The State Department says it has repeatedly demanded an unconditional humanitarian truce and a commitment to an inclusive political dialogue that leads to civilian rule. Those demands have been ignored.
The diplomatic rupture deepened this week. Reuters reported that the United States refused to grant a visa to General Burhan ahead of his scheduled address to the 81st UN General Assembly on Thursday.

Sudanese sources said the move was linked to a US-backed ceasefire proposal that Port Sudan opposes. The decision, if confirmed, would mark the lowest point in US-Sudanese relations since the war began. A Sudanese source told Reuters that Foreign Minister Mohieddin Salem would deliver the speech instead.

PMnewsnigeria.com notes it is not an isolated sanction. In January 2025, the United States imposed sanctions on Burhan personally, accusing the SAF under his leadership of violating international humanitarian law, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, carrying out extrajudicial killings, and obstructing aid delivery. Yet Burhan remained a central interlocutor for international diplomats.

Dragging Sudan Into The Prohibited

It is against this background that the chemical weapons allegation has emerged — potentially the most serious escalation in the war’s legal and moral dimension.
Sudan has been a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) since 1999.

The Convention bans the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Membership was supposed to close that chapter forever.
In May 2025, the US State Department declared that it had determined that the Sudanese Armed Forces had used chemical weapons against the RSF. Washington imposed sanctions on Sudan as a consequence. It did not stop there.

It brought the case to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, calling on Sudan to comply fully with its obligations and to allow independent verification.
Khartoum responded with a national investigation that concluded no evidence of chemical weapons use had been found.

Washington rejected the national mechanism outright, stating that a self-investigation cannot substitute for independent international verification.

For months, the issue simmered. Then in September 2026, two major American newspapers — The Washington Post and The New York Times — published investigative reports citing classified documents and intelligence. Both alleged that the Sudanese army had established a stockpile of chemical weapons, including munitions and bombs containing chlorine gas, and had used them against RSF positions during the ongoing war.

The army categorically denies the allegations.
The OPCW is the only specialized international body technically capable of confirming such use through sample collection, chain-of-custody procedures and laboratory analysis. But its ability to operate inside an active war zone like Sudan is severely limited. So far, the independent international investigation has been minimal compared to the seriousness of the allegation.

The Justice Gap The World Cannot Ignore

This creates what analysts call a normalization of alleged war crimes. The RSF is rightly pursued for documented atrocities, including ethnically motivated killings in Darfur and widespread sexual violence. But the SAF, despite allegations of chemical weapons use, indiscriminate bombing, and the suspension of Burhan’s visa, continues to be presented as the legitimate voice of Sudan at the UN.

According to PMnewsnigeria.com, the United Nations International Independent Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan has tried to correct that imbalance. Its report states that both sides have committed serious violations of international law and that some drone operations could amount to war crimes. It also notes that recruitment of foreign fighters and external support networks are fueling the war, strengthening the military capabilities of both parties and enabling increasingly sophisticated operations with devastating civilian consequences.
The Mission reminds states linked to these supply chains that they have strict obligations under international law to exercise due diligence, investigate and halt illicit mercenary and supply networks operating from or through their territories, prevent violations, and enforce the UN arms embargo.

The central question for the international community is no longer whether Sudan’s war is dangerous — it is how dangerous it has become. If chemical weapons have indeed been used, Sudan has crossed a red line that implicates not just Burhan, but the global non-proliferation regime itself.