It is only to be expected that in smouldering conflicts, apportioning blame leads to the exclusion of certain conflict parties from peace processes to avoid giving them more acknowledgement. But even once the first rifts have been overcome and peace talks have begun, this does not mean that fighting has stopped, and all debates have been resolved. So how do we deal with the surrounding tensions and who has the legitimate right to sit down at the table for peace talks?

Theresa stresses, that there is always tension when armed violence is a recent experience: “The shift from a war-mindset, in which it is about survival and framing the other as the enemy, to a peace-mindset doesn’t happen for everyone at the same time”.

This could create tensions of further escalation, alienation, and misunderstanding. Even encouragement for peace could be seen as ignoring emotional needs and concerns: “If you are trying to wipe away the past in favour of the future, or at least the present is hard to accept”, Theresa emphasizes. 

Andrei adds that those different narratives about peacebuilding are “Grey Zones”: But bridging those differences brings “the most beautiful moments of peace”, which are spaces of in person-encounters with other people: Behind the scenes without cameras and without digital noise.

Then the small actors start to build a social fabric that is even more resilient than government institutions “that are created at the top level, but once they disappear, the whole process disintegrates.” Therefore, as Theresa mentions, actors on every level need a willingness to change and to take responsibility for the common good: “That is what is ultimately needed”.

If you want to know more about how to apply inclusive Colombian Peace-Mechanisms to Afghanistan, and Andreis’ experience in organizing small spaces of encounter in listen to the Audio.

‍