This week, I am co-leading a delegation of six other young women, to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the UN headquarters in New York to advocate for the priorities of young Australians. This year marks the 70th session of CSW and the culmination of seven decades of progress. However, as we prepare to step into these halls, surrounded by allies, activists, and opposition, we can’t help but wonder if any of this still matters.
The challenge to the United Nations and the idea of multilateralism at the highest level is well reported, but there is little to no coverage of the impact of these changes on civil society advocates and those pushing for change on the ground. Civil society advocates – NGO representatives, community and Indigenous groups among them – are crucial to UN processes. They provide a voice to marginalised groups, advise government negotiators, ensure transparency, and leverage public pressure to hold member-states accountable.
For the first time in more than a decade, the “Agreed Conclusions” – the primary outcomes document – was negotiated before the session opened and adopted on day one of CSW, rather than across the two-week, in-person negotiating period. While it may not seem consequential, this move further restricted the already reduced access that civil society advocates held. It drastically curtailed their ability to observe formal debates and informal discussions. When this occurred in 2015, it sparked protests with civil society advocates taping their mouths shut on the steps of the UN.
Civil society advocates must be in the room, outside the room, or even just near the room.
Unless they were based in New York already, civil society advocates had to channel their views through their capitals to be sent on to their country’s Permanent Missions. Instead of two weeks to observe and provide input into the negotiations, civil society faced very short turnarounds – sometimes mere hours – from when drafts were released to when their feedback was due. The shift was particularly damaging for advocates from smaller member states without full-time Permanent Missions in New York, whose voices were all but excluded from the negotiations.
In international forums, access means numbers and numbers mean power. Civil society advocates must be in the room, outside the room, or even just near the room. Physical proximity allows civil society opportunities to discuss with negotiators and provide real time feedback on what is happening in the room. This is particularly important for advocates from places where the discussions are often occurring in a drastically different time zone to their own. CSW provides the one time of year when Australian and Pacific advocates – at least those able to make it to New York – do not have to be up at 3 am to follow the negotiations.
Access to these forums is crucial, but those who are being most impacted by the issues discussed or who represent issues that have not even made it to the table yet, the ones who need it most, are so often being denied. With an ever-growing list of countries whose citizens are barred from entering the United States, many civil society advocates from around the world are being forced to abandon these historic spaces of advocacy and progress.
Visa denials accompany safety concerns. LGBTQIA+ advocates, people of colour, and advocates from other marginalised backgrounds are sometimes choosing not to even attempt to attend, not just because of the hostility they may face at the border, but inside these spaces as well. Fear of harassment – at the border and within the US – is hardly unfounded and many choose to avoid any potential complications Some advocates have faced threats of physical harm, harassment and doxxing for raising divisive issues. At the CSW Youth Forum in 2025, an empty chair was placed on stage in recognition of those who wanted to be there – and should have been – but were denied entry or made the choice not to for their personal safety.
The ripples of effect from this decline of civil society presence will not be fully realised for years. Their absence means particular language is not being advocated for, included, or strengthened. In the current political climate, this translates to real backsliding on gender equality – the erosion of basic phrasing around bodily autonomy, gender identity, discrimination and even climate change. It results in an even harsher reality for women and girls while eroding the ability of civil society to hold their own governments accountable for progress.
The change in timing for the CSW Agreed Conclusions is frustrating but highlights a trend of civil society exclusion. In international forums, precedent provides a basis for inclusion. A weakening of language means the same language is likely to be weak in future year’s text. A precedent of civil society exclusion means closing doors that may not reopen. Both mean sacrificing progress that may take years of work to regain, if we ever regain it at all.
