Young people are doing diplomacy differently: Reflections from the Y20 Summit
‘Honouring the past. Forging the future.’
This was the inscription on a coin gifted to the UK Youth G20 Delegation by the British Embassy in Washington DC. A fun way to celebrate 250 years since the United States declared independence from the United Kingdom, but it also speaks to something of the essence of diplomacy: acknowledgement and vision. For diplomacy to have a chance of succeeding, each instance of sitting down with a counterpart must carry the hope that a new course can be charted. Yet, these conversations do not operate in an historical vacuum. What better way to explore how historical experience is being inherited and what opportunities might lie ahead for a brighter future than through youth diplomacy?
The Youth G20, otherwise known as the Y20, is one of a few engagement groups advocating for the adoption of specific priorities by their home governments ahead of the official G20 summit. This year, the five topics, or ‘tracks’, of the Y20 were: Energy; Economy and Job Creation; Global Health and Food Security; Innovation and Digital Transformation; and finally Fragility, Conflict and Violence. Having been selected as the UK Y20 delegate for Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV) in January, this year has involved a range of surveys and focus groups with more than 200 young people from across the UK to gauge their priorities and concerns on the topics covered. It was my job to represent these interests at the Youth G20 Summit hosted in Washington DC this August.
A vision for British youth security
Security was once a seemingly distant concern in British politics yet has become increasingly prevalent as of late. Notably, the young people our delegation consulted demonstrated a particular sensitivity to how emerging technology and the climate crisis are compounding more traditional security concerns.
As part of my role as one of the UK’s Y20 Delegates, I prepared a series of proposals related to these concerns to put forward to my Y20 counterparts. These included: mainstreaming climate risk assessments in defence planning; the suggestion of annual, independent reports monitoring social media algorithms to provide foundations for public discourse; and a call to ensure that the military/dual-use applications of AI involve human oversight and transparency measures at all points of development and deployment. Underlying all of these points was a pragmatism amongst British youth wherein these developments demand that we adapt accordingly while not losing sight of our values.
Fellow European delegates privately shared that they were happy I was raising these issues and would support my lead on the topics. Although not all of the representatives from Asia and Latin America shared our view that these nascent challenges were a priority, they were nonetheless content to accede to them in return for fair consideration of their own priorities.
The United Nations describes countries such as Mexico or other non-G20 states in this context as ‘downstream’. This means that, while they are not currently active in shaping particular emerging subjects on the global stage such as AI policy, they will eventually be on the receiving end of decisions made today. In this way, forging the future could involve the UK utilising its talent for coalition-building to ground its own concerns in a broader bed of support by taking into account the foreseeable issues for downstream countries, thereby generating credibility on these novel topics.
Acknowledgement and the Y20 security talks
The Y20 was a good opportunity to gauge the international perspective on the UK’s priorities but it was also a valuable experience to witness the passions of other delegations. A prominent concern was the impact of attacks on the international system at a time when the need for effective global cooperation has rarely been so urgent. Rather than creating the conditions for coordinated response, the erosion of our shared norms and institutions is if anything deepening the severity of the crises we face.
In terms of specific policies and resolutions, this apprehension from Y20 counterparts manifested itself in the form of discussions on: the structure of the UN Security Council; the unilateral use of sanctions; and Israel-Palestine. The UK is relevant to all of these discussions given its status as a P5 state; its leverage as a financial capital with a unique ability to sanction Russian assets; and its historical responsibility derived from the way the British Mandate in Palestine was dissolved.
In such a context, acknowledgement and humility was needed as the UK’s FCV Delegate. Speaking to counterparts representing states as varied as South Africa, Mexico, and Türkiye, it was clear that the composition of the UN Security Council was a sore point. As the Turkish delegate pointed out: culturally, four of the five permanent members are Christian with not a single Muslim representative amongst them.
Israel-Palestine was another contentious case. Countries outside of the West, such as Indonesia, were supportive of policies that condemned Israel’s actions vis-á-vis Palestine but there was a reluctance to expend limited political capital driving this conversation when there were pressing matters closer to home, such as the security of maritime straits. Others, including Latin American colleagues, raised the point that, while the plight of the Palestinians was compelling, it was just one symptom of a failing international system. The question was posed - if we ought to speak up for Palestine, shouldn’t we also acknowledge the developing situation in Cuba?
Here and elsewhere, acknowledging the legitimacy of the aspirations and perspectives involved was fundamental to generating goodwill and consensus. Our consultations with British young people prior to the summit signalled their reluctance to cede advantages such as the Security Council veto, but supporting a proposal encouraging a more representative UN Security Council was an important moment for setting the tone of subsequent negotiations. Similarly, championing the importance of international humanitarian law in relation to Israel-Palestine garnered goodwill that spilled over into accepting the credibility of the UK’s other positions, while incorporating Latin American priorities vis-á-vis Cuba made the recommendations set forth feel comprehensive rather than vindictive.
An insecure generation
The Y20 Summit highlighted the generational divide at the heart of modern society. The cynicism of youth was in stark contrast to the starry-eyed optimism of older generations. At panels and talks throughout the conference, experts exhorted our younger generation’s capacity to fix the world in ways they could not. Through the possibilities of technology and the power of the relationships being forged in that very room, no hurdle was apparently insurmountable. In stolen glances and scathing silence, many of us failed to resist the urge to roll our eyes. Witnessing ex-CIA officers and entrepreneurs with in-roads to the Pentagon shifting responsibility onto us was perhaps not as inspirational as they had hoped.
The Y20 process took place within a context of growing disillusionment and frustration with political structures, both domestically and internationally. In the UK, this has manifested in growing unrest and over a million young people unemployed while for many other G20 counterparts there are more vicious struggles to contend with. It is therefore not appropriate to expect or demand that the younger generation shoulder responsibility for the future while shutting us out of the present. Nonetheless, the delegates across the Y20 have taken to the task of hazarding what new diplomacy might look like with vigour.
It is clear that new diplomacy must be forward-thinking. Shying away from our responsibility to think and act creatively leaves us vulnerable to what may come. Yet, new diplomacy must also appreciate history when attempting to chart a new course: the historical experiences of would-be partners informs values and ambitions that may be uncomfortable but that must be reckoned with. Finally, new diplomacy must reckon with the question of how multilateralism can meaningfully engage questions of security. Strictly relying on international law is to expend energy on toothless assertions yet choosing to rely on blood and iron may decide the issues of the day but it will not resolve them. Domestically, earnest engagement is needed with the populations being asked to support security policies. Billions cannot be spent on data centres or defence spending when the tax payer feels as though this comes at the expense of the foundations of a good quality of life or their concern about an uninhabitable world. Internationally, transparency and competency-sharing must be embedded into diplomatic structures to generate new norms and accountability measures that can provide tools for grappling with old problems and the means to confront new ones.
With everything to play for and less incentives to adhere to existing rules, new diplomacy must reinvigorate itself with a new legitimacy built on engagement and transparency. Giving young people a seat at the table at summits such as the G20 is but one small step to ensure that those affected by impending societal shocks have an opportunity to shape the response.
Alastair Nicol is the founder of the British Institute of Global Affairs, an advisor at Cogito Praxis, and a UK Delegate to the 2026 Youth 20 Summit in Washington DC.