‘Inclusion’ has emerged as a prominent theme in peacemaking. However, its exact meaning remains vague, as do assumptions about the relationship between inclusion and peace. This article seeks to problematize the research, policy and practice of inclusion. Focusing on United Nations (UN) peacemaking, we ask how the object of inclusion has been framed, and based on what strategies and underlying rationales. We do so against the backdrop of emerging debates about an agonistic peace, which suggest that violent antagonistic relationships can be overcome if peace processes enable contestation between adversaries. This requires that peacemakers recognize the constitutive role of difference in political settlements. We identify three distinct strategies for inclusion, with corresponding framings of the included. Firstly, inclusion can be used to build a more legitimate peace; secondly, to empower and protect specific actor groups; and thirdly, to transform the sociopolitical structures that underlie conflict. The first strategy frames the included in open terms that can accommodate a heterogeneity of actors, the second in closed terms pertaining to specific identity traits, and the third in relational terms emerging within a specific social, cultural and political context. In practice, this leads to tensions in the operationalization of inclusion, which are evidence of an inchoate attempt to politicize peace processes. In response, we argue for an approach to relational inclusion that recognizes the power relations from which difference emerges; neither brushing over difference, nor essentializing single identity traits, but rather remaining flexible in navigating a larger web of relationships that require transformation.

中文翻译：

---

敢于不同？参与建立和平的战略

“包容”已成为缔造和平的一个突出主题。然而，它的确切含义仍然含糊不清，关于包容与和平之间关系的假设也是如此。本文试图将包容性的研究、政策和实践问题化。关注联合国 (UN) 缔造和平，我们询问包容的对象是如何制定的，以及基于什么策略和基本原理。我们这样做的背景是关于对抗性和平的新辩论，这表明如果和平进程能够使对手之间的竞争成为可能，那么暴力对抗关系就可以被克服。这要求和平缔造者认识到差异在政治解决中的构成作用。我们确定了三种不同的包容性策略，以及相应的包容性框架。首先，包容可用于建立更合法的和平；其次，授权和保护特定的行为者群体；第三，改变构成冲突的社会政治结构。第一个策略以开放的术语构建包含的行为体的异质性，第二个以与特定身份特征相关的封闭术语为框架，第三个为在特定社会、文化和政治背景下出现的关系术语。在实践中，这会导致包容性运作的紧张局势，这是将和平进程政治化的早期尝试的证据。作为回应，我们主张一种关系包容的方法，它承认产生差异的权力关系；既不回避差异，也不强调单一的身份特征，