is not right to put everything together and boycott it on the national border.
Another question is, when we discuss Asia, what we should do with China. This may influence the intentional relations in a different form. We had a question, what is actually happening in China. There are apparent gaps, for example, in the concept of human rights and the concept of the environment between China and other nations. To fill in those gaps, some Americans insist on imposing environmental or human rights duties on products that were made under a tremendous violation of human rights or on industrial products that seriously destroyed the environment and this has partly been put into practice. The question is, is it wise to do that by the national system or isn't it better to do that by the various networks of citizens' societies.
If the problem of human rights is shifted to products, it will become the economic problem. Instead of the regulations such as duties imposed by the national governments, the society which is involved in various markets must regulate such products in the long term or regulate them by "regulatory surveillance." Advanced societies have more such systems than Asian societies. We have to keep it in mind m establish such systems.
｡?REID
Our hosts have said a couple of times in rather an apologetic vein, that they called this meeting at a time when much more optimistic and upbeat ideas about Asia were in the air, as if perhaps this made this meeting less appropriate than otherwise. I think that the reverse is the case, that the crisis through which many Asian countries are now living makes this an absolutely essential time to be meeting multi-laterally and thinking multi-laterally. It is a time of considerable danger of reverting to ultimately self-defeating national solutions because the internal pressures in each country are mounting to almost unbearable levels. I think it is essential for us now, particularly, to be having meetings like this, attempting to generate the kinds of multi-lateral solutions which can lead to a more balanced world order.
｡?SHIRAISHI
I want to make two points very briefly. One is about the question, is Asia going to be one economic bloc. Since Asia-Pacific has been organized as one economic bloc for the past 50 years, I believe we should think so.
Secondly about the issue of China. I said this yesterday. When we look back the history of at least 500 years, there was the age of commerce three times and during the first two times China became unstable. It is often written that in 2020 or 2030 China may be a superpower but I am afraid we should consider that China may turn to the opposite direction.
｡?IOKIBE
Our discussion covered many topics. There was a discussion of "four levels or five levels". Dr. Reid prepared his talk about globalism while Asia was in the optimistic atmosphere but now we me in crisis. Despite the present crisis, however, we discussed in a rather optimistic atmosphere here. That is to say, something local, something native is enlightened and vitalized in globalism, so that now we believe we will be able to find new possibilities. I think this is the basic stance commonly shared by all of us.
