Sudan, the UAE and Chad trade rights of reply as a UN report maps the supply chain

Representatives of Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Chad exchanged accusations during right-of-reply statements at the 81st session on Monday, Sudan Tribune reported. The Emirati envoy called for an unconditional ceasefire and a civilian government free of both warring parties and extremist groups, and urged pressure on the RSF and on what he termed the “Port Sudan authority.” Sudan’s permanent representative, Al-Harith Idriss, rejected the phrase as a slight against the sovereign equality guaranteed by the UN Charter. In a second reply the UAE delegate said Idriss spoke solely for a faction in a civil conflict, and that his country would not take lectures from a government that committed war crimes against its own population. Chad’s envoy dismissed claims that N’Djamena facilitates military logistics into Sudan, restating his government’s 22 September address to the Assembly.

The document underneath the exchange is the UN Fact-Finding Mission report of 23 September, “Fueling the Conflict in Sudan: External Factors.” It concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe that private entities, logistical facilitators and recruiters operating from countries including Colombia and the United Arab Emirates used transit points in Chad, south-eastern Libya and the Somali city of Bosaso to deliver personnel, training, weapons and logistical supplies to the RSF. Mission expert Mona Rishmawi said investigators had identified “a transnational chain of networks spanning several countries.” On chemical weapons allegations, Idriss did not issue a flat denial but demanded proof meeting Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons standards, asking whether environmental samples, soil analysis or biological examination of casualties had been conducted.

Assessment: The FFM attributes conduct to private entities and facilitators operating from those countries, not to the states themselves. That gap is precisely where the Emirati delegate is standing, and any summary that collapses it is doing Port Sudan’s advocacy rather than reporting. Note also the symmetry of the evidentiary move: Idriss demands OPCW-grade forensics on chemical-weapons claims against the army while asking the Council to name RSF sponsors on the strength of a report whose own language is probabilistic. Both sides are now litigating standards of proof, which is what belligerents do when neither expects a battlefield verdict soon. The terminology fight — “Port Sudan authority” against “Government of Sudan” — is the recognition question conducted by other means.