Sudan’s army-aligned authorities came under renewed scrutiny over allegations of chemical weapons use during a confrontation at the United Nations General Assembly, where the UAE challenged the military’s conduct and Chad rejected accusations of involvement in Sudan’s war.
The diplomatic dispute on Monday, September 28, exposed divisions over responsibility for the conflict, with the UAE accusing the Port Sudan authorities of obstructing peace efforts and demanding accountability for alleged violations against civilians.
Sudan’s UN ambassador, Al-Harith Idriss, rejected the accusations and sought to shift attention to alleged Emirati support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), prompting further exchanges between the three countries.
UAE challenges Port Sudan authorities over chemical weapons
The Emirati representative accused Sudan’s military of using internationally prohibited chemical weapons and argued that both warring parties must be held accountable for violations against civilians.
The diplomat said the authorities in Port Sudan were one of the parties to the conflict and should not be exempt from scrutiny or international demands for a humanitarian ceasefire.
Abu Dhabi also accused the military leadership of rejecting proposed humanitarian truces, arguing that the protection of civilians must take precedence over the interests of the warring parties.
The chemical weapons allegations have already prompted action by Washington.
In April 2025, the United States formally determined that Sudan’s government had used chemical weapons in 2024 in violation of international law. Sanctions followed, restricting exports and access to US government credit.
Washington announced further sanctions in June 2026, which took effect in July, after determining that Sudan had failed to meet the conditions required under US chemical weapons legislation.
Separate investigations published earlier this month examined leaked documents, videos and communications concerning an alleged chemical weapons programme linked to Sudan’s army.
The material raised questions about the possible production and deployment of chlorine-based munitions and alleged efforts to conceal the programme. The military has rejected the allegations, which have not been conclusively established by an independent international chemical weapons investigation.
Port Sudan envoy rejects allegations
Idriss rejected the UAE’s accusations, questioning the technical evidence behind claims that the Sudanese army had deployed chemical weapons.
He challenged the Emirati representative to produce forensic evidence, including environmental samples, laboratory findings and medical examinations of alleged victims.
The Sudanese envoy also disputed Abu Dhabi’s description of the authorities in Port Sudan, arguing that the terminology was inappropriate for a UN member state.
He accused the UAE of supplying weapons, logistical assistance and foreign fighters to the RSF, citing international investigations into external support networks.
Idriss further alleged that Emirati-linked entities had assisted in training fighters in advanced drone operations, artillery and air defence systems before their deployment to Sudan.
The UAE rejected the accusations and reiterated that it was not responsible for Sudan’s war.
Chad rejects allegations of involvement
The diplomatic confrontation widened when Chad’s representative exercised the right of reply to reject allegations concerning his country’s role in Sudan’s conflict.
The Chadian diplomat said N’Djamena maintained a position of neutrality and did not permit its territory or infrastructure to be used by either warring party.
He rejected accusations from the Port Sudan authorities that Chad had facilitated military activities linked to the RSF, maintaining that the claims were unfounded.
The allegations come amid continuing international scrutiny of foreign military support for Sudan’s rival forces.
A UN fact-finding mission reported in September that a transnational network involving individuals and companies operating in several countries, including the UAE and Chad, had supplied the RSF with weapons, logistical assistance, training and foreign personnel.
Investigators also identified preliminary evidence of foreign assistance to the Sudanese army’s drone capabilities.
The findings did not establish that every government associated with those networks had directly authorised the activities. The UAE and Chad have denied providing military support to the RSF.
International pressure for a ceasefire
The dispute unfolded as diplomatic efforts continued to secure a humanitarian ceasefire and a civilian-led political settlement.
The UAE renewed its call for an unconditional cessation of hostilities and a political process independent of both armed factions and extremist groups.
The Port Sudan authorities, meanwhile, continued to challenge international proposals that place the Sudanese military and RSF on an equal footing.
The confrontation followed Washington’s decision to withhold a visa from army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan amid disagreements over a proposed 90-day ceasefire. US officials have also questioned the legitimacy of both warring factions as representatives of Sudan’s people.
With international investigators documenting abuses by both sides, the latest exchanges have brought renewed attention to the allegations against Sudan’s military leadership, the foreign networks sustaining the conflict and the need for accountability for attacks on civilians.
