This time, because of chemical weapons... Will Sudan return to complete isolation?
Report - Moatinoon
With the United States announcing sanctions on Sudan, the country returns to the isolation it experienced for nearly two decades under the Salvation Government headed by Omar al-Bashir, before he was ousted by the December 2019 revolution.
This time, for a different and more sensitive reason, the US State Department announced yesterday that Washington will impose sanctions on Sudan after its government was proven to have used chemical weapons in 2024 during the armys conflict with the Rapid Support Forces.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said in a statement that the sanctions will include restrictions on US exports and US government credit lines and will take effect approximately June 6, following notification to Congress, according to Reuters.
She added that the United States officially determined on April 24, under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, that the Sudanese government used chemical weapons last year.
The recent US decision has provoked mixed reactions. Although numerous sanctions have been imposed on parties to the war since its outbreak, they have targeted individuals and companies directly linked to the ongoing battles on the ground since April 2023.
In an article by former Sudanese Armed Forces officer Nabil Yahya Mansour, he argued that assessing the impact of sanctions cannot be separated from a broader discussion about international pressure tools and the need to formulate policies more consistent with the rights of peoples, rather than the balance of power.
He argued in his article that US sanctions on Sudan have not led to the overthrow of a regime, nor have they protected human rights, nor have they saved civilians from the scourge of war, poverty, or abuses, despite their continued existence for many years.
He pointed out that, on the contrary, they have contributed to entrenching isolation, weakening civil institutions, and encouraging the shadow economy and corruption. He described US policy toward Sudan as neither stable nor principled, but rather subject to regional shifts and political blackmail, as in the case of normalization with Israel.
He said, "Sudans experience with US sanctions reveals a long history of fluctuations that reflect an unbalanced mix of moral principles and geopolitical interests. Between the slogan of "fighting terrorism" and obstructing democratic opportunities, Washington continued to treat Sudan as a marginal state, called upon by pressure tools rather than solutions."
Sudans History with US Sanctions
The actual beginning of sanctions was under President Bill Clinton, but the political roots began in August 1993, when the US State Department placed Sudan on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. Diplomatic and financial restrictions were imposed, and this step constituted the first step towards isolating Sudan internationally.
On November 3, 1997, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13067, imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on Sudan for its support of terrorism, human rights violations, and regional instability, particularly in South Sudan. These sanctions included freezing Sudanese assets in the US, prohibiting all forms of trade and investment, and comprehensive financial and banking isolation.
In May 2006, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13400, imposing additional sanctions targeting individuals and institutions associated with the regime, in connection with the conflict in Darfur, which the United States considered a "genocide." The sanctions targeted leaders in the military, police, and security services, and imposed new restrictions on financial transfers.
Return to the World Before the Setback
In 2020, the United States completely lifted economic sanctions on Sudan, and the banking system began to recover very slowly, having remained outside the global banking system for at least 25 years. On June 3, 2021, the Central Bank of Sudan announced that 27 commercial banks had passed the International Bank Account Number (IBAN) system tests, enabling them to use it to receive and send remittances to and from Sudan.
The Central Bank indicated that the IBAN is ready for use without any obstacles, a fact confirmed by tests with SWIFT, which confirmed Sudans inclusion in their monthly bulletin, in addition to bulletins for financial companies. The bank also explained that only 11 banks failed the IBAN tests.
According to journalist Othman Fadlallah, in a post on his Facebook page, this development was an important step toward reintegrating Sudan into the global financial system, as it contributes to facilitating international financial transfers and enhancing confidence in the Sudanese banking system.
Following the coup on October 25, 2021, the global systems confidence in Sudanese banks was affected. Despite Sudans name being included in the SWIFT bulletin, many banks refrained from dealing with Sudanese banks.
Fadlallah said, "Today, the US State Department announced the suspension of credit lines with Sudan starting next June, which automatically means the return of complete isolation of the Sudanese banking system. There is a relationship, albeit an indirect one, between credit lines and the IBAN system."
Sanctions Based on Slander
Comparing what happened to Iraq in the 1990s, journalist Diaa El-Din Bilal, in his reaction to the new sanctions in a Facebook post, sees the US claim that the Sudanese army used chemical weapons against militias as another politically motivated American fabrication.
He said it is a blatant attempt to downplay the overwhelming field victories achieved by the Sudanese army and to provide false cover for the "militia" and its supporters to conceal their military, political, and diplomatic losses.
He asked in his post, "How can an army that has been suffering from a shortage of ammunition and basic weapons for more than a year, and whose ships loaded with equipment are being held in ports, have the ability to acquire expensive chemical weapons?"
He said it reminds him of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which he described as a blatant lie that was one of the main pretexts the United States used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and which was later proven false. He said the goal was to convince the international community of the imminent threat from Iraq, to justify waging war against it despite the lack of conclusive evidence that it possessed nuclear or chemical weapons.
Journalist Osman Mirghani asserted that the Sudanese army had never used anything other than chemical weapons. He said, according to his Facebook page, that the whole issue stemmed from a report published by the New York Times last January, citing unnamed US military sources, "which stated that they had been used in remote areas of Sudan without specifying the place or time."
Mirghani attributed the recent US move to Sudans failure to participate in the Swiss negotiations.
Effects of Sanctions
Former officer Nabil Mansour believes that previous US sanctions on Sudan affected civilians, even if they were not directly directed at them. He said they contributed to weakening the economic structure, paralyzing the banking system, and reducing investment opportunities, which negatively impacted daily life, exacerbated the deterioration in vital sectors such as health and education, and complicated the path to the very democratic transition for which the sanctions were imposed.
He added in his article that this "contributed to the strengthening of authoritarian and undemocratic models of governance, where these countries care little about human rights or democracy, as much as they focus on economic and military interests." It has created a collective sense of abandonment and marginalization, especially among Sudanese youth. Frustration has also seeped into the middle class, weakening societys resilience to crises.
Osman Fadlallah said that the sanctions are not merely a symbolic measure or a given. They affect Sudans sovereign image, state risks, and the confidence of the international financial system in Sudan. Consequently, reconstruction under these sanctions becomes almost impossible.
He added that US sanctions make it difficult for Sudan to negotiate with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the US Export-Import Bank, or even obtain sovereign guarantees. He pointed out that non-US companies will avoid Sudan for fear of the complications of complying with US sanctions, especially in areas such as energy, infrastructure, and telecommunications.
Osman Mirghani, for his part, said that the announced sanctions completely freeze all contact with international banks, including private sector transactions.
