Conclusion
Concerning Y20, it is a useful arena for conveying expectations addressing the subject of gaps and/ or difficulties encountered by the younger generation between developed and developing nations that are G20 members. With the international system in such a state that avoiding the engagement of rich nations is impossible, the Y20 agenda provides a chance for third-world countries to pursue or incorporate their interests (related to youth issues, given the context is Y20).
Unfortunately, the “priority concerns” raised at Y20 have been established from year to year. This is akin to the United Nations’ SDGs agenda. The subject was viewed as an urgent matter that needed to be discussed with G20 member nations at the Y20 summit, despite the fact that it did not adequately represent the needs of youth in all G20 member countries, particularly developing countries.
The Y20 priority area may be a collective final choice that is undoubtedly impacted by the interests of other G20 member nations, therefore it is indeed impossible to incorporate the urgency of only one country’s interests in it. As a result, all of these agendas are the result of a unanimous agreement/majority decision of all Y20/G20 member nations. This is particularly bad given that future global conditions are both stagnant and uncertain. In conformity with contemporary global conditions, the agenda/priority concerns discussed should also be open. Another regrettable development concerns the Y20 stakeholders.
The delegates assigned to Indonesia are primarily ‘certain individuals.’ They are not individuals who are directly impacted by the urgency of the actual youth problems, thus the substance of the principles provided there is not imparted, and there is a domestic political objective behind it.
Y20 is just seen as a formality since the voices of their final draft will not be heard by the stakeholders of the G20 nations as long as such problems are not of importance to them. In reality, the G20 countries continue to struggle to find a consensus on the most pressing concerns. For example, in 2021, the G20 Summit in Italy failed to develop real policy to tackle climate change, leaving the difficult task to the UN Climate Change Summit COP26. However, this is a genuine threat to the young generation and has become a key problem for the Y20.
Recently, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia, Sri Mulyani, stated that the agreement on the meeting between the Finance Ministers and the G20 Central Bank Governor was still hampered by the Ukraine-Russia crisses. This indicates that economic stability and security defense are still being prioritized by G20 members, and hence other problems are being marginalized. In reality, they are concerned with neoliberal economic growth regardless of state conditions or starting point.
What I can underline is that this competition is a zero-sum game in which wealthy countries are unconcerned about how other countries reach G20 shared goals. Competition is at the foundation of neoliberal dogma. Even though the competition appears to be fair if we have the same capacity. So, if each participant is in a more or less balanced circumstance, the race will be fair. If not, the strong or powerful will triumph. This is a difficult challenge for Y20 in gaining adoption of the draft communiqué agreed by G20 stakeholders.
Read: How should the modern world’s grand concept be placed?
There are more downsides than positives in general. However, as a developing country (in the interests of a sovereign state), the Y20 is an excellent time for attempts to speak a country’s views. However, we cannot expect much of it to be embraced by stakeholders from developed countries that are G20 members. Furthermore, there are difficulties in domestic matters in Indonesia, and they utilize large forums like the Y20 as their agenda and exclusively for their own objectives.
Despite current geopolitical tensions among G20 member nations, Indonesia’s diplomatic authorities must capitalize on the high symbolic significance of this year’s summit sessions, ensuring that all leaders go to Bali for the major event later this year. Diplomatic personnel must be prepared to respond in the event that geopolitical upheavals result in agenda disruptions, exhibiting flexibility and ingenuity. In the current international situation, bilateral encounters are likely to take on an exceptional amount of importance and to involve high-tension moments. This must be considered into the summit’s planning ahead of time.
In this scenario, Indonesia must endeavor to play the position of “honest broker” between established and growing countries, particularly in the context of the G20 summit. Leaders will meet on neutral ground, hosted by a country with no position on key conflicts between their countries.
This endeavor should be consistent with the implementation of the government’s “different vistas” foreign relations policy, which aims to maintain good and concurrent ties with established and developing countries, as well as our “near abroad” neighbors and regional allies.
In essence, no realist is entirely pure realism, and no liberalist is entirely liberal. There are no everlasting adversaries or permanent allies in international politics, just eternal interests. As a result, a professional approach is required while making choices and carrying out the mission to attain common interests.