Delegates at LIMUN 2025 Navigate Geopolitical Divides with Unique Approaches

written by Giulia Mingrino, Journalist, LIMUN 2025

As global superpowers such as the United States, China, and Russia remain at the center of international tensions, delegates at the LIMUN 2025 conference are tasked with accurately representing their nations’ foreign policies while engaging in diplomatic negotiations. Model United Nations conferences aim to simulate real-world diplomacy, incorporating contemporary geopolitical factors that shape international decision-making. While some delegates rigorously adhere to their countries’ stances, others take a more innovative approach, envisioning alternative paths for global cooperation. Whether entirely realistic or not, the debates within these committees offer valuable insights, ones that world leaders could learn from as young minds explore solutions for a more cooperative and sustainable future. 

ASEAN: The Unexpected Presence of the USA and a Realistic Power Struggle 

The ASEAN committee, representing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, typically focuses on economic growth, social progress, and regional security within Southeast Asia. The organization consists of 10 member states: Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Brunei, Thailand, the Philippines, Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Myanmar, whose cooperation is essential for stability in the region. 

However, much like in real-world geopolitics, the presence of major global actors such as China and the USA has shifted the dynamic. To the surprise of the committee chairs, debate has leaned heavily towards economic topics, particularly the theme of “Rethinking Strategic Economic Cooperation.” Despite ASEAN being an organization meant to unite ideologically close nations, cooperation in the committee has been slow, with delegates engaging in just one unmoderated caucus by the afternoon of Day 2. 

Tensions between China and the USA, both non-members of ASEAN but influential global players, have had an important contribution. According to the delegate of the USA, their country remains one of the largest investors in the region and is prioritizing the protection of sovereignty against perceived threats from China. This mirrors real-world geopolitical rivalries, particularly the competition between an American-led transparency initiative and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While the delegate of the USA insists that they are attempting to put aside differences with China to ensure progress, they admit that representing the nation that is in real-life now under a new Trump administration, is a challenge, as well as when trying to assert influence in a room full of equally ambitious delegates. 

Surprisingly, Myanmar has emerged as a key player in the debate. Given the country’s current economic struggles and constrained activity, the chairs remain skeptical of its outsized influence in the committee. 

China: A Double Delegation Facing Isolation 

While the USA has maintained a dominant role in discussions, China’s double delegation appears to be struggling for engagement. Sitting on the opposite side of the room from the US, the Chinese delegates are working on a resolution paper with limited collaboration from other nations. One of China’s representatives noted that cooperation with the US is nearly impossible due to conflicting interests, particularly regarding competing funding programs. 

China has focused on promoting the BRI initiative and maintaining diplomatic ties with select ASEAN countries. When asked whether collaboration with the USA is realistic, the Chinese delegation stated, “It would not be a problem on our side,” but noted that the US has made clear in its speeches that it is unwilling to collaborate, contradicting the stamens made of the delegate of the US about trying to put aside differences for the sake of committee progress. This clash between delegations highlights the difficulty of navigating international tensions even in a simulated diplomatic setting. While the committee’s debates mirror real-world divides, they also underscore the challenge of fostering productive negotiations, a skill that future world leaders must refine. 

IMF: An Unlikely Alliance Emerges 

Meanwhile, in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) committee, an unexpected alliance has formed between the United States, Egypt, and Russia. The committee is debating the role of the IMF in a changing global landscape, and while collaboration between these nations may seem 

unusual, their bloc has put forward a resolution advocating for an economic advisory panel led by the G7 plus Russia and an independent advisory body for developing nations. 

However, the proposal has sparked controversy. Delegates from Canada, Japan, and Turkey have pushed back, arguing that the resolution fails to effectively represent underdeveloped nations and instead reinforces the dominance of the G8. In response, the delegate of Russia, sponsor of the resolution, accused other nations of promoting global polarization rather than addressing economic concerns. 

This unexpected cooperation between historically adversarial countries raises interesting questions about diplomacy. Could it signal a future in which former rivals find common ground for the greater good? Or is this merely a strategic maneuver within the confines of an MUN conference? Either way, it reflects the spirit of LIMUN, challenging young leaders to think critically, negotiate effectively, and explore alternative diplomatic strategies that may one day shape global politics. 

Conclusion: A Reflection on Diplomatic Innovation 

As LIMUN 2025 unfolds, delegates are not only representing their nations but also redefining the possibilities of diplomacy. While some committees closely mirror real-world geopolitical tensions, others experiment with new approaches to conflict resolution. Whether these ideas prove feasible in practice or not, they provide an invaluable lesson: the world needs fresh perspectives, innovative leadership, and open-minded negotiators who can challenge the status quo. 

Indeed, MUN is more than just a simulation, it is a training ground for the diplomats, policymakers, and changemakers of tomorrow.