and Pax-Americana will surely continue to establish certain orders for this region. For example, military aspects. We may take the redefinition of the US-Japan Security Treaty as a declaration that the structural power will be present until the 21st century. In a sense, we may believe that the backbone of the Asian Pacific region has been guaranteed.
However, on the other hand, when thinking of political activities such as APEC, resident Clinton started the summit conference suggesting America take the leadership. This did not necessarily go smoothly. First the sub-leaders such as Japan and Australia took the initiative. But the key role could not be continued to be taken by only these two countries. Now, the leadership has been passed to a more younger and new power, ASEAN. It has been decided that the conference will take place alternately in ASEAN and one of the remaining countries. Because the conference is held in ASEAN every other year, ASEAN has obtained its veto power. If the conference is organized in such manner, we can no longer say that America is the leader. They have given the leadership to ASEAN. This means that Pax-Britannia and Pax-Americana no longer makes the framework. We have achieved the right and opportunity to speak. Now I refer to the time span of 500 years. Until then, the power that the Chinese possessed was always that of the land. The Chinese network spread out to the sea and drew Southeast Asia in. There is an implication that the sea of Asia will attain superiority over the land in the future. By putting all this together, I would like to ask what you think of the future order formation, and the role China and Asia would play in it.
｡?PAKKASEM
You talked so much about Pax-Americana and Pax-Britannia, how about Pax-Japonica? They only last two and a half decades. You must mention your own Pax too. Japan maintains such low interest rates. You push your savings to America and finance American deficits.
｡?SHIRAISHI
There is this historical lesson which is burned into my memory. The lesson is that the Japanese should never set themselves to the Anglo-Saxon. So, I find it difficult to even think about Pax-Japonica.
But, at the same time I also doubt whether this is truly right or not. What I mean is that, I am afraid I cannot answer Professor Iokibe's questions directly. If you have any ideas. I would be grateful if you share them with me. I am still thinking it over, but still cannot find a good answer. To be honest, what I am really worried about right now, is that actually Asia, which would mean at this moment Korea, Thailand and Indonesia and other countries also are facing a crisis. A serious crisis. At the moment, the Japanese government and banks are doing nothing but provide money.
The amount of this fund is as I have mentioned earlier, tremendous. They are providing the money without second thoughts. If this happens to continue for several years, our government will not last. If the Japanese people were asked which they prefer, to reduce two billion yen of income tax or to give the same amount to Indonesia even though it might disappear in a week, the Japanese would definitely choose the reduction of income tax, In that case, Japan is facing a very serious problem of how to survive in the international world. I must say that I am aware of this problem, yet I do not know how to cope with it.
｡?Masakazu YAMAZAKI
Professor of Graduate Studies, University of East Asia and Playwright
I think it would be better to now sort out the issues and opposing subjects for our two-day discussion. Some consider that the problems related to Asia can be classified as firstly America versus Asia, or the American lifestyle versus the Asian traditional lifestyle, or the way the two countries are being governed. This is one item.
Another is the universal rational currency market versus the national government. Naturally, many people may connect the first and seemed item. By doing so, it does sound logical.
In other words, when America is recognized as a political body, it is comparatively clear, rational and logical. On the other hand, market economy being as it is, means that if the financial market economy wins, America also wins immediately. Facing the reality, it does seem that the relationship between IMF and America is extremely close. But is George Soros directly connected to America's profit ?
So it can be said that the two are items in the opposite position.
There is another item, which is the financial and manufacturing business. Throughout the world, the financial economy and the manufacturing economy are operating on a separate sphere. For instance, Japan is in a strong position for its manufacturing industry but not in the financial business. America is said to be the opposite. If this is the case, then both would collapse if it were a free competitive economy. The financial business has an overwhelming economic efficiency, compared to the manufacturing
