use of an united currency for trading within Asia (or "common basket" which was the expression Dr. Pakkasem used in his speech) and internationalization of the yen mentioned as by Mr. Shinohara. Expressing it in other words, Japan should alter the way it bilaterally provides ODA, due to the sore sentiment of settlement after World War II. To put it concisely, its time for Asia to establish the framework of a system concerning economic balance and stability of each region. It is impossible to create it without Japan. However, when we execute the idea in reality, the most critical issue is what stance and which philosophy should Japan adopt in its participation. If Japan gets involved too much, some within Japan may voice that is would be the revival of Asians. It contains a touchy phase. However, I doubt that only positive criticism solves problems.
Regarding the on-going currency crisis in Asia, the easiest path for Japan to take is to just sit and wait until Asia prospers with the high growth of economies. But such a comfortable period is over. Japan's presence in Asia, bearing the heavy burden toward the 21st century, is definitely important, and the most essential issue is how Japan evaluates the path we had been following in the past forty or fifty years. I sense that is the logical conclusion of the argument. Thank you.
● Makoto IOKIBE (Chairperson for the 4th session)
Professor, Faculty of Law, Kobe University
At end of the fourth session, I stated that the locally indigenous culture could shine more in the midst of the globalism, based on the lesson learned from Japanese history. Over the period of the last 50,150,500 or as far as possibly 1500 years, Japan had been deeply influenced by the great Chinese civilization, and it studied that eagerly to acquire the knowledge of governing the nation with statutes and of Buddhism from the Tang Dynasty and Ancient India. By adoption of these as a catalyst, Japan's history had jumped in development while never losing its independence and gradually shaping things into the Japanese style. Based on the past experiences, Japanese repeated the same when Western civilization intruded in the 19th century. While learning from West resolutely and going abroad. Japanese used such experiences as stepping-stones for the accomplishment of modernization. Contacting outside elements does not necessarily alter the original, but by learning from the other to make it a stepping-stone, it enables us to discover the inner-self or hidden potential, leading to the self-development. This symposium impressed on me that we could be more optimistic.
The third wave was presumably after the war period when Americanism surged until the present globalism period, interacting with the free international system after the war.
Hundreds of years from now, if the earth possibly exists, I assume as a historian, the thirdly biggest era of progress would be considered to be identified as the period of coping with globalism after the war. The significance of the third phase should be Japan's role as a connector of the East Asia as a whole, bringing it into the global arena, to prosper toward the history of the 21st century.
Currently, East Asia is faced with a critical situation, which may tend to discourage us and cause us to lose confidence.
However, the issues discussed here emphasized that the prescription by the IMF does not completely cure every failure. Meanwhile, the anti-globalism or regret for globalization has been negated also, I suppose, because the prosperity of East Asia is the outcome of the maturity of the intentional economy and market globalism.
Fortunately, there is no advanced society that has disappeared by a single blow from the historical point of view. East Asia, already showing great progress, along with coercion and distortion, will learn from the on-going crisis and will progress toward a new creation as just pointed out. In this regard, I am very thankful to Dr. Pakkasem for participating as from the midst of the crisis and actively putting forward his opinions. Carefully listening to all of the commentators, they have hinted how to learn more from the crisis and have estimated how long it would take to get over it. When Japan had been hit by the oil crisis in 1973, Takeo Fukuda, then Minister of Finance, declared that the symptoms needed the three-month treatment, regarded such as the extremely serious stage, which was apparently unbelievable inflation or galloping rise in prices occurring together with the recession. In order to solve the multiple crises, the ordinary market adjustment could not do any good. Therefore, he declared a three-month treatment would be necessary, trying every possible method to complete the cure. He seemed to have shown outstanding leadership.
Can the current crisis be cured within a few years unless it's complicated by China's financial crisis? Will it take longer, such as four or five years, to complete in case of linking with problems occurring in China? Furthermore, in the case that even Japan collapses, the United States may also be drawn into it, resulting in a situation like the ten-year-world-
