Burhan had authorised the use of these weapons.
According to the New York Times, the United States also obtained intelligence that chemical weapons were possibly going to be used by the SAF in Bahri, in northern Khartoum, where, at that time, both sides were battling for control. The fear was that chemical weapons could be turned on civilians in addition to having used them already on their opponents, the Rapid Support Forces (RFS).
Reports of chemical weapons attacks by the SAF date as far back as August 2024. Amnesty International reported that at least 250 people including dozens of children in the Jebel Marra area of Darfur may have died as a result of exposure to chemical weapons. Amnesty said it had evidence that Sudan’s government carried out at least 30 likely chemical weapons attacks in the area since between January and August 2024.”
“During these attacks, hundreds of civilians have been shot at, tens of thousands have been displaced, and in one of the most sickening twists in the conflict in Darfur, we have discovered credible evidence that the Sudanese government has been using chemical weapons on the civilian population,” said Tirana Hassan, Amnesty International’s Director of Crisis Research.
Amnesty used satellite imagery, conducted more than 200 interviews and obtained expert analysis of images showing injuries consistent with chemical weapons attacks.
Hassan said: “We gave all of the evidence that Amnesty International collected to two independent experts who viewed the evidence, and said that there is credible evidence that there has been the use of some sort of chemical agent and in particular, there is a high possibility of the use of a vesicant, or a blistering agent such as lewisite, or sulphur mustard gas.”
