English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Recent criticism of the liberal peace paradigm has raised awareness about racial silence and coloniality in peacebuilding and research. Drawing on ethnographic research in Colombia, this article argues that the interaction between ethnicization, armed conflict, and peacebuilding is relevant not only to so-called ethnic conflicts but to postcolonial conflict settings more generally. To demonstrate this, I first show that ethnicization is a key driver of armed conflict and its territorial expansion. I then discuss how two peacebuilding attempts, the constitution of 1991 and the peace agreement of 2016, dealt with ethnicization. Findings demonstrate that overlooking the interaction between ethnicization and conflict diminished their success. In contrast, embracing ethnic(ized) agency in peacebuilding made visible postcolonial violence, delegitimized its use, and enabled conflict transformation. The Colombian case is indicative of other contexts because it shows that peace cannot be achieved if the colonial fundaments of conflict transformation and democracy remain unaddressed.

Why peacebuilding is condemned to fail if it ignores ethnicization. The case of Colombia