Fabiola Badawi
Paris – Allegations of chlorine-filled munitions haunt the Sudanese army, as Washington cites non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and Berlin raises concerns over a possible undeclared chemical weapons program.
International pressure is mounting on the Sudanese army, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, amid renewed calls for independent and transparent investigations into allegations that it used chlorine-based chemical weapons during the ongoing war against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The growing scrutiny comes amid increasing questions about the nature of Sudan’s military chemical activities and the extent to which Sudanese authorities are complying with relevant international agreements.
During the 113th session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), held in The Hague from October 6 to 9, 2026, five countries the United States, Germany, Australia, Finland, and Belgium called on Sudanese authorities to provide adequate explanations and cooperate fully with the organization.
The five countries emphasized the need to investigate the allegations and hold those responsible accountable if violations are established.
Although their positions differed in detail, they converged on the need to take the allegations seriously, ensure transparency, and avoid relying solely on official responses without allowing independent verification.
US Media Reports Reveal Details of Alleged Secret Program
The current escalation stems from reports published by the American newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post in early September 2026, which described an alleged secret program within the Sudanese army to develop and produce chlorine-based munitions.
According to the reports, the program allegedly involved manufacturing and testing prototypes before producing and stockpiling hundreds of bombs.
According to The New York Times, its investigation was based on a collection of approximately 150 documents, photographs, video recordings, and audio messages, along with several thousand text messages that the newspaper said it had obtained from mobile phones belonging to senior Sudanese military officers.
The materials examined in the investigation reportedly indicate that efforts to develop chlorine-based munitions date back to 2024.
The newspaper also reported that some audio and text messages suggested that army commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan had direct knowledge of these activities.
Despite the seriousness of these revelations, the information remains part of media investigations and allegations requiring independent verification an issue that has become central to recent international diplomatic positions.
Washington Moves from Allegations to Sanctions
The United States has gone beyond demanding investigations, imposing punitive measures against the Sudanese government after announcing its determination that the Sudanese army had used chemical weapons in 2024.
On May 22, 2025, Washington announced sanctions against the Government of Sudan, including restrictions on US exports and access to credit lines.
In June 2026, the United States also announced a second package of sanctions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act.
Washington maintains that Sudan remains in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), calling on the Sudanese government to submit a comprehensive and accurate declaration concerning its chemical program and allow the OPCW Technical Secretariat transparent and unrestricted access to relevant sites.
The United States has also emphasized that the national technical committee established by Sudanese authorities cannot substitute for independent verification conducted by the OPCW.
During this week's Executive Council proceedings, US representative Nicole Champagne reiterated Washington's position, stating that Sudan continues to be in non-compliance with the Convention based on American findings concerning chemical weapons use in 2024.
Washington went further by urging States Parties and regional groups to reject the candidacies of non-compliant countries for membership in the Executive Council.
This position links compliance with the Convention to participation in the bodies responsible for overseeing its implementation and raises questions about the potential implications for Sudan's standing within the organization.
Belgium: Official Responses Do Not Match the Seriousness of the Information
Belgium, for its part, expressed concern over reports alleging that the Sudanese army had used chlorine-containing munitions.
Belgium's Permanent Representative to the OPCW, Ambassador Wouter Detavernier, said the available information warranted additional clarification.
He noted that the responses provided so far were not commensurate with the seriousness of the information published in open sources.
Brussels called for further explanations that would enable the organization to assess the allegations, particularly as questions persist regarding the nature of the alleged munitions and the circumstances surrounding their storage and use.
Germany Raises Possibility of an Undeclared Chemical Weapons Program
Germany broadened the scope of concerns surrounding the issue after its ambassador to the OPCW, Gudrun Lingner, said new media reports raised the possibility that the alleged use of chemical weapons in 2024 was not an isolated incident.
According to the German position, these reports raise questions about the possible existence of an undeclared chemical weapons program, requiring a comprehensive investigation that goes beyond examining a single alleged incident.
Berlin urged Sudanese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation without delay, publish its findings, and cooperate fully and transparently with the OPCW.
Germany also called for those responsible to be identified and held accountable should prohibited chemical weapons use be established.
The German position reflects a shift in the debate from allegations concerning a specific instance of chemical weapons use toward broader questions about potentially extensive activities requiring investigation and verification.
Australia Focuses on Stockpiling and Use
Australia also expressed serious concern over reports concerning the alleged stockpiling and use of chemical weapons by the Sudanese Armed Forces.
Australian Ambassador Gregory French called for transparent disclosure of any non-compliance with the Convention, stressing the need for the OPCW to act within its mandate if credible evidence emerges.
Australia's position adds another dimension to international demands by focusing on stockpiling as well as use, expanding the scope of the explanations required beyond allegations concerning the deployment of chemical munitions.
Finland: No Impunity for Chemical Weapons Use
Finland emphasized the seriousness of allegations concerning chemical weapons use in Sudan and urged the authorities to address them promptly, objectively, and transparently.
Helsinki stressed that the prohibition of chemical weapons is absolute and that any proven use of such weapons must not go unpunished.
Finland also welcomed the OPCW Technical Secretariat's continued monitoring of developments.
This position places accountability at the forefront of international demands, alongside the need for conclusions based on investigations and credible evidence rather than merely diplomatic exchanges of statements.
Sudan Faces a Critical International Test
The positions adopted by the United States, Germany, Australia, Finland, and Belgium demonstrate the widening international attention surrounding allegations of chemical weapons activities in Sudan and the growing demand for clear answers.
Between American sanctions, German warnings about a possible undeclared chemical weapons program, Belgian demands for additional information, Australia's focus on stockpiling and use, and Finland's insistence on accountability, attention is increasingly turning to the willingness of Sudanese authorities to cooperate with the OPCW and permit independent verification.
Ultimately, determining the validity of the allegations and establishing responsibility will depend on the findings of investigations and credible evidence.
Nevertheless, the convergence of international positions around the need for transparency places Sudanese authorities under significant scrutiny.
The implications extend beyond the ongoing military confrontation, potentially affecting Sudan's international obligations and its standing within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.