in peace processes led to sustainable peace in Guatemala, Liberia, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone.1 Moderate involvement, which is indirect participation - influencing peace-building efforts through different mechanisms yet falling short of a direct seat at the negotiating table -, on the other hand, has had mixed outcomes, including durable and failed peace. In Northern Ireland, for example, a durable peace was obtained while South Sudan and Sri Lanka are archetypes of failed peace efforts. The last category is low involvement where civil society and victims of war groups are excluded from the peace process.2 In these circumstances, the outcomes have usually been the resumption of war. A clear example of failed peace processes “predicated on secrecy and exclusion” is the 1993 Oslo Accords between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was flawed from the outset, and saw a full resumption of violence in the years after. A more instructive case study for Afghanistan is the peace process in Colombia which had the direct involvement of war victims in negotiations that brought an end to a protracted five-decade long conflict, with 7 million victims.3 War victims helped shape the peace process and outcome. 60 individual victims, selected as representatives of the broader community of victims, organised into six 12-member delegations, testified before the government and FARC negotiators.4 The victims helped move the negotiators’ position from denial to admission of perpetrating grave human rights violations, and helped shape the development of a broad transitional justice program.5 The Integral System for Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition created several complementary mechanisms including a Truth Commission, a Special Search Unit to locate disappeared victims, comprehensive reparation measures and a Special Jurisdiction for Peace.6 The agreement included amnesties for fighters who did not commit serious war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.7 These formal mechanisms were accompanied by an extensive effort to generate dialogue and public debate through the media and academia, which further contributed to the recognition of victims across Colombian society, and helped victims emerge as an important peace player. Many victims said that the testimonial process transformed them and their views about the conflict actors. The process helped shift Colombian public opinion, creating greater space for conflict protagonists to reintegrate as legitimate actors into their communities and thereby contribute to the durability of the peace process.8 1. John, A. Wanis-St, Kew, D. (2008) Civil society and peace negotiations: Confronting exclusion, p.25, International Negotiation (13) 11-36. 2. Ibid. 3. Brett, R. (2018) The role of victims’ delegations in the Santos-FARC peace talks, p. 269. In: Druliolle, V. & Brett, R. (eds.) The politics of victimhood in post-conflict societies: A comparative and analytical perspectives. St Anthony’s series, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Brett, R. (2018) The role of victims’ delegations in the Santos-FARC peace talks, p. 294. In: Druliolle, V. & Brett, R. (eds) The politics of victimhood in post-conflict societies: A comparative and analytical perspectives. St Anthony’s series, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 7. Final Agreement to End the Armed Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting Peace, November 24, 2016. English version available on the website of the International Committee of the Red Cross. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/colombia-peace-agreement. 8. Brett, R. (2018) The role of victims’ delegations in the Santos-FARC peace talks, p. 290. In: Druliolle, V. & Brett, R. (eds.) The politics of victimhood in post-conflict societies: A comparative and analytical perspectives. St Anthony’s series, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. BUILDING A LASTING PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN: PARTICIPATION OF VICTIMS OF WAR IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS |5|