P1
P2
Now, the Asian region has experienced phenomenal economic growth the last few decades, stimulated by a spectacular rise in industrial productivity in both the newer technologies, as well as in labour-intensive manufacturing. There has been an emphasis on exports. Also, there has been an increase in agricultural output faster than total population grouch. And that’s very important. It is also important to note that improvement in economic performance has been broadly-based, concentrated in East Asia, but not restricted to one or two countries. or one or two industries.
Naturally, some countries and some industries have faster grouch than others, and are at more advanced stages o1 economic development than others, but relatively speaking the growth has been broadly-based, with only a few exceptions. Now, this is important because it means that the region as a whole should continue to grow and prosper, and it doesn’t matter if one or two countries fail, or one or two industries fail- the growth will continue tohappen. It’s also important to note that the new-found wealth in the region is being re-invested in the region-for example, the Taiwanese and the Hong Kong Chinese are the largest investors in Vietnam, and intra-Asian trade, that is trade “within Asia, is growing at a rate four times faster than the region’s trade with the rest of the world.
P３
To illustrate how far Asia has come in just
35 years - in 1960, the combined gross domestic product of the countries in
Asia was less than 8%bqf world GIIP. In 1982, it had doubled to around 16”i~.
And today, it’s almost25%h – 25~h of world GDP, one quarter. Between 1980 and
1992, average annual GDP growth rates have been impressive for individual
countries: For example, South Korea — 8.59%, Taiwan 7.8%, China 7.6%, Thailand
6%, and Japan, a little bit lower, 3.6%. But this compares more than favourably
with the US rate of 1.79i,, and also with most of Europe, which had an average
GDP growth rate similar to that of the US. Remember, too, that these figures
area average figures, and in some years in the last decade, the GDP growth
rates have been much higher than these rates. But I think, taking note of the
rates over the longer period is a more realistic prediction of future growth,
when you take into account economic cycles .
P４
Some economic experts in the early 1980s were predicting that the current Asian share of world GDP would be reached by the year 2000. Well, that’s only five years away, and Asia should well and truly exceed that figure if growth rates continue to be high. Certainly, the region has a sense of dynamism and vibrancy and optimism, and the large trans-national companies of the US, Europe and Japan are almost falling over themselves to invest in the emerging markets in the region, because of the potential for growth.
Now if you compare the region to
say, Africa, where much of the population of the continent is destitute, most
countries have huge international debts, governments are inefficient, or
corrupt or worse, and population growth rates of 3% per year mean that there
are more and more mouths to feed every year; Or if you compare Asia to Latin
America, which is a region showing promise, a region that has always shown
promise, but in fact, has not achieved good results. Again, they have high
levels of international indebtedness, a too heavy reliance on raw materials
instead of technical expertise. And up till now they’ve had political
corruption, but that seems to be changing somewhat now. And even if you compare
Asia to the former eastern countries in Europe—they have run-down factories,
they have pollution problems, they have acute levels of organised crime, and a
workforce not used to the link between salary and productivity. If you compare
Asia to all of these regions, well, the future for Asia seems very rosy.
P５
What about the question of dominance,
though? On the question of dominance, some would argue that Asia will dominate
the 21st century in the same way that Britain and the US dominated
the last two centuries. It has been suggested that Japan could be the centre of
a quasi-trading bloc, pulling the four little tigers-South Korea, Taiwan, Hong
Kong and Singapore-behind it, arid those countries would, in turn. Presumably
pull the rest of Asia with them-that’s called the ‘flying goose formation’.
Others see China as the locomotive in Asia, because of its huge population, the
reclaiming of Hong King in 1997, and a possible future reunification with
Taiwan. Still others see the wider Asia-Pacific region- which isn’t really a
region, but two regions - becoming dominant. And I might say here that, as far
as the name ‘Asia-Pacific region’ is concerned, 1 don’t like that term, because
Asia-Pacific is not a region. Some commentators use it without thinking about
what a region actually is. This so-called region contains some of the richest
countries in the world, and some of she poorest countries in the world.
Culturally, it’s as diverse as it gets. And there is nothing to bind the region
together. Even geographically, it’s separated...the eastern and western fringes
are separated by the largest ocean in the world. Trade? Perhaps. Through APEC.
But the countries in the remold trade with other countries outside the region
as well. So, I like to think of Asia-Pacific as being two regions-the Americas,
and Asia.
P６
Certainly, the dynamism and the vibrancy the Asian region, at least, has, will ensure that it will be a major player in the 2lst century, however, I don’t see the region dominating in the same manner as Great Britain dominated the 19th century and the United States dominated the 20th century. Now, there are a number of reasons for this.
First, it is unlikely that the 2lst century will be dominated by one country or one region in particular.
In the l9th century, Britain dominated because it had such a large head start-the Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain a full 50 years before anywhere else, and while everybody else was trying to catch up, the lead was so large that Great Britain was able to dominate by being ahead and staying ahead, with the help of its colonies. In those days the sun never set on the British Empire.
In the first part of the 20th century, the United States was the largest economic power, with the largest Gross National Product in the world, helped by abundant natural resources and an educated and intelligent workforce. But it didn’t dominate until after World War II, when much of the industrialised world had been devastated by the effects of the war. So the US had no competition—everybody else was trying to rebuild, and the US therefore dominated virtually every industry and every field of endeavour on the globe.
But the 21st century
will be different. No one country or region is so ahead of the others that it
will be in a position to dominate the others. Certainly, Asia will be a major
player, as I’ve said, but then, so will Europe and so will the US.
P７
The second reason why Asia will not
dominate relates to the first. Militarily, the US and Europe are very much
ahead of Asia, and this will remain the case in the 21st
century. Although military capability should be replaced somewhat by economic leverage as
the main source of pokier in the 21st century, man is a very
unpredictable creature, the world is still an unstable place, and the need for military
capability will still be required for insurance against the Iraqs and the North
Koreas of this world. And just as Great Britain ruled the waves in the 19th
century, and as pax Americana’s defence umbrella protected much of the
world in the latter half of the 20th century, a global ‘cop on the beat’, or a
global policeman, is still required to ensure peace and stability. And l just can’t
foresee nations of Asia being a position to co-operate on defence matters
in the foreseeable future: Japan’s constitution effectively prevents
its armed forces from venturing outside Japan except on extremely limited
peacekeeping operations; and there are more territorial disputes in this
part of the world than in any other, for example, the Spratly Islands; and also
China’s intentions on military matters are unclear. Now, all this means
that there is an incentive for each nation to look after its individual defence
requirements individually, and not collectively, and the US will continue to
be involved in the defence needs of region. It won’t want to, but if it doesn’t,
the result may be instability in a region vital to the U.S. interests, and in
a region that the U.S. wants to be part of, even though it will find it increasingly
difficult to be part of this region in the future.
P８
The third reason why Asia won’t dominate is
the existence of APEC-the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation
forum. Now, this group of counties has been touted as a future trade bloc or
free trade area, and it consists of mostly Asian and Oceanic countries, plus
the US, Canada, Mexico and Chile. if APEC becomes a Dee trade zone by the
year 2020, as the Bogor declaration suggests, the influence o~ the American
APEC countries-that is America, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and any other
American countries that might join in the future, which is possible-they will
ensure that the Asian region per se does not dominate, and I think that this is
one of the reasons why the US, in particular - has been strongly pushing for
closer links among APEC countries. They don’t want to be left out-they want to
be a part of the action. Of course, APEC may well lead to the
Asia-Pacific region-if you want to call Asia-Pacific a region-dominating in the
2lst century, but not in the same as Britain and the US dominated their
centuries.
P９
The fourth reason is language.
Britain and the United States are English speaking countries, and this explains why
English has become the dominant language in business, diplomacy, science, and
most other activities in which people of different nations communicate
with one another. Asia does not have a common language, and although
English is the language used in most intra-Asian activities, I’m afraid to say
that the people of Asia, with a few exceptions, do not speak Enmesh very well.
But the issue goes deeper than just simple day-to-day communications. The lack
of English is a real hindrance in getting the rest of the world to accept and
to understand Asian cultures. It earns that the US, for example, is more
able to promote its ideals, its astute, sense of values, and so on to the rest of
the world, than say Japan, or China, or Korea are able to do. Most English
language movies are translated into most other languages. But very few Japanese
movies, for example, are translated into other languages. The result
is that the world becomes familiar with American ways of doing things, and by
implication, western ways of doing things—whether they like chose ways
or not, of course—but Asian ways remain different, or foreign, or even
mysterious. Now, I’m not suggesting that Asia should adopt English as a common
language-I’m simply giving you a reason why Asia won’t dominate in the 21st
century.
P10
Now, what with the 21st century be like? Well, I’m afraid I’m not a sage, I’m not a fortune teller. I’m not a futurist like Alvin Tuffier. If I did know the future I’d be playing the stock exchange, I’d be going to the racecourse every weekend and winning lots of money. I wouldn’t be here. And I don’t know the future. But what I do know is that the 21st century will be different to the present century. I like Lenin’s statement on the subject of power politics, which he wrote in 1917.
Lenin said: 'Half a century ago. Germany was a miserable, insignificant country, as far as its capitalist strength was concerned, compared with the strength of England at that time. Japan was similarity insignificant compared with Russia. Is it ‘conceivable that in ten or twenty years’ time the relative strength of the imperialist powers will have remained unchanged? Absolutely inconceivable.’
Of course, things have changed somewhat
since then, but his argument still applies. The pace of change is
perhaps faster now than in Lenin’s time. And that’s saying a lot, I might say. Indeed,
if one had predicted in 1960, that in just 35 years’ time Japan would have the
world’s top per capita GDP, as it does today in dollar terms; or that it
would have a $60 billion trade surplus with the United States; or if one had
predicted in 1985 that in less than ten years’ time the two Germanys would be one
country, the Soviet Union would be no more and that the Arabs and the
Israelis would have signed a peace treaty, with Yasser Arafat in possession of
the Nobel Peace Prize; or even that Nelson Mandela would be President of South
Africa-well, one would have been thought crazy. And I don’t want you to
think I’m crazy, so I won’t give you many predictions, just a few
predictions. So these are my predictions for the 21st century.
P11
Now, first, North Korea and South Korea
will be unified in some way, sometime within the next 30 years, as North
Korea opens itself up to the outside world—as it must to survive—and as
trade between the North and the South increases in volume. Now perhaps
unification will not consist of formal political unification-it could, but
it may not-it may just be economic unification. In any case, the two economies
will have to integrate if the people of North Korea are not to starve. The
government of North Korea will, of course, resist unification, but the people
of North Korea will want it, and it will happen, and it will happen as surely as
East and West Germany unified.
P12
My second prediction is that Russia will break up into at least a European part and an eastern or Asian part. What we have seen in Chechnya over the last few weeks is only the beginning of a long straggle that Russia will have in keeping intact the empire that it created over the last few centuries. Geographically, Russia is too large for its weakened armed forces to control. And indeed, there was an article yesterday in the Asahi Evening News, which mentioned that Russian troops don’t want to fight against the Chechens. The Chechens have, it said, “sworn to kill them in the name of Allah.” And I can understand why the Russian soldiers are unhappy to fight.
Morale is very low in the Russian army at
present. And culturally, also, Russia is a very diverse country, and it
will take only, I think, very strong, authoritarian control from the centre to
keep Russia intact. And that control is lessening day by day. I will not predict
the ultimate result of tile breakup of Russia, but note that Vladivostok is
closer to Darwin, in Australia than it is to Moscow. So, certainly one outcome
shoaled be that the Russian Far East will have stronger links with Asia, perhas
becoming a member of APEC, and with the Northern Territories going back to
Japan as part of the deal.
P13
My third prediction is not a prediction as such, but it’s a scenario which may or may not happen. I believe that there could be pressure for the creation of trading blocs in the 21st century if the European Union decides to become more protectionist. And although this scenario is a remote possibility if the soon-to-be-formed World Trade Organization is successful, the key is the attitude of the European Union. If the EU expands to include most of the former communist eastern bloc nations, including the European part or Russia, it will form a huge, single market approaching 850 million people - perhaps more than that. The countries in it may not have to trade with the rest of the world, and it may well pursue protectionist policies, otherwise what are the advantages for countries to remain in the EU? If this happens, it Chill put enormous pressure on the other countries in the world to form trade blocs as well.
If this happens, the North American Free
Trade Agreement countries, or an enlarged NAFTA including most of
South and Central America, might form a bloc. Asia might form an Asian bloc.
Or perhaps an Asian-Pacific bloc might be formed, but I think that’s
unlikely. This won’t necessarily be a disaster for world trade - the existence of
trading blocs-as trade within the blocs would be free, but it would be messy,
and it could lead to connect, and it’s not a scenario that I would favour.
So, those are my predictions. Bold?
Unlikely? Inconceivable? Well,only time will tell.
P14
Now, how can we help guard against the likelihood of tile last scenario becoming reality? Well, 1 believe we should encourage the creation of multi-nation organisations - not of the same region, necessarily. but made up of nations from Different regions in the world. We should encourage nations to join formally whenever and wherever they have common interests.
At the moment, we have the United Nations
and its agencies, we have the soon-to-be-formed World Trade
Organisation to replace GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we
have the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (APEC), we have the
North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], we have Mercosur (a
trade organisation involving Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay1,
we have the North Atlantic Treaty Organization For NATO in English), the
Association of South East Asian nations (ASEAN), the Commonwealth (which is
the former British Commonwealth, they don’t use the word ‘British’
anymore in that name), we have OPEC-the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries, the League of Arab States, the Group of Seven (G-7,
which is the US. Japan. Great Britain. Germany, France, Canada and Italy), we have
the Organization of American States, and many, many, many others. Some of these are trade or economically
based, some are for defence purposes, still others are merely aimed at
facilitating friendship among nations, and others are regional in nature.
P15
I feel that in the future, such
organisations may play a more important role in securing peace and prosperity, by
acting as links between nations. Tile end of the Cold War has enabled
individual nations to pursue mare independent and Flexible policies, rather
than taking one of two sides, as they did in the Cold War years. This glue, the
existence of a common enemy, which often held nations together, has
disappeared to a large extent. For an example, one only has to look at the deteriorating
relationship between the US and Japan on trade. Japan is now saying ’no’
more often, as it should, and the US is making more strident criticisms
of the way Japan does things, which is so fair enough. But what is one of
the main reasons for this? Well, the fact that the Soviet Union is no longer
a threat and there is less of a need for the US and Japan to agree on a whole
range of issues.
P16
But this can be dangerous. Too many nations
adopting too independent policies can lead to conflict.
I’m not saying that will lead to conflict in the case of the US and Japan,
certainly not armed conflict, but it can lead to connect. And it can also lead
to a group of nations banding together to look after their own interests
at the expense of everybody else’s interests. For example, OPEC in the 1970s,
or in fact, EU, if the EU becomes protectionist. What we need is, therefore,
a system of interconnecting multi-nation organisations to pre-empt trouble
and to provide the glue to help nations co-operate and to co-exist
peaceably-a glue that does not consist a common enemy, but common interests. And
the key word here is ‘interconnecting’. APEC is a perfect model.
It consists of nations from Asia, Oceania and the Americas. It is a forum to
discuss trade issues. But more importantly, the member nations all belong
to other organisations too. The United States and Chile belong to the
Organisation of American States, Indonesia and Thailand belong to ASEAN,
Australia and Singapore belong to the Commonwealth, Japan and Canada belong
to the G-7. And because of this interconnectivity, if you like, each
nation has links to other nations outside APEC: Germany and France have links
through the G-7, India and Nigeria are linked through the
Commonwealth, Brazil and Paraguay are linked through the OAS. Everybody gets to
communicate with everybody else. And the danger for one country, or
one group of countries to disregard the point of view of the others is greatly
reduced, and lessens the chances for trade blocs to be created.
P17
The other role of mufti-nation organisations involves providing advice, assistance and feedback to member states. The importance of such a role cannot be stressed enough, as a way of keeping the world at peace. The Commonwealth is a perfect example of this. The Secretariat of the Commonwealth often provides assistance to member nations to kelp strengthen their systems of democracy by running seminars on administrative law, for example, for politicians and public servants; providing election observers; and helping countries write legislation. Regular Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings provide a forum for nations to debate matters of importance in a friendly and co-operative atmosphere.
And I know that from my experience in
politics that, to influence people, the best way is not to pasture. not to get up
in the chamber or the assembly or meeting and berate them, to argue with
them. You sit down with those who may not agree with you, and you talk to
them as friends. You find ant where you agree, you find out where you disagree,
and you find common ground. Nations need to do that. Quiet diplomacy.
And not necessarily the way the US has approached its relations with others
lately.
P18
In closing, I would like to make a few comments on how three countries - Australia, the United States and Japan—should approach the 2lst century. First, Australia. Australia is not a large country in terms of population, but large n area, it consists of an island almost the size of continental United States, located to the south of Asia. It was colonised by the British in 1788, and gained independence from Britain officially in 1901. However, for half a century after this Australia remained tied to the ‘motherland’ emotionally, culturally, and practically. During and after World War 11, the links with Britain became weaker and those with the United States became stronger, but Australians still remained European in outlook, and particularly British in outlook, even though the country is nowhere near Europe.
Over the last few years, however, helped by an influx of Asian immigrants, Australians have begun to realise that their future is in Asia. Japan is our largest trading partner, and many links with Asia are being forged-educationally, tradewise, militarily, and so on. For example,Australia played an important role in achieving peace in Cambodia, APEC Australia’s idea, and we have had joint military exercises with Indonesia-they have been controversial in Australia, but we have had them nevertheless.
The problem is that many Asians don’t regard Australians as Asian- we don’t look Asian, we don’t act Asian, and I think that many Asians still distrust Australia’s motives. And probably the best example of this is the prime Minister of Malaysia, Mohamed Mahathir. He wants to set up an East Asian Economic Caucus, excluding Caucasian nations, which means Australia and New Zealand. So he doesn’t think we’re Asian, and he doesn’t want us in Asia.
But I would agree that some Australians are
not interested in learning Asian cultures and Asian languages, and
some Australians don’t want to be part of Asia. Indeed, when I was in
high school, Asian history was not even an option- we could not study Asian
history, even if we wanted to. Australians regard Asia as simply a place
in which to make money. Australian neswpaper articles and magazine
articles invariably concentrate the ‘export dollars’ to be earned from any
link with Asia. But this attitude has to changed if Australia is to be
respected and accepted by Asians as part the Asian region. We start as outsiders in
the 20th century and we need to become insiders in the 21st
century. We will hopefully get the chance in the year 2000 to show the world how we have
changed, however, with the exposure the nation will receive through
Sydney hosting the Summer Olympics in that year, and hopefully, in
the same year, becoming a republic, and thereby severing our last political
ties with Great Britain.
P19
The United States is still a powerful
country, although in relative teams it is in decline-and it is, but many
Americans would disagree with me on that mow that the Cold War has been won,
trade has become a priority, and in the 21st century the US will be
measuring its success by markets won, and not by how well it has contained the
communists. The danger is that it will pursue an isolationist foreign policy and
not provide the leadership and stewardship the world needs. Historically,
the US has been isolationist, and it is worrying to see the makeup of the new
Congress. One gets the impression that the Republicans will choose
to 1ook after No. 1 - themselves - and turn inward, and that
would be a mistake. I think that Americans feel a bit threatened and unsure
of their identity at present. They don’t feel like...they don’t like playing
second fiddle. They like being dominant. And in the 21st
century they won’t be dominant-no one counter or region will be dominant-and that will be
hard for them to accept. But the United States will always be strong, and
the world needs a strong America as its ‘manager’.
P20
Japan in the 21st century needs to transform itself from a closed, secretive and mysterious place, which is how non-Japanese often see the country. It needs to change to an open society, Adhere business and government procedures and practices are transparent and where the culture is not regarded as mysterious or foreign. Japan, even 50 years after the end of World War II, unfortunately, is still not trusted by many other countries. Japan maintains a huge surplus with the rest of the world; its markets, if open, are often regulated by archaic government procedures and business practices which are often regarded as illegal in other parts of the world. But worse, Japan’s public relations performance has been disastrous. And as examples, simply consider the whaling issue, the importation of plutonium from France, the ‘comfort women’ issue, Unit 731. In each of these cases, except for the last one, Japan certainly has some good arguments to support its position. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but there are arguments in support of those positions. But the arguments have not been articulated well overseas.
Now, my remedy is simple. Improve the
standard of language education in Japan and ensure that the
intelligentsia, the businessmen and the businesswomen, the politicians, the
public servants are able to speak other languages fluently, and able to speak
those languages frankly, and often-arguing Japan’s case in the various
forums of the world. Japan is winning the economic war, but losing the PR
war. People of other nations do not understand how Japanese thank, or
why Japanese act in certain ways. Your politicians and businessmen and
businesswomen need to speak English on CNN and tell Americans and
others exactly why ‘keiretsu’ are not evil, or exactly why there are rice paddies
in the centre of Tokyo-and thereare good reasons. It’s no good to hide
beyond language differences anymore. lf Germans can communicate in English
fluently, why can’t Japanese? International understanding and
co-operation is dependent on good communication. And Japan has a
responsibility to contribute to this process, particularly as Japan wishes to contribute
by becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security
Council, and assume the responsibilities that entail from that position.
Japan cannot afford to maintain the ‘ambiguity’ described by
Kenzaburo Oe in his Nobel Prize address.
P21
Now, I know you will probably get angry with me here, and I know I shouldn’t say it, but wouldn’t it be a wonderful world without the need for interpreters. If everybody spoke the same language, and all of our differences were overcome by talking problems through, instead of by war and aggression and bloodshed. I know, it’s a difficult thing lo achieve, particularly when ethnic rivalry in Europe, centuries old. is, at this very moment, seeming to prove that humans cannot solve any disagreement without reverting to violence.
But that’s my hope for the 21st
century-that we are able to disprove that theory, that we can live together in
peace and harmony. I’m optimistic, and I feel that the world may well be
entering an exciting new phase, despite all the problems we face. It will be
difficult, it will be challenging, but I think we can achieve it-A pacific future. Thank
you very much.
