Ending the Guns, Testing the Peace: What General Santino Deng Wol’s Declaration Means for South Sudan
By Abraham Madit Majak
The announcement by the newly appointed Chief of Defence Forces, General Santino Deng Wol, declaring an end to hostilities between the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces (SSPDF) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-In Opposition (SPLA-IO) may appear, at first glance, to be another routine political statement in South Sudan’s long and troubled peace process. But in reality, it carries weight far beyond military language.
It is a moment that could either mark the beginning of renewed national stabilization — or become yet another missed opportunity in a country exhausted by conflict, mistrust, and political fragmentation.
General Santino’s declaration reportedly followed direct instructions from President Salva Kiir Mayardit, signaling an attempt from the highest level of government to cool tensions that have increasingly threatened the already fragile Revitalized Peace Agreement. The significance of this move should not be underestimated.
For months, fears have grown over escalating military confrontations, political arrests, rising mistrust among peace partners, and the gradual erosion of confidence in the transitional government. Communities across Upper Nile, Jonglei, Unity State, and Equatoria have watched with anxiety as political disagreements in Juba translated into insecurity on the ground. Civilians once again found themselves trapped between political calculations and armed movements.
Against that backdrop, any public commitment to halt military confrontation matters.
But South Sudanese citizens have learned, often painfully, that declarations alone do not guarantee peace.
The country’s modern history is filled with ceasefires that collapsed within weeks, political handshakes that concealed deeper rivalries, and agreements signed under international pressure but never fully implemented. The challenge facing General Santino Deng Wol is therefore not merely to announce peace, but to convince both soldiers and civilians that this time the order will be respected in practice.
That is the true test.
The appointment of General Santino itself comes at a highly sensitive political moment. Leadership changes within the military are rarely just administrative decisions in South Sudan; they are deeply political signals. His first major public message — ending hostilities with SPLA-IO forces — suggests that the presidency may be attempting to stabilize the security environment before tensions spiral further.
Yet several difficult questions remain unanswered.
Will commanders in the field obey the directive fully? Will local confrontations stop immediately? Will there be accountability for violations? And perhaps most importantly, is there still genuine political trust between the peace partners?
The Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was designed to transition the country from armed rivalry to democratic competition. But years later, many key provisions remain incomplete, including security sector reform, unification of forces, constitutional processes, and preparations for credible elections.
Without progress on those issues, military calm may prove temporary.
South Sudan’s political crisis has never been purely military. At its core, it is a crisis of governance, inclusion, state legitimacy, and elite competition for power. Guns are often symptoms of unresolved political disputes rather than the root cause themselves. That is why ending hostilities must be followed by serious political dialogue — not merely tactical silence on the battlefield.
There is also a wider regional and international dimension to this moment. South Sudan exists in an increasingly unstable neighborhood. Sudan’s devastating war continues across the northern border, creating economic strain, refugee pressures, and security uncertainty. Regional actors and international partners fear that renewed instability in South Sudan could trigger another humanitarian catastrophe at a time when global attention and aid resources are already overstretched.
For that reason, President Kiir’s directive and General Santino’s announcement will likely be welcomed cautiously by IGAD, the African Union, the United Nations, and Western diplomatic missions. But international observers are no longer easily persuaded by official statements alone. They will judge the government by actions on the ground.
And ordinary South Sudanese will do the same.
The people of South Sudan do not need another symbolic ceasefire. They need roads instead of military deployments. They need schools instead of displacement camps. They need salaries paid, markets functioning, and security that allows farmers to return to their land without fear. Above all, they need leaders willing to place national survival above factional rivalry.
Peace in South Sudan cannot continue to depend on emergency interventions whenever tensions rise. A functioning state cannot be sustained through repeated crisis management alone.
General Santino Deng Wol now faces an immense responsibility. As the country’s top military officer, his leadership will be measured not by speeches, but by discipline within the ranks, prevention of further clashes, and commitment to the peace framework. If his declaration reflects a genuine strategic shift toward de-escalation, it could help restore some public confidence at a dangerous moment.
But if violence resumes despite the announcement, public cynicism will deepen further.
South Sudan stands once again at a crossroads familiar to its history: one path leads toward gradual stabilization and political compromise; the other toward renewed fragmentation and insecurity.
The order to end hostilities is an important first step.
Whether it becomes a turning point or another footnote in the country’s cycle of unfinished peace will depend on what happens next.
Opinions expressed in articles published by RSSVP are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Rescue South Sudan Village People. RSSVP assumes no responsibility for the accuracy, validity, or reliability of claims made by contributors.