Unmasking a Double Standard against Sudan

At the time the world was waiting for Trump administration to impose further sanctions and isolation on the RSF militia, particularly after the Secretary of State Mr. Marco Rubio, publicly announced that his administration, like its predecessor, had firmly established that the militia had committed genocide and other heinous atrocities in Sudan.

However, Trump, contrary to expectations, turned the tables on logic and justice, announcing its intention to impose new sanctions (on the very victim), accusing the Sudanese government of using chemical weapons in 2024.

Professionally speaking, the proof of the use of chemical weapons is achieved either by the presence of exhibits (the devices used), by examining and inspecting the victims, by taking air samples within 24 hours of the incident, or by taking soil samples after a period of time that may be longer or shorter depending on the type of alleged substance.

That being the case, has the Trump administration, followed any of these steps to prove the validity of their accusation against the Sudanese army? The professional army that celebrates this year, its 100th anniversary. However, if the answer continues to be no, then launching such baseless accusations, is nothing more than throwing spaghetti at the wall, to see if any of them "stick".

Besides, taking unilateral actions, is unwarranted contempt for the OPCW; the relevant and the only competent mechanism in this respect, in which not only both Sudan and United States, are member states. It is rather difficult to find any other explanation for this behavior other than insistence

on the law of the jungle, where the powerful uses his muscles to achieve his narrow gains, with absolutely no regard for ethics or rules (the superiority of brute force).

They proverb says "the more things change, the more they stay the same " in other words, the appearances may shift, however, the underlying principles or behaviors do persist; As a matter of fact, such unfounded American accusations against Sudan are not new; in August 20,1998, Americans missile strike and destroyed Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, on the premise that it was involved in producing chemical weapons, and has ties to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Contrary to the fallacious and delusive American narrative, the government of the Sudan has proved that, Al-Shifa factory was privately owned and had been financed by several Sudanese investors and the Bank of the Preferential Trade Area (PTA) also known as COMESA. The then giant Sudanese factory used to meet more than 60% of Sudan's pharmaceutical drugs.

What the Americans won’t divulge, Al-Shifa was mainly targeted because it was one of the cornerstones of the “self-reliance strategy” announced by the Sudanese government, which was preceded by self-sufficiency in wheat for the first time and the commencement of exporting Sudanese oil.

suffice to say here, international chemical warfare experts on chemical warfare at that time were quick in professionally refuting the American allegations. Moreover, they unanimously concluded that Sudan has never appeared on any public list ever released by intelligence, whether in the US, Europe or Russia to that effect. adding that Sudan was not a country identified as having a capacity for producing chemical weapons. In other words, studies of chemical weapons proliferation at that point, did not identify Sudan as a country of concern at all. “period”

It is self-evident; there isn’t any reason to doubt that attitudes within the OPCW have changed toward Sudan. Let us not forget that Sudan, since joining the organization in 1999, has maintained its membership in the Executive Council of this prestigious international organization, and even chaired the aforementioned Council for three terms. It is still a member of the Executive Council.

Returning to the Al-Shifa plant, it is ironic that it was the Clinton administration which repeatedly and unprofessionally turned down Sudan's repeated requests to the Security Council, to send a technical fact-finding mission to Sudan, to inspect the remains and rubble of the destroyed plant, searching for any evidence of the presence of chemical weapons, as the US government claims.

Ironically, just a few years later, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a military attack on Iraq, reducing it to a pile of rubble, under the pretext that Iraq would not allow inspection of some factories they claimed were producing chemical weapons.

Such barefaced dichotomy and duality angered a Sudanese diplomat, at that time, and prompted him to comment saying, "You guys’ bombed Iraq because it prevented UN weapons inspectors from entering, and we in Sudan were begging; demanding UN inspectors yet, you guys prevented them "

Perhaps the most ironic in this renewed episode, the RSF militia itself (being the presumed victim), with all their media platforms and networks facilities, fully funded by Abu Dhabi, with tens of its advisors, who show up almost on daily basis, on different satellite channels, disseminating and falsehoods and accusations against the government of Sudan. Nevertheless, they never ever accused the army of using chemical weapons. So, what on earth prompts the Americans administration, to act more royalist than the king; Had the militia possessed such information, they wouldn’t have spared a single minute, to take advantage of.

We cannot fail to point out here a similar slander that was released in 2016, by Amnesty International, perhaps at the behest and encouragement of the American government, in which it accused the Sudanese army of using chemical weapons in Jebel Marra in Darfur, an accusation that it quickly refuted by UNAMID Joint Special Representative (JSR), the Nigerian Martin Uhomoibhi, , who pointed out in a press conference that the UNAMID mission has more than 20,000 peacekeepers deployed in the region, besides having fully equipped field clinics. However, it has not found any evidence for these accusations.

More hurtful and actually repulsive; the timing of the American accusation and the underlying sanctions, was anything but innocent; in other words, the announcement of the sanctions meant to coincide and rather head off, Sudan's naming of a prominent and well-respected Sudanese figure, as a civilian prime minister with full powers, who will work to consolidate Sudan's regional and international role and move the country towards a democratic civilian transition.

The synchronization that we referred to above, is the American modus operandi of hypocrisy and double standards, Sudan has become accustomed to for many decades. History tends to repeat itself; in 1986 for instance, when the first civilian and elected government took power in Sudan, after 16 consecutive years of military rule, the American administration rewarded the restoration of the civil rule, by officially announcing that Sudan was no longer eligible to receive loans and grants from international financial institutions.