Inclusive diplomacy, finally

For the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, international leaders remember a precious lesson about peace-making

Arts plate from Auguste H. Thomas, Formes et couleurs: vingt planches en couleurs contenant soixante-sept motifs decoratifs, 1921

It’s late here and I apologize for the typos, but I want to make a note of something I have just found out while it is fresh on my mind. It may be a little thing - two words, a bit technical-sounding - but I consider it quite important. Inclusive diplomacy.

The Chinese and Brazilian governments have further developed their joint peace plan for the war between Russia and Ukraine, which they first announced in May, 2024, after both countries had presented their separate plans in 2023. Both of their respective earlier plans as well as the joint plan are really not so much “plans” (as in “X get this piece of territory”, “Y gets that type of security guarantee”), which would be pointless and unhelpful), but lay out principles and processes for diplomacy and conflict transformation. The latest news is that on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York this past week, they held a meeting of 17 countries to discuss their joint plan and win support for it.

This meeting produced a communiqué, which lists 13 countries as its authors: Algeria, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, Türkiye and Zambia.

It was also attended by Switzerland, in the capacity of an observer. Switzerland is fully signed up to the EU’s sanctions packages, venturing further away from its neutrality than at any previous time in its history, so it is remarkable that after the meeting, an official Swiss spokesman stated that the country “supports the dynamic” of the Chinese-Brazilian initiative. This is not quite the same as “supports the initiative” or putting its name to the communiqué, but it is nevertheless important: it is the first time a Western country has in any form endorsed a peace plan (that isn’t just a wishlist or rallying cry) and which has been proffered by the Global South.

So far, so encouraging.

But to me, the most exciting thing is that the communiqué includes the following two words:

Inclusive diplomacy, which is also referred to as participatory or people-centered peacemaking, is one of the great achievements of recent decades. Although really, that’s not correct, because people have practiced this kind of peacemaking whenever they had a chance (which probably wasn’t too often) in all of human history; they knew it would deliver a better, sturdier, happier, safer peace. Inclusive diplomacy means that communities affected by conflict are at the negotiating table and represented in all aspects of the peace process. The objective of such diplomacy is human security, well-being and rights of the people living in conflict-affected territories; the negotiation process is centered on them and led equally by them.

Critically, this also means that women should play an empowered and equal role at all levels and stages of the peace process. Not just any women (“add women and stir” this is not), but women who have served their communities and are accountable to them. The great achievement of recent decades is that this has been recognized by the UN, other international organizations, academia and many governments as best practice in recent decades. This is no feminist fairy tale. The numbers back it up. We shouldn’t be thinking of making peace anymore without it being inclusive.

Among the sturdier settlements inclusive peace processes produce are those of the protracted conflicts in Northern Ireland and Colombia. One beneficial side effect of inclusive peace processes is that when we bring civil society to the table and put civilian bread-and-butter issues on the agenda, the atmosphere becomes calmer, more constructive overall and it becomes harder for all stakeholders to walk away. 

But just as with diplomacy and peacemaking in general, Western decision-makers seemed to have forgotten all about inclusive diplomacy and people-centered peace when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. This has shocked and bothered me since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, or really since the Minsk Agreements in 2014/2015. This failure - this gaslighting pretense that we no longer know how diplomacy works, and works best - brought me to work in Ukraine with women activists in those years. I expressed my frustration about this in April 2022, while the Istanbul-based negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were still ongoing,but the West turned a cold shoulder to them (and press photos showed long rows of only men on both sides).

We recently learned that Qatar was about to mediate a partial ceasefire to halt attacks on energy infrastructure in both countries, to ensure the survival and well-being of civilians during the upcoming winter. Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk region cut that effort short, but the fact that Qatar came up with this proposal shows that some international leaders continue to see the necessity, promise and imperative of people-centered peace approaches. My friends among Ukrainian aid workers and activists, who are out of their minds with anxiety about how their vulnerable communities will make it through a winter without heat and light, agree with them.

Every time someone mentions negotiations to end the war, implying, quietly or quite openly, that some territories will remain under Russian de facto control, they are opposed with the argument that this would mean abandoning Ukrainian citizens to violence, repression and genocide. This is a genuine concern, felt deeply by many Ukrainians, especially those who have family and friends in occupied territories. I have friends there, too, and I also have friends whose close relatives are still there, so this is not abstract to me. Inclusive, people-centered peace diplomacy could go some way to overcome this conundrum, by making provisions for the safety, well-being, rights and freedom of the residents of those areas, as articulated by themselves.

Finally - and this is pure conjecture - this the first time that either the Chinese or the Brazilian plans or their joint proposal have ever mentioned “inclusive diplomacy or peace”. But it is also the first time that Colombia has joined their initiative. Colombia is famously one of the most committed, serious proponents of inclusive peace, having adopted this approach in its complex peace process that has been transforming and overcoming decades of civil war. Their path to peace has not been easy and there have been setbacks, as there always are. I have a hunch they put those two words into the draft communiqué.