The Tumaini Initiative, launched in 2024, seeks to address South Sudan’s ongoing conflict by engaging holdout groups that did not sign the 2018 peace agreement. The initiative represents a renewed diplomatic effort to bring together all relevant parties to form a more inclusive and lasting peace process. However, there are significant concerns regarding its potential to produce tangible results.
South Sudan has been the focal point of numerous peace talks over the years, with many of these discussions revolving around identifying and addressing the root causes of the country’s long-standing conflict. These root causes, which include political power struggles, ethnic tensions, competition over resources, and deep-seated mistrust between rival factions, have been extensively discussed in a variety of peace initiatives. However, despite the extensive dialogue and analysis, these discussions have frequently failed to yield substantial or lasting change, and the country remains trapped in a cycle of violence and instability.
One of the critical issues that has plagued these peace processes is the significant gap between the negotiated agreements and their actual implementation on the ground. While parties may agree to frameworks and solutions during negotiations, translating these agreements into meaningful actions on the ground has proven challenging. Key players in South Sudan’s political landscape often lack the political will or capacity to honor their commitments, and the power dynamics at play can prevent real progress. As a result, agreements are often left unimplemented or are violated shortly after being signed, leading to a sense of disillusionment and further entrenchment of the conflict.
For instance, the 2015 peace agreement, which aimed to bring an end to the civil war and lay the foundation for a more inclusive and peaceful state, ultimately failed to deliver peace as violence resumed in 2016. Similarly, the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) showed some promise but has been criticized for slow progress, especially in areas like the formation of a transitional government reform mechanism, security sector reform, and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
The signing of agreements with factions such as the Johnson Olony Kitgwang faction and, more recently, Gen. Simon Gatwech’s Kitgwang faction, was seen as an important diplomatic move to include all armed groups in the peace process. However, despite these new agreements, the country continues to face challenges in consolidating these various factions into a unified political framework. These agreements risk becoming another layer of fragmentation in an already divided country, with each faction pursuing its interests, often at the expense of the broader peace process.
The Tumaini Initiative, which is the latest peace effort, follows this same pattern of addressing the root causes of the conflict. While it is aimed at bringing holdout groups into the fold, there remains skepticism about its success. Previous peace initiatives have centered on similar issues, yet there has been little lasting change in the political or social fabric of South Sudan. Despite the good intentions behind these peace talks, the country continues to grapple with deep political instability, widespread violence, and severe economic hardship.
The reality is that the gap between dialogue and implementation, the lack of political will, and the country’s deeply entrenched political and ethnic divisions have made it difficult to achieve the long-term peace that South Sudan so desperately needs. Without a genuine commitment from all political factions, a transparent framework for monitoring progress, and international support for robust enforcement mechanisms, South Sudan may continue to see repeated cycles of negotiations that fail to bring about real change on the ground. The Tumaini Initiative’s focus on addressing the root causes of the conflict, including power struggles, ethnic tensions, and resource allocation, is crucial. However, the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) peace processes have already attempted to tackle these issues without tangible success. The continued reluctance of key political factions to fully engage or adhere to agreed-upon measures has undermined previous efforts. This pattern of stalled agreements and unfulfilled commitments raises doubts about the current initiative’s ability to bring about meaningful change.
The Tumaini Initiative presents another crucial opportunity for the leaders and people of South Sudan to engage in meaningful dialogue aimed at healing the deep divisions that have plagued the country for years. As an inclusive peace effort, it offers a platform for various political factions, armed groups, and marginalized communities to come together and discuss their differences in a constructive manner. The success of this initiative hinges on the ability of South Sudanese leaders to create a conducive environment where genuine political discourse can take place, with a focus on reconciliation and shared national interests rather than personal or ethnic power struggles.
One of the central themes of the Tumaini Initiative is the recognition of South Sudan’s shared history and common struggles. The country, although diverse in ethnicity and culture, has been shaped by a collective past that includes periods of conflict, displacement, and survival. Acknowledging this shared history is essential for fostering a sense of unity and national identity. The initiative encourages South Sudanese to see each other not as rivals, but as citizens of the same nation, bound by a shared fate. This shared history can become a powerful tool for building bridges between communities that have been divided by ethnic tensions and political rivalries.
For the Tumaini Initiative to succeed, it will require a shift from narrow political interests toward a more inclusive and forward-thinking approach to governance. It is important for South Sudan’s leaders to prioritize the welfare of the people above individual or group power, embracing the idea that real politics in the country must focus on nation-building and social cohesion. This can only be achieved if all parties, including those with historical grievances, are willing to accept each other as equal stakeholders in the future of South Sudan. This mutual acceptance is crucial for establishing trust, which is the foundation of any lasting peace agreement.
Moreover, creating a conducive environment for dialogue involves addressing the underlying causes of the conflict, such as power struggles, resource allocation, and ethnic divisions. While the Tumaini Initiative provides a framework for discussing these issues, it is essential that these conversations lead to practical solutions, not just theoretical discussions. Leaders must demonstrate the political will to implement these solutions and create an environment where reconciliation and unity are possible.
In the end, the Tumaini Initiative is an opportunity for the people of South Sudan to move beyond past divisions and work toward a common goal of peace and prosperity. By accepting one another as people with a shared history and common destiny, the country has the potential to overcome the divisions that have hindered its growth. If the leaders and citizens of South Sudan can embrace this vision of unity and mutual respect, the Tumaini Initiative could become a turning point in the country’s long journey toward lasting peace and stability.
Furthermore, the inclusion of previously marginalized groups in the Tumaini talks is a positive diplomatic move, but it faces the challenge of ensuring that these groups’ interests are not sidelined once the talks progress. The lack of trust between key players, coupled with the entrenched power dynamics in South Sudan, could undermine the success of this initiative.
In conclusion, while the Tumaini Initiative represents a promising diplomatic effort aimed at addressing the longstanding conflict in South Sudan, there are significant risks that it may follow the same patterns as previous peace talks that have ultimately failed to bring lasting change. The initiative is undoubtedly a step forward in terms of bringing all relevant stakeholders to the negotiation table, including previously marginalized groups, and focusing on key issues such as power-sharing, security reforms, and the root causes of the conflict. However, South Sudan’s history of peace agreements has shown that these discussions often falter when it comes to actual implementation.
One of the major concerns is the lack of concrete actions following the signing of agreements. Past peace initiatives, such as the 2015 and 2018 peace accords, as well as the agreements with factions like the Johnson Olony Kitgwang group and Gen. Simon Gatwech’s faction, demonstrated a clear intent to resolve the country’s issues, but their implementation often stalled. These agreements were largely symbolic without strong enforcement mechanisms or a genuine commitment from all involved parties. This lack of political will to carry out agreed-upon reforms is one of the key reasons why South Sudan has struggled to achieve lasting peace, despite numerous diplomatic efforts.
Moreover, unless there is a real effort to address the deeper, structural issues at the heart of the conflict, such as ethnic divisions, corruption, resource management, and the monopolization of power by a few elites, any peace process, including Tumaini, may remain superficial. These issues are not merely symptoms of the conflict but are embedded in the country’s political and social fabric. Without tackling these structural challenges, the Tumaini Initiative risks becoming just another round of talks that fail to fundamentally alter the dynamics that have fueled the conflict for years.
The effectiveness of this initiative will depend heavily on whether the key political factions, local leaders, and international stakeholders are truly committed to implementing the agreements in a way that leads to meaningful change. This requires not only political will but also a comprehensive approach to peace-building, involving not just negotiations but also genuine reforms, economic recovery, and efforts to heal the social fabric of the country. Without such a multifaceted approach, the Tumaini Initiative may not achieve tangible improvements in South Sudan’s peace and stability, leaving the country trapped in a cycle of unfulfilled promises and continued conflict.
In essence, while the Tumaini Initiative offers a glimmer of hope, the real test will be whether it can break the cycle of failed peace talks by moving beyond mere agreements and focusing on concrete actions that address the root causes of the conflict. Without this shift, the country may continue to struggle with political instability, economic hardship, and violence, rendering the initiative ineffective in achieving sustainable peace.
The writer, Yoal Manyang Riek, is a career diplomat with a master’s in International Relations and Diplomatic Studies and another master’s in Humanitarian and Conflict Studies. He can be reached at yoal@live.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.