Peace processes are beginning to recognise LGBTQI+ communities, but inclusion on paper rarely settles the matter. From Colombia to South Africa, activists have pushed for visibility, protection and a place at the negotiating table, showing why durable peace must address sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics.

Essential Takeaways

  • Recognition is uneven: Some peace agreements include equality protections, while others ignore or discriminate against LGBTQI+ people.
  • Activism makes a difference: Colombian groups built alliances, gathered evidence and pressed negotiators to acknowledge LGBTQI+ experiences.
  • Inclusion isn't implementation: A reference in an agreement doesn't automatically end violence, discrimination or political resistance.
  • Communities aren't uniform: Lesbians, transgender people, young people, rural communities and Indigenous LGBTQI+ people can face distinct risks.
  • Local voices matter: Research and policy work are more effective when they're shaped with, rather than simply about, LGBTQI+ communities.

Peacebuilding Can't Afford to Leave LGBTQI+ People Behind

A peace agreement may look neat on paper, but life after conflict is rarely so tidy. For LGBTQI+ people, the dangers can run through every stage of crisis, from displacement and sexual violence to exclusion from shelters, political negotiations and reconstruction programmes.

The central problem is visibility. LGBTQI+ communities can be targeted before, during and after conflict, yet their experiences are often folded into broader categories that fail to show who was harmed or what support is needed. Research discussed by Peace News highlights how this omission can leave people facing a second struggle once the fighting stops.

That gap matters beyond representation. If peacebuilding fails to understand how discrimination helped fuel insecurity, it risks rebuilding the same unequal systems in a freshly painted form.

Colombia Shows What Organised Activism Can Achieve

Colombia's 2016 peace process is one of the clearest examples of LGBTQI+ activism shaping a national settlement. Years of organising, a more supportive legal environment and cooperation with women's groups helped activists argue that people with diverse SOGIESC should be recognised in the country's peace framework.

The approach was practical as well as political. Organisations produced reports, formed alliances and used international networks to keep the issue in view while the government and FARC negotiated. The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue describes this combination of local organising and wider support as an important feature of Colombia's inclusion efforts.

Still, the achievement wasn't effortless. SIPRI's analysis of the Colombian process points to the value of deliberate strategies for bringing women's and LGBTI groups into peace negotiations, rather than assuming that broad participation will happen by itself.

A Mention in a Peace Agreement Isn't a Magic Wand

Recognition can open doors, but it doesn't guarantee that institutions will walk through them. Colombian LGBTQI+ groups continued to face difficulties being acknowledged as victims of conflict-related sexual violence, while conservative opposition and limited resources complicated implementation.

There were also tensions within the movement. Lesbians argued that some wider LGBTQI+ advocacy did not fully reflect the specific violence they experienced. Class, geography and Indigenous identity created further differences that a single umbrella label couldn't capture.

The wider record is mixed. Research on peace agreements identifies progress in places such as Colombia, South Africa and Northern Ireland, alongside limited provisions in countries including Nepal and the Philippines. Elsewhere, LGBTQI+ concerns have been overlooked or, more troublingly, met with discriminatory language.

Why Intersectionality Has to Be Practical

The phrase "LGBTQI+ community" can sound unified, but it describes people with very different lives and risks. A transgender young person in a precarious job, a lesbian survivor in a rural area and an Indigenous queer activist may encounter entirely different barriers after a conflict.

That affects everything from access to employment and housing to participation in truth-seeking or reintegration programmes. Oxfam's work on bringing diverse sexual orientations and gender identities into peacebuilding stresses the importance of recognising these differences rather than treating inclusion as a single checklist item.

It also means looking closely at local history. Colonial legacies, religious and political structures, displacement and regional inequality can all shape how LGBTQI+ people experience violence and peace. A template imported from abroad may look polished, but local activists are usually better placed to identify what will work on the ground.

The Next Step Is Better Evidence and Real Participation

One of the biggest challenges is that the research base remains thin. Analysts often focus on successful examples, leaving less understood the moments when LGBTQI+ activism failed to influence negotiations or when inclusive promises later stalled.

That makes community-led research especially important. The Swedish Defence University notes the continuing complexity of building peace in Colombia, while the academic and policy literature increasingly points towards closer collaboration with affected communities. Evidence should track not only whether LGBTQI+ groups were invited into a process, but what changed afterwards.

There is also a useful connection with the Women, Peace and Security agenda. National action plans and wider peacebuilding policies could do more to include LGBTQI+ concerns, provided they involve local organisations from the beginning and measure outcomes honestly.

Durable Peace Means More Than Being Seen

The real test isn't whether an agreement contains the right phrase. It's whether LGBTQI+ people can access safety, justice, housing, healthcare, work and political influence once international attention moves elsewhere.

That will require reliable funding, stronger accountability and research that records failures as carefully as successes. It will also require patience. Peacebuilding is slow work, and communities that have been ignored for years shouldn't have to prove their worth afresh at every stage.

A lasting settlement doesn't simply invite LGBTQI+ people into the room. It listens to their differences, backs their organisations and treats their security as part of peace itself.

It's a small distinction in wording, but a huge one in practice.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: