Developing Three Working Papers: ASEAN’s Case
Written by Vicent Llorca Mascarell, Journalist, LIMUN 2026
As negotiations develop, ASEAN has decided to split into three separate groups in order for countries to share their ideas. Despite the segregated appearance of the occurrence the ASEAN members do not feel like they are developing opposed working papers (WPs) , but rather are finding a way to organise themselves in order to prepare the WPs. Using the words of one of the delegates: ‘There is a need for merging the working papers…It is a matter of priorities and approaches to situations which are a bit different’.
Myanmar, Vietnam and Brunei-led WP
We can however distinguish different motivations in each of the working papers. First of all, the position paper elaborated by the likes of Myanmar, Vietnam and Brunei focus on three main points: developing regional infrastructure links to enhance sea cooperation, incentivizing economic development as a group, and resorting to more environmentally friendly and economically stable ways of producing. Some proposals are also made in the text, Blue Capacity Fund, funding for material tools or capacity-building and training professionals are some of them.
Indonesia-led WP
Second, we find the working paper led by Indonesia. As one of the delegates inside this network told the Press reporter, the paper focuses on one proposal: creation of data centres funded by the editors of the document. This would give them a ‘better picture of what happens in the sea’. The delegation reminds us: ‘not all ASEAN members have the same resources’, making reference to a variable level of economic development among ASEAN members. They recommend the acceleration of less developed states by implementing the proposals they are working on.
Thailand-led WP
Last but not least, the position paper developed under the influence of Thailand has concrete developed points, such as ‘stopping Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) by regulating the amount fished with a quota’, ‘creating a ASEAN Sustainable Catch Marketplace’ or imposing tax reductions on these marketplaces.
The ideas are good in theory. But, each group seems to be developing their own proposals, perhaps without taking into account the others' preferences. Certainly, tensions have not yet risen, but a storm could be on the horizon.
