Some of you have expressed concern about how to handle the extreme position stated as your conference topic. The topic is a starting position and your presentation will state your initial view on that position. But, then you dialogue and, in this dialogue, you can propose/agree to something less extreme than stated in the topic, as long as you remain true to the views of the group you represent. Here are some examples:
1) Resolving East Asia's Historical Disputes: There are several issues that might be resolved, for example, textbooks, compensation for actions taken by Japan during imperialism in the represented countries, statues/memorials in the represented countries, etc. You do not need to resolve every issue - focus on those most important to your country.
2) Resolving Sovereignty Disputes over Spratley Islands: Consider the issues covered in the Philippines arbitration proceeding, consider the development of energy resources, rules to avoid military confrontation, compensation for violations of territorial/EEZ rights. Many issues are availabel for negotiated trade-offs (i.e., I'll agree to this if you agree to that).
3) Resolving Northeast Asia Union (not including a security regime): Non-security issues include everything from multilateral trade, to currency regime, to soft security issues, like pollution, disaster coordination, and more. You may be aggressive in what you seek (full blown union) or limited or something in between - it depends on what you think your country would ask for. You can think short- or long-term or both (again, what would you country want?). While you do not address security directly (e.g., negotiating a NATO for Europe), security issues may come up indirectly and must be discussed. For example, you propose a 'silk road' through South Korea to China - how do you deal with the 'cold war' between North and South Korea? OR Can China place security conditions on its free trade or aid related to its security concerns in NE Asia?
4) Drafting a Declaration of East Asia Human Rights: You will deal with EA's conflicting views of human rights (e.g., what to protect, what to emphasize, when to be specific and when to be general?). What would your country consider non-negotiable and what would it be willing to compromise on? What are your country's top 5 HR's concerns?
Because these are conferences, you partially debate, but you also partially try to reach a consensus by asking yourself 'how flexible can I be given my constituency (the country I represent).'