Diplomacy, Drama and No Communiqué: Making Sense of the Y20 2025

Kira Todd |

Image sourced from Cabinet Public Affairs Office via Wikimedia Commons.

At the end of November, the G20 Summit took place in South Africa. The G20 is a widely known forum, where the world’s 20 largest economies meet to coordinate economic policies and address shared global challenges. What is less known is that there are 13 official engagement groups occurring alongside the main G20 summit. Various civil society and interest groups from member states convene at their own conference, each producing a communique to present to G20 leaders outlining their priorities and recommendations. 

I was one of six Australian representatives at this year’s Youth 20 summit – the Y20, which took place in late August. The Y20 is the oldest of the G20’s engagement groups, providing an important forum for young people to have their voices heard by state leaders. Being attached to a high-profile multilateral institution, the Y20 is both a leadership development opportunity and a critical forum to advocate for international policies which reflect young peoples’ priorities. Because the polycrisis is hitting youth especially hard, delegates have a responsibility to understand their perspectives – their disillusionment and optimism – and propose meaningful solutions to today’s manifold challenges.

Yet this year’s summit achieved an unwanted historic feat: it concluded with no communiqué. So, what went wrong? 

A unilateral approach to multilateralism

The primary driver behind this result was the unilateral approach taken by leaders of the South African Presidency. The state holding the G20 presidency does have the ability to set an agenda, specify what themes and topics they would like delegates to discuss – usually reflecting their national priorities – and make reasonable changes to diplomatic protocols and procedures. However, this does not equate to control over the process or the content of the final communique. 

Concerns about intervention by the presidency first emerged after delegates participated in a ‘pre-summit’ in June. Beyond organisational problems and questions about the utility of a pre-summit, outrage ensued after the texts written by delegates were significantly altered upon publication, with no explanation provided. Complaints from delegates were insufficiently addressed by the time the main summit commenced, with the presidency refusing to guarantee that policies written by delegates would not be changed after negotiations concluded. 

This intervention, however, paled in comparison to the events in Johannesburg. After three long days of negotiations, the Chair breached established procedures and intervened in the final negotiation round to introduce their political priority. When delegates voted against its inclusion, the Chair adjourned negotiations, announcing there would be no communiqué. Such an outcome is scandalous for a multilateral institution. The state holding the presidency does not have a carte blanche to control the process and force their interests. Rotating presidency should be treated as a custodianship, a responsibility to steer negotiations and ensure that members’ collective interests are represented. Instead, this was leadership weaponised, twisted to serve the private interests of a handful of individuals who saw delegates’ voices as nothing more than an inconvenience.

Red lines, censorship and state intervention

Other issues also compromised the purpose and outcome of the summit. State intervention and censorship was a persistent obstacle in negotiations, with delegates from several states receiving firm instruction from their governments to avoid endorsing certain policies. In some instances, delegates were put in the uncomfortable position of proposing policies they personally disagreed with. Delegates from one European country were contacted by their affiliated organisation halfway through negotiations and told that they were not to agree to any statement about a ceasefire in Gaza, unless there was also a statement calling for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The Russian delegates drew a ‘red line’ on any mention of this conflict, leading to a diplomatic stalemate. 

Similarly, discussions about gender equality and LGBTQI+ inclusion – a priority for many delegates in the Inclusive Social Development and Fighting Inequality track, where I was negotiating – were heavily compromised by the insertion of ‘red lines’ by conservative countries. Predictably, any mention of gender or sexual diversity was censured. One country went even further, refusing to include the word ‘gender’ in the communique, proposing to instead specify ‘equality between men and women’ each time gender equality was discussed. 

The issue here is not that countries had illiberal positions, as much as I personally disagreed with them. Indeed, multilateral forums must allow countries to voice their positions – and for their positions to be challenged, even when sensitivities are involved. The problem was the way that these disagreements played out, with certain delegations blocking discussion of entire issues because, verbatim, ‘this is a red line for my country.’ When challenged, delegates were sometimes unable or unwilling to defend why it was a red line, merely saying that their government would not agree to it. Some proposed alternative proposals to accommodate their red lines, others did not. Some actually apologised for imposing red lines against their personal will. 

Cosplaying diplomats

This brings up deeper questions about the purpose of the Y20 itself. What was our role as Y20 delegates? Who were we representing? 

Reflecting on my experience at the Y20, I believe that parties held fundamentally different views about the summit and their role in it. For the Australian delegation, we had unity of purpose: to be advocates for policies which serve young people in Australia and beyond. We often argued for positions which diverged from the Australian Government’s foreign and domestic policies, because we were representing the interests of young Australians – who increasingly feel disenfranchised by the status quo. Our relationship with the government was not to be instructed by them, but the inverse – to take our positions back to our representatives, aiming to create policy change.

Circumstances for other delegates were very different. While everyone was technically part of a civil society organisation, that didn’t necessarily mean independence. Many delegates seemed to see themselves as official diplomats, replicating their country’s existing policies, rather than as advocates for policy reform. More concerningly, rumours circulated throughout the summit that some delegates were being monitored and intimidated by their governments. One must ask what the point of sending delegates to participate in a youth summit is, if their voices are being so dramatically censored. 

Reflections on accountability, leadership and the Y20’s future

After the dust settled, Y20 participants were left with much to reflect on. Delegates from sixteen countries have since released a joint statement on the disappointing outcome of the summit. 

How can next year’s Y20 Summit avoid a repeat of this year’s unfortunate events? Proper process must be strengthened and observed, with clear accountability mechanisms in place. Well-trained observers, unattached to the Presidency and its affiliate organisations, should be present at every stage of the negotiation process – with clear channels for escalation when processes are breached. Protocols about red lines should be introduced, with clear guidelines on where they can and cannot be called, and how delegates can appropriately navigate them. And perhaps most importantly, those chosen to lead the summit must understand that leadership in multilateralism is not about wielding power over those they represent, but about serving the collective interest. It seems obvious – but at a time where examples of self-aggrandisement, bullying, corruption and incompetence by global leaders are appallingly common – it must be reiterated.

The Y20 is not a model UN summit, nor a glorified networking opportunity. Its function as a unique and respected forum to push for international policies which serve young people and future generations must be understood and upheld. The delegates I met in Johannesburg were intelligent, compassionate, determined and more than capable of confronting today’s challenges with insight and conviction. Their voices, and the voices of the people they represent, deserve to be heard. If something positive can be taken from the denial of our communique, it is that each of us has an even deeper sense of justice and resilience - and I am confident that we will draw on these in our continued advocacy. 

Kira Todd was an Australian delegate at the 2025 Y20 Summit, negotiating on the Inclusive Social Development and Fighting Inequality track.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.