ON
← Back to feed
Sudan army's 'chemical weapons use' leads to new US sanctions
AE🏛️ PoliticsCenter5 days ago

Sudan army's 'chemical weapons use' leads to new US sanctions

The U.S. has imposed new sanctions on Sudan's military-aligned government due to allegations of chemical weapon use during the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The sanctions limit Sudan's access to U.S. financing and exports and ban Sudanese state-owned airlines from using American airspace. The U.S. State Department cited a determination that Sudan violated the Chemical Weapons Convention by using chemical weapons in 2024, though specific details such as the type of chemicals and exact locations remain unspecified. Residents reported the attacks occurred in Bahri, a district within the capital region, where civilians had already evacuated. The RSF has not publicly responded to the allegations, and investigations suggest the chemical used was chlorine. Both sides of the conflict are accused of serious human rights violations, including indiscriminate shelling, ethnic killings, and sexual violence. The humanitarian crisis includes widespread hunger and displacement affecting millions of people.

The U.S. has imposed new sanctions targeting Sudan's military-aligned government following allegations of chemical weapon use during the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The sanctions, effective Monday, restrict Sudan's access to U.S. financing and exports and prohibit state-owned Sudanese airlines from utilizing American airspace. These measures come after the U.S. State Department confirmed earlier this month that Sudanese authorities violated the Chemical Weapons Convention by employing chemical agents in 2024. The alleged attacks occurred during clashes over control of Khartoum, Sudan's capital. Residents in the city of Bahri, one of three Nile-side areas forming the broader Khartoum region, reported the use of chemical weapons in an area where civilians had already evacuated, leaving behind only military personnel and RSF fighters. The RSF has not publicly responded to these claims, a decision analysts suggest aims to safeguard the morale of its forces and deter potential desertions. While the U.S. State Department did not specify the exact chemical used, an investigative report by The New York Times previously identified chlorine as the substance deployed in such attacks. Beyond the chemical weapon allegations, the Sudanese Army is also accused of conducting indiscriminate shelling throughout the three-year conflict with the RSF. This pattern of conduct aligns with historical records of severe human rights violations in previous conflicts, including wars in South Sudan and the western Darfur region. Meanwhile, the RSF faces accusations of ethnically motivated killings, resulting in thousands of deaths, along with reports of sexual violence and extrajudicial executions. In Darfur, an area roughly the size of France under RSF control, a mother of five prepares meals at a shelter amid ongoing humanitarian crises. General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, head of the Sudanese Army, and General Mohamed Dagalo, commander of the RSF, both face U.S. sanctions for their roles in alleged war crimes. The conflict has unfolded against a backdrop of widespread famine and displacement, with approximately 20 million people facing hunger and around 14 million forced to flee their homes due to the fighting. Over 100,000 individuals have lost their lives in the conflict, according to estimates. The war erupted after prolonged tensions between the two generals over their positions in a proposed democratic Sudan escalated into open hostilities, initially centered in Khartoum before spreading across much of the country. Currently, the Sudanese Army holds control of the capital and surrounding regions, while the RSF maintains influence in parts of neighboring Kordofan and the southern Blue Nile state. Fighting remains concentrated in these areas, with the RSF controlling significant portions of Kordofan. Despite repeated diplomatic efforts by the U.S. and regional actors to broker a ceasefire, negotiations have stalled. General Al Burhan has insisted on continuing the fight until the RSF either surrenders or is defeated. Although the RSF has shown openness to peace discussions, it has refused to acknowledge General Al Burhan's leadership or the legitimacy of his government, a stance that has hindered progress toward a resolution. As the conflict enters its fourth year, the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with international calls for urgent intervention growing louder.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

1 reports

The National logoThe NationalParty-alignedCenterFactual 85Objective 705 days ago
Sudan army's 'chemical weapons use' leads to new US sanctions

The U.S. has imposed new sanctions on Sudan's military-aligned government due to allegations of chemical weapon use during the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The sanctions limit Sudan's access to U.S. financing and exports and ban Sudanese state-owned airlines from using American airspace. The U.S. State Department cited a determination that Sudan violated the Chemical Weapons Convention by using chemical weapons in 2024, though specific details such as the type of chemicals and exact locations remain unspecified. Residents reported the attacks occurred in Bahri, a district within the capital region, where civilians had already evacuated. The RSF has not publicly responded to the allegations, and investigations suggest the chemical used was chlorine. Both sides of the conflict are accused of serious human rights violations, including indiscriminate shelling, ethnic killings, and sexual violence. The humanitarian crisis includes widespread hunger and displacement affecting millions of people.

Bias read (Center): The article presents information from multiple perspectives regarding the conflict in Sudan, including both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. While the U.S. sanctions are presented as a punitive measure, the article does not overtly favor one side over the other. It reports onU

Why factuality (85): The article reports the US sanctions on Sudan based on the US State Department's claim of chemical weapon use, which aligns with the cross-source consensus. It mentions the Chemical Weapons Convention and provides details about the affected areas. However, it lacks specific dates for the alleged att

Why objectivity (70): The article presents the US position and includes quotes from residents and analysts, but it frames the situation primarily through the lens of US sanctions and international law. It does not provide balanced perspectives from Sudanese officials or the RSF, leading to a somewhat one-sided narrative.

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories