 I'm just going to invite Minister Utansha to give us some opening remarks about his views on how Myanmar is moving from alignment in one direction, one relationship that has driven the foreign policy of this country towards what I call multi-alignment, looking in all directions. How will you be balancing the complexity of diplomacy moving forward? Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Kanem. First, let me express that I'm very pleased to be here with you all, and I'm very glad that I have a chance to brief on the first stage on Myanmar changes. So talking about Myanmar these days is very encouraging and very delightful. We know that Myanmar has been in limelight for the last three years in a different picture. I'm sure that you always know that the last 40 years plus, the picture that is happening in Myanmar is totally different from the last three years. There are changes. There are total changes from what is happening in the last 40 years. So the last 40 years, we were under pressure. We don't need to hide, and everyone knows that. We have difficulty dealing with the many countries. We have countries that try to understand us. So before going through, I would like to just touch on our foreign policy. Myanmar wanted to be, you know, our policy is that we want to be friends with all countries in the world. This is said policy since we got independence, but we make clear that we have neighboring countries. They are big, and they are trying to understand our domestic development. So in our foreign policy, we set up a good relation with every country, but we want to be more closer in relation with our neighboring countries and in our region. This is the set foreign policy, you know, and this is the essence. So last 40 years, you all know we had a military government. There is no sympathy for us, and Myanmar has quite, you know, we survived, but we are lack of development. There is no such kind of starvation in our country, but there is no development that we miss. We are in the ASEAN country, but ASEAN tried to help the approach, the ASEAN constructive approach to us. It works. It's, Myanmar has been, you know, a kind of coming out, a step that we can build. We are in the group. We are with the, as you know, there is a pressure, as I explained to you, we have a pressure from the Western countries as well as in the UN, UN-related issues, UN resolutions been adopted to us, which is a very difficult position that we have to counter. So these days, we have a good cooperation or, you know, coordination with many countries in the East. Frankly, I admit China has been helping a lot. ASEAN is giving a lot of support to us. India tried to understand it. These are the countries that they know what is really happening in Myanmar and what we are, you know, facing difficulties. So we have to thank the countries that tried to support us for the last 40 years. So now, you know, we have 2011, we come in with the new government. We have a constitution. We have no constitution for the last 40 years. So we have a constitution adopted. We have a kind of democratic government. We have an election. And we are moving in a new phase, which not only ASEAN countries are happy, the world and international company is very pleased with what is happening in Myanmar. So nowadays, Myanmar is working with not only close countries, but we are dealing with the very distant countries. The President has been visited, Europe, the President has been visited to US very recently. And we have a lot of visitors. Foreign ministry has been, you know, in a difficult position. We didn't enlarge our ministry. We have the staff that we were working last 40 years. So these days, Myanmar is looking forward to work with the international community. We are having, we know we have to do a lot, you know. We were out of touch for many years. We need to bring human resource. We need to bring the information. We need to bring, to follow, you know, our ASEAN colleagues. We don't want to be left behind. We want to go along with the ASEAN friends, as well as the neighbors, two neighbors that they are big. They are growing and they are, you know, they have been calling as Asian Century, which this is too far to understand at this moment. But whatever it is, we are happy with what is happening in Asia. And we are looking forward of, you know, the progress is happening in Asia. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister, for sharing those thoughts. It is clear that Myanmar now has many more friends than before, and they will not leave you behind. So I think at least you've reached that next level. And one of your new friends, one of Myanmar's best friends is, of course, Japan, which you mentioned. And Japan has actually been a leading investor in the region. Perhaps one could say Japan deserves an enormous amount of credit for being an investment driver, a partner, a development partner, in building this Asian Century that we're talking about today. So we have with us Mr. Nishimura from the Japanese Cabinet. I'd love for you to comment not only on the partnership with Myanmar and your investment in Myanmar as a new sort of front, in a way, in your relations with ASEAN. Also, of course, as we talk about the Asian Century, your relationship with the United States and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a lot of people are wondering if there's a tension between Japan's role as an ally of the United States and a key partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership framework versus its role in investing in this Asian Century. So please, if you could comment on both of those things. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm very honored to be here and to have such kind of occasion, a chance to speak about Japan's policy. And on this occasion, first of all, a little bit about, I'd like to briefly explain about, Abenomix, a little bit about this, and as you know, Abenomix aims to implement three pronged strategies, considering all of our aggressive monetary policy and the flexible physical policy and growth strategy. And growth strategy is the most important and encourages private sector investment and the globalization. We promote the globalization, including TPP, and thereby intend to end the deflation and revitalize the Japanese economy. So recently, the Japanese stock market has shown some fluctuation. However, we are working on the growth strategy very hard, which is responsible to their expectations, not only Japanese people, but also all over the world and the market. And I believe the market will stabilize soon. We are very confident. And the growth strategy will come into effect next week. But some policies, including those which brought up difficult issues and not carried out before, have been decided and implemented already. So one example is about the PFI. We have decided to open up the public infrastructure, dominated by the public sector to the private sector. We are currently developing a new action plan for the wide use of the PFI PPP scheme by allowing a concession contract so that more private agents can participate in the construction and operation of the public facilities, including water, airports, and suede. We have a plan to initiate this PFI PPP project, once a total of $120 billion within 10 years. And secondly, widespread use of information technology is commencing. A bill for national identification number system passed the national identification number system two weeks ago will use this system as a step toward achieving top global ranking in the e-government. And last but not least, globalization matters. Japan, we recently decided to participate in the PPP, as you mentioned, as a part of our growth strategy. Moreover, also Japan is now negotiating FTA with the EU and also ASEAN countries and China and South Korea also. So we hope Japan will be the center of the new framework of free trade and investment in the world. So that is not all. We'll improve our conditions for accepting a larger number of our high-skilled foreign workers to diversify our human resources in Japan. So we are promoting our globalization so quickly. And two weeks ago, Prime Minister Abe visited here and with about 40 private companies and made a core statement with our president to promote our investment and also human exchange. And I hope the negotiation on the investment agreement will be reached very soon. And through that, I believe our investment to your country will be promoted and the relationship between two countries will be promoted steadily. Thank you very much. Indeed, Japan's investment here and as you mentioned, the growing push for trade agreements with ASEAN countries will be a very important driver of ASEAN's growth, as will, of course, ASEAN's regional integration. I would like to turn to that, Mr. Shinohara, from the International Monetary Fund. You're an expert, of course, in trade and financial integration. With the ASEAN economic community mooted for the year 2015, what do you see as the prospects for that in a context where a country like Myanmar also is coming into the equation? And the differential growth, differential GDP per capita incomes within ASEAN could make it very difficult to actually move forward with a comprehensive ASEAN economic community in that time frame. So if you could give your thoughts on the economic picture, that would be very helpful. Okay. Let me start my discussion by describing a little bit about the changing trade pattern here in Asia. I mean, looking at the situation from outside, Asia is really a dynamic region. Asia has been the engine of growth for the global economy for the past two decades, and the main factor behind that was the huge trade integration within the region. So trade linkages within Asia is very important, very important factor behind the growth in this region. And of course, for the past 10 years or so, it is the so-called sophisticated supply chain framework that has enhanced the trade integration in this region, with China as the export platform, other Asian countries exporting intermediate goods to China. But there are some changing patterns in trade, although slowly, but I think those are important changes. One is the trade integration in ASEAN countries, especially in the area of final consumption goods. If you look at the numbers of intraditional trade among ASEAN countries on final consumption goods, it is increasing both in absolute terms and in relative terms. So it is not just intermediate goods exposed to China, but it is the consumer goods trade within ASEAN countries that is increasing. I think that is a very good sign for this region as a sign of resilience against the potential external shocks. Second element, second feature that we are noticing is the transition in China itself. China is trying to shift its economy from investment-driven economy to a more domestic demand-driven economy, more consumption-centered growth. That means there should be more demand for final goods in China. And part of that final demand has to come to ASEAN countries. This will give an opportunity for ASEAN economies to export more final goods to China, not just intermediate goods, but final goods to China. The percentage of China's imports of final goods is very small at this moment, and it hasn't moved much yet. But I think there is a huge potential looking at the situation from the ASEAN countries as the potential place for exports of final goods. So that is the second element. The third element is also related to China. We are all talking about increasing costs in China, labor costs, environmental costs, and some of the China-based companies are looking for opportunities to relocate their base for production in other countries, in particular in ASEAN countries, especially in low-income ASEAN countries, like Myanmar, of course, Cambodia, Laopedia, and Bangladesh, it's not ASEAN, but. So I just talked about three elements, but these all show that there is a dynamic change in this region. And there are discussions ongoing on the ASEAN economic community. The deadline is 2015. I think it's a very important move for ASEAN economies in order to fight against protectionism, in order to maintain the spirit of trade liberalization, in order to maintain the benefits of trade integration in this region. There are, of course, huge challenges, as you mentioned, such as non-tariff barriers. To what extent they can deal with non-tariff barriers? There have been lots of developments on the tariff reduction, but non-tariff barriers. How to deal with that? The second issue is the trade dispute mechanism. It is already there, but I don't think it is functioning well. How to strengthen a trade dispute mechanism? The third is, as you mentioned, within ASEAN, there is a gap in income, there is a gap in development, there is a gap in trade developments. So how do you deal with those gaps within ASEAN countries? There are people who are talking about two-tier approach in trade integration, not only in trade integration, but also in financial market integration as well. So there are lots of challenges ahead of them, but this initiative is so important that they cannot fail. Thank you very much. Generally, you're confident about the ability of the ASEAN members to fight the protectionist tendencies towards 2015? I believe so, because it is for their own benefits. So, Kishore, Mr. Shinohara has actually referred to the economic foundations of ASEAN's strength, and this should be ASEAN's moment as production does shift towards the region. You're working a lot, intensively, your whole career, in fact, on strengthening ASEAN. This really should be its moment to shine. What about the diplomatic underpinnings of ASEAN's strength? And will Myanmar's rehabilitation and inclusion now fully in ASEAN and even chairing ASEAN next year? Is this a sign of a more unified, more vocal, more activist ASEAN diplomatic entity? Well, I hope, you don't mind if I suffocate everyone at Good News at this meeting, because I'm very bullish on ASEAN. I think as I mentioned to you, my next book will be on ASEAN, on ASEAN. And I also want to explain why, in a sense, the next decade or two will be ASEAN's moment in world history, and make three points. Firstly, if you want to try and understand why Myanmar is making such an amazingly smooth, peaceful transition from one kind of regime to another kind of regime, you can, of course, you have to give credit to the individual actors, and they deserve all the individual credit. But you also have to talk about the regional chemistry. And if you want to understand, for example, why Syria is in flames, and why Myanmar is not, it's because the regional chemistry around Syria is full of poisonous gases, right? Whether it's Lebanon. You said you were going to regale us with Good News. But the Good News about ASEAN. Oh, right, okay. And why this region has got no poisonous gases. It took 42 years or more. ASEAN is actually now 46 years old. Of hard work among the ASEAN countries to completely change the regional chemistry. And the fact that we have succeeded in doing this explains why Myanmar can emerge so peacefully and easily. So that's one reason. The second reason is that, actually, there will be heightened geopolitical competition in Southeast Asia. Now, if it is uncontrolled geopolitical competition, let's say within US and China, or China and Japan, or China and India, then the region is in trouble. But I think what we can confidently predict is that there will be controlled geopolitical competition. And that's the best outcome for ASEAN. And if you look, for example, what's going to happen tomorrow at the meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping. And I, even though I do not know what the agenda is, I do not know what the results are going to be, I'm very confident that the outcome will be more positive than negative. And that's a sign of how things are changing. But there will be competition. And unfortunately for ASEAN, it is a valuable geopolitical asset. So China is interested in it, United States is interested in it, Japan is interested in it, India is interested in it. And if you know in the Cold War, one reason why the ASEAN countries did so well is because United States and Japan work very hard to support ASEAN. So in the same way now, the kind of agreements that will be reached with ASEAN, the kind of reaching out to ASEAN will help ASEAN a great deal in the next 10 to 20 years. And the third and final point was in sense to build on what Mr. Shinohara was saying. You know, as a result of having developing at a steady pace over several decades, they have now reached a critical, what you might call an inflection point, whereby today at the stage of ASEAN's development, for every 10% increase in GNP, you get a doubling of the middle class. And that's why for all of Asia, I made the prediction in the book, The Great Convergence, that today the total size of the Asian middle class on all of Asia, from South Asia to East Asia, is roughly about 500 million people. But by 2020, which is only seven years from now, the number is going to explode from 500 million to 1.75 billion, an increase of three and a half times in seven years. So if you're looking for markets, if you're looking for new consumers, where do you come to? You come to this region. And so ASEAN is going to be at this epicenter of this tremendous economic growth, and therefore it's going to be a golden moment for ASEAN in the next 10, 20 years. Let me follow up on your references to the United States, because in the past, there's been a view that the US was in decline, was becoming irrelevant in Asia. And, but now you've said that the US and Japan, as they did during the Cold War, are going to be key drivers, actually, of fueling this stability in the region. And ASEAN says, do you feel that America's pivot to Asia, rebalancing towards Asia, is going to help to buttress the stability or could it be destabilizing and add to confusion? Well, if it led to uncontrolled competition, I mean, for example, if it led to, I'll give you a simple example, if it led to a naval arms race, more naval encounters within Chinese and American navies, that would be a disaster for the region. But if it's a competition where they say, where China says, okay, I want to enhance the FDA I've signed with ASEAN and make it even bigger. And, you know, the growth and trade within China and ASEAN is explosive. 1991, if I remember correctly, the trade within China and ASEAN was roughly $8 billion only. Last year, it was $400 billion, an increase of 50 times in 20 years. Now, imagine extrapolating that into the future. If China says, okay, I want to make it an even higher quality FDA and increase the interaction within China and ASEAN, you get more benefits from here. And if the United States does that, if Japan does that and others do it, then clearly there'll be tremendous economic opportunities. And at the end of the day, I mean, I must emphasize, there are always risks, okay? The risks are there. But if you balance the risks and the opportunities, the opportunities are far greater than the risks. I'm going to ask the members of our audience to think about what they think the biggest risks and challenges and scenarios are for what might destabilize some of the positive sentiment that's been expressed so far. But let me first turn to Professor Xiao Dao Jing. In the past, when people have talked about this Asian century, they may have either intentionally or unintentionally conflated with the Chinese century. Today, of course, we're in a very different environment. There is a tremendous amount of tension with China. And in fact, in the past where I've written about Myanmar 10 years ago as a client state of China, today in Beijing, as you know, there's a prominent question being asked, who lost Myanmar? So can you, I wanted to do these two, but, and this question has been directed at you before. So please can you comment on how, if this is going to be ASEAN's moment, if this is a time when the US is back in the region where your relations with neighbors, both maritime and territorial, are strained, how is China going to redefine its relations with its neighbors, with Myanmar as well? And what is its role going to be in this Asian century? To answer your first question. Who lost Myanmar? It was not me. Good, now he established that. Also, I'm a scholar. The nature of our country's relationship to Myanmar is very different from that between Myanmar and Japan or the United States or even Singapore or other ASEAN countries. We are neighbors. We are linked by land. So for that, Myanmar matters to China first and foremost, in its capacity to maintain domestic stability and the pursuit of development. And more pointedly, we need a peaceful border between the two countries. And when there are incidents, those incidents must be handled amicably. And if you look at the past 10 to 20 years, the Chinese government consistently cored for an end to Western sanctions against Myanmar. So... The West finally listened to you. They listened to us. Okay, nothing here. So I would say the who lost Myanmar question is largely rhetorical. And what's more pertinent as we speak from this point on is how we pursue tangible projects that integrate the Myanmarese economy into the rest of the region. If you recall just barely two weeks ago, Prime Minister Lee Ko-chang was visiting India. He talked about, you know, a Chinese interest to pursue this idea of an economic corridor linked in North East India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Southern China. These are the sort of things we hope IMF and World Bank with ADV and others would fund. So the lot more work needs to be done and it's a good time to pursue development. With regard to your reference to Chinese century, I do suppose within the region and including Myanmar itself, there is a good deal of apprehension about a return to a tributary system that was practiced under the dynasties of China. We are acutely aware of that. And how do you work on that? So there is no better way than keeping the means of communication open and pursue interactions with goods, not guns, of course, whether, you know, tanks or ships or missiles, and then with human interactions. Do you worry about ASEAN coalescing around a tougher position vis-a-vis China on issues such as damming of the Mekong River and so forth? Damming what Mekong River? Dams being built along the Mekong or you mentioned also, of course, the analogy to the tributary model of China's historical relations with the actual physical damming of Upper Mekong River and its impact on Southeast Asian countries. Yeah, I was in Laos barely a month ago specifically looking at corporate social responsibility by Chinese hydro companies working on some of the dam projects. I was so intimately familiar with the Metsong Dam controversy in this country. Dams are not universally bad. A dam has four basic functions, flood control, irrigation, and in the case of Mekong, you regulate the flow, stabilize the flow especially during the dry season, of course, electricity, and then fisheries. Let's not forget, you build a dam, you can raise fish in the reservoir as well. So the main mechanism that's in place in the Mekong system is the Mekong River Commission, although its authority probably ought to be a little expanded beyond the mainstream and into some of the tributaries. Its advice, technical advice, deserves a better hearing by different governments. And we need to work on two things. One is management of the dams in place. Second, we need to work on learning from the past in a technical way of trying to strike a greater balance between using dams purely for economic growth, for energy, and simultaneously taking better care of both the ecology and the people who are affected by the dam construction. I want to make sure that we take as many questions as possible from the audience in the time that we have left. So please do raise your hands if you'd like to have the microphone brought over to you. Gentlemen, right over here, please. If you could identify yourself as well before asking your question. Thank you. Hello, is this on? My name is Mike Davis. I work for Global Witness. We're an organization based in London that does research and analysis on natural resource management around the world. Myanmar is a country which is hugely rich in natural resources, it's often said, but it's worth reiterating. But since the time of the British colonial era onwards, the exploitation of the natural resources has always been predatory with the benefits going to a very few and not the many. So in the context of this increased competition, both political and economic, which we're discussing here, do the panelists think that the various countries involved in ASEAN, China, United States, Europe can show the vision and the responsibility towards the people of Myanmar to ensure that that competition results in a race to the top in terms of high standards of business engagement benefits the population, rather than is, as often feared, a race to the bottom? Is it possible for the different competing powers, and we must be very frank about the fact that they're competing, can work together and with the government of Myanmar to come up with some basic rules of engagement to ensure that the people of this country benefit from that interest in that competition? Excellent question. Let me ask Minister Otankiao if you might take a crack at that question. Can you engender a race to the top in the management of the rich natural resources of this country given the enormous number of outside interests that are coming in very quickly into those sectors? Thank you, thank you for the question. Myanmar have a difficult time that we have to use our resources that we need to, because there's no other lifeline to support. So we have to make, engage with the many countries to sell some of our products. But frankly admit during our socialist regime, they are the one who preserve a lot of our national resources. We never sell out our teakwood in a park. We never let uncontrolled mining in our country. So these are the things that we have a good practices, we have a good norms, but due to the pressure a lot giving to us, to some extent we have to make concessions. This is no doubt we don't hide. For that the environment was to some extent damaged. We have losing our natural forest. We have some mining, we have to give concession. But the government those days try their best to control because these things must be really benefit for the country, for the survival. That we have to admit that for the survival we have to do many means. This is the thing that we had done. We know that the environment is very valuable, very precious. We need to control these resources. So when the new governments come in right away, we have a new way of approach on related to the national resources. The teak logs are not sell out to internationally. You have to come in, check the forest. There will be a reforestation. And when regarding with the dams, regarding with the mines, these days we need to bring in more proper approach frankly admit there are a lot of reservations for social impact to recover it. And there are new laws coming up. And I'm sure that Myanmar will be as far as like, normal countries in right now these days. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, yes. Sorry, I'd like to speak in Japanese. So, please put your hand up. Channel three. Okay, okay. Ready? Okay. I would like to ask a few questions from the people who have come to Japan to talk about the international development of resources. I would like to ask the people who have come to Japan to talk about the international development of resources. Thank you very much for that comment. Let me turn back to the audience, please, for some questions. Gentlemen, right here. Thank you. I'm Van Rijieng from the Kabudin Institute for Cooperation and Peace and Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. My question is regarding the risk. It seems that strategic trust, one of the key risks, strategic trust and confidence. And you can see the several incidents at sea, vis-a-vis in the East and South China Sea. So I would like to hear the opinion and perspective from the panelists here. How to strengthen that strategic trust and enhance the conflict management and resolution in the East and South China Sea? Thank you. Excellent question. It is very important for us to not pause it in Asian century without dealing with the very difficult confrontations that are taking place in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. I'm going to ask first a short comment on this and Professor Zhao Dajing and other panelists as well. Well, I mean, that's the reason why I mentioned risk, that there will be challenges. And clearly, if you watch what's happening between, let's say, Japan and Korea over the islands within Japan and China and certainly the South China Sea, these are some of the risks that are going to be there. And none of these will be solved quickly or immediately. I mean, that much I guarantee you. The question is not about trying to find a solution. The question is about managing these issues. And if all the parties can agree, I mean, you take, for example, the Japan-China case, that, OK, as Ding Xiaoping said, we cannot solve this now. Our generation is not wise enough. Let's put it off the shelf and let future generations solve it. That's one way of managing it. And the same thing in the case. Normally pushing things off to future generations isn't considered wise. But I'll leave aside that. Well, I think there's a lot of wisdom in it. Because surprisingly, over time, countries realized the absolute stupidity of going to war over little pieces of rock in the sea. And if you want an example of how countries reached that wisdom, I mean, look quite amazingly. If you look at Southeast Asia, Singapore, and Malaysia at a problem of a Petrabranca, we referred it to the World Court. Indonesia had a problem over Sipatan Ligatan. They referred it to the World Court. And I think the present generation clearly can't do that yet. But I think the future generations may be able to refer it to the World Court. So there are openings out there. And this is why for all these issues, it's all a question of managing it. And this is basically the biggest contribution that ASEAN is making. Because what ASEAN does each year, it creates at least two or three or four opportunities for the leaders to meet and talk to each other. I mean, in the late 1990s, when Japan and China, the leaders had difficulty meeting, where did they meet? At an ASEAN plus three meeting. So the ASEAN plus three format enabled China and Japan to meet and so on and so forth. So I believe that there are these risks, but I think that they can be managed. And if you ask me to take a bet, and I'm a betting man, I say there'll be no wars over these issues. Let's get a Chinese perspective on this, because if we do think about the next generation having to manage this issue of the island disputes, that will be in a context where China is presumably even stronger than it is today. Is that going to shape the outcome of this issue? I don't know what the future is going to be. What my colleague, Professor Kishomavani said, I think strikes the right note. The key word here is management, not resolution. And in terms of handling naval and other larger military affairs, this is what I tell my audience back in Beijing, including sometimes government officials. It's very critical to remind two notes. One is no firing of first shot. Just there is a moral something there that's going to come back and haunt you whenever you have these disputes in here. Second is, I believe it comes to a time, especially for our country, China. We need to remember, second no, that is to say no overburdening ourselves with excessive spending on the military, on the military budget. There has to be some limits. But we have to be patient with this matter. It's what you call information age. You have what's called civil society in different countries. In China, in Burma, sorry, Myanmar and many other countries. I see you're a friend of Wang Satsuchi. You do have civil society. Making of diplomacy, the conduct and the consumption of diplomacy has fundamentally been transformed. Earlier you asked this question, who lost Myanmar or who lost what other country? The old paradigm we use, we inherit from college textbooks of thinking, okay, this particular initiative from that powerful country has prevailed or that particular initiative from that smaller country has not, then you try to calculate the wing of loss along those lines. Earlier if he mentioned the Middle East, you asked some sensible Americans, has America won? I'm not trying to divert to the discussion. So we must remember those things in China especially because we have neighbors. You don't try to prevail over your neighbors by sheer force. Manage it, be patient. I wanna bring in Mr. Nishimori on this question because I imagine his perspective might be quite different on this issue of how urgent the resolution is. And this is also very sensitive issue, so let me speak in Japanese. Certainly, please. We don't want anything to get lost in translation, do we? Yeah. Ready? Okay. That one. Do you understand Japanese also? It's okay. It's okay. This is our welcome, and I would like you to be a part of the role of the international community and the role of the people with us. On the other hand, we are against the change in the situation that has arisen in terms of power. We are against this as a group. This is a point where each country is trying to protect each other. This is a natural way to deal with it. We have to deal with it calmly. In terms of the daily relationship, we have a strategic relationship between the first phase of the Abe-Sori period. We want to create a win-win environment in the future. This is a strong will. So we would like to return to this point and make sure that we continue to have a strong conversation and we will always be open. If I have a chance, I will be in charge of economic production. I would like to go to China and exchange my thoughts. We will also open this World Economic Forum in the next series. I would like to have a chance to have a chance to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you for that comment, and I think it echoes something that Kishore has been writing for a long time of the economic integration in this region. This is going to be one of the important factors that will help to mitigate the geopolitical tension. We do have time for more questions, and I do want to get in more, so I'm going to turn right here to Adam Schwartz in the front row. Microphone, please, over here in the front. It's coming right here. Hi, Park, thanks very much. I'm Adam Schwartz with Asia Group based in Singapore. And I would like to ask a panel of the press, Professor Mavani and Professor Dajong in particular, to go back to the question of the TPP. And it'd be interesting in your thoughts to how you kind of pull apart the economic and the political aspects of that trade agreement. So on the economic side, a lot of people sort of hold up the TPP as a next generation or higher quality free trade agreement that will be helpful in being a catalyst to deeper integration through the region and therefore as a boost to growth and not at a higher level, but also at a more sustainable level. On the other side, there is on a more political side a number of concerns about it, which tend to go down to two. One is that it is going to be displacing other trade talks, other trade agreements, whether it's the RCP or the East Asian Economic Agreement. More importantly, some see it in a more, in a geopolitical sense, almost as a proxy for a US-China competition something other than cooperation in the region. And to some extent in that school of thought, ASEAN is a little bit stuck in the middle. Some ASEAN members are party to the TPP and some are not. I'd be interested to see whether you see those sort of strains going in a continuing competition or whether you see convergence or whether you're worried that the politics undermining the economic benefits that one hopes comes from it. Thank you. TPP, good trade agreement with negative geopolitical ramifications or how should we see it? Let's maybe very, very quick answers though, please. Sure. Okay, very, very quickly. I'm actually very happy that there is geopolitical competition in trade liberalization. Because as you know, the United States is pushing the TPP process and China's pushing RCEP, Regional Cooperation Economic Partnership, if I'm not mistaken. And for both of them to say, hey, come join my trade liberalization game. At the end of the day, I think it's win-win because when you have economic liberalization, the record shows that the economies grow, trade grows and everybody benefits. And if you just go back and remember, when Zhu Rongji was premier, when he went to Washington DC, as you know, he was disappointed that he couldn't reach a deal with Bill Clinton on China's admission to WTO. And at the end of the day, when the process was completed, when the United States set a very high bar for China's entry into WTO, the biggest beneficiary at the end of the day turned to be China. As you know, China's trade exploded after you joined WTO, it went up like that. So the high bar that was set for China was a benefit to China. So the TPP process sets a high bar and pushes all the countries over the high bar. And by the way, there's some in recent indications that even China may be interested in the TPP process. And if China decides to jump over the high bar, that's actually good for the region. The only question is, if Chinese accept that high bar, will the US Congress ratify the TPP? Well said. We have talked about TPP abstraction. So far, we don't know what, after different rounds, what are the texts of the temporary, this current version, ongoing version of the TPP text looks like. So people tend to either romanticize or demonize the TPP. As a geo-strategic, geo-economic topic, at least for me as a scholar, this is the second WTO for China. We should accept it. Tough issues like labor standards, issues like state ownership, domestic liberalization, that's precisely what China needs. There has been some, I don't want, if we start to go through the history of the negotiation, then inevitable leads to finger pointing. I would think, as he said, our ministry of commerce just indicated barely a week ago, saying they are seriously studying the prospect and they are talking to all the negotiating members. So don't rule out, we may join. The more pertinent point here, I do believe, is what does any of these trade agreements do in terms of working on, TPP is what's called beyond the border liberalization. Here in this part of the world, we still need to work harder between China and ASEAN economies and the China, Japan, Korea of the at-border technical standards, customs, procedures. Those things here in this part of the world, we all need to elevate ourselves to a higher level of what some economists sell as seamless interconnection that's part of the ASEAN economic community. Let me ask, do you want to comment on this essentially very quickly, please? Yes, I believe TPP is a kind of a base or a platform for FTAB, I mean, free trade framework in APEC. And also, Japan is negotiating with China and Korea about a free trade framework. And also, the ASEAN Plus 10 is negotiating. So I believe TPP is a kind of base. And also, Japan is not an official member of TPP yet, but I believe all members will come if China decides to join to... If China... Probably. I think... But the hardware is very high, so anyway. I think the key is the terms of getting into the negotiations, whether it's what's called accession or in negotiation, especially whether or not China will be allowed to leave some of this so-called sensitive areas of the limits, what do you say? But TPP does not intend to the kind of block, so not the exclusive framework. So, yeah, maybe we'll come... I'm going to take two questions together now, one over here and one over here, please. Microphone to this gentleman, please. My name is Kwong Wing, Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum. Thank you very much for facilitating this, Parang. My question is, today, as all of us can see, we see a completely different trajectory coming from Myanmar that has changed the world. Partners are coming in. We see Japan, we see China coming in a picture very quickly, steadily and efficiently. My question is to both the representatives from China and Japan is that do you think there would be ever a possibility that could be a strategic alliance in the economic and social development sense that could create a game-changer in this aspect? Thank you. And here in the front row, please. You think in China and Japan... Thank you. My name is Christian Mandel, I'm a Young Global Leader living in Paris in France, and I would have a question about... We talk only about the relationship between Asia and the United States, so what about Europe? And are there any parallels between the experience of the European Union and ASEAN? I have three questions or ideas. The first one is, the European Union started after the war dealing with coal and steel. Is there anything similar that could be put in common in Asia? Second, the European Union lasts so long because there are institutions. Are there any ideas of creating institutions that would go beyond the simple trade agreements? And third, in Europe, there's the regional transfers between richer and poorer countries, solidarity. Are there any also similar ideas or projects here? Thank you. Very good questions. Let me add a third in from over here, please. So my name is Vijay Balan, I'm from Hewlett Packard, the computer company. So we're talking about Myanmar, which is formerly Burma, a country which is not like 10, 20 years old. We're talking of a 13,000 year old history. So it's like, and then you've got this whole situation today where you have the multiple powers coming in trying to influence the whole country. And there was an interesting question which is saying who lost Myanmar? Now, if you turn it around and just look at it and say, what has Myanmar lost or risk losing as if they are going through this in terms of their culture, in terms of their identity, do they actually stand the risk of losing that as they go forward? Or is this something that is just a fear which could be unwarranted? That's my thought. Thank you. I'll ask the minister, of course, to comment on the third question about whether Myanmar fears losing its identity. The other two questions about can there be a strategic partnership in a way to ensure the sustainable development of Myanmar? I think that's for any of the representatives of countries investing here. And then a question about the model of the European Union and we can actually add on top of that the question of Europe's role in helping to elevate Myanmar's development and regional integration. Who would like to go first? Are we the minister, please? Okay, I'm going to go on this first, that China lost Myanmar or not. Okay, frankly admit, Myanmar, as I explained to you, we had long years in United Nations. We faced with two resolutions in the third committee as well as in the Human Rights Council. Those years, we had hard time. We worked closely with our, as I explained to neighboring countries. These years, China was the one who encouraged Myanmar, that Myanmar should engage with the Western world. So, China wins in that case. What he says to us, we engage with the Western world. So that means no one lost Myanmar. It's equal. There's a fair competition these days. We open up, we give the ground for everyone, not only China, but also in the countries like Europe. So there's no one lost regarding with Myanmar. And Myanmar says that 3000 years old culture and history. And because of nowadays, multi-powers come in and our culture, our social relations can have some sort of touch or not. Yes, we know that last three years, the way Myanmar people less wearing sarongs. This is the first thing that we are seeing. The new generation is wearing pants and skirts. So to some extent, we are more modernized. So we see that we have to embrace it properly of the culture touch, because we are bringing in more foreigners, more companies, more institutions. Myanmar is more wiser than before. I'm sure that a lot of countries like Myanmar has grown up. So we have to go face of some of the things, but I'm sure that Myanmar will keep, go along with whatever we have. We'll try to keep to reserve our social system, our culture, deeply rooted in our people. Thank you. Mr. Srinohara, can I ask you to come in on the question of actually about regional integration? If you could talk about also the efforts around the ASEAN Monetary Fund and associated measures that have been in place or discussed since the Chiang Mai agreements in the late 1990s, we're now 15 years beyond that. I think a lot of people would be curious to know to what extent we have the financial architectures in place that will strengthen ASEAN's regional development. I'll respond to that and also to the question raised on the floor. Let me first talk about the difference between Europe and Asia. European integration started with strong political will. There was a strong political will for integration in Europe. It was not necessarily economic integration, but it was political integration as well as economic integration. In Asia what has happened is the market force that has driven the economic integration in this region. So it is the economic interests, economic benefits that people felt that was the driving force of the economic integration. So that makes me feel optimistic in managing the issues such as the territorial disputes because in everybody's minds, economic interest comes first and that is the best way to solve the territorial disputes. I mean, we may not be able to solve or manage those risks. I think what is going on in this region is not just trade integration, but also we have set up, as you say, a safety net, a regional safety net so-called the Chiang Mai initiative. And two years ago we have the ASEAN countries set up a regional surveillance office in Singapore. So it is not just the trade integration. Financial integration is also in progress and there are exercises going on to work on macroeconomic surveillance, macroeconomic policy coordination, strengthening the financial safety net within the region. So I may comment on this. We had a question come in from Facebook just before the session and the question was whether or not Abinomics is going to affect this pattern of regional monetary integration or could it be destabilizing? Do you have any immediate thoughts on that? It is too early to talk about that. I mean, Abinomics has just started. I mean, market has become a little bit volatile. It takes time for the market to absorb or the initiatives taken by the current administration is a very bold initiative, bold experiment. So I think it is a little bit premature to reach any conclusion. Let me ask Seja Dajin, can you come in on this question about whether China can sort of re-brand itself as a strategic partner of Myanmar's development along the lines of the higher standards that are now expected of foreign investors in Myanmar today? Well, people tend to forget. 1988 was the year when the border trade between China and Myanmar was formally opened and allowed. In other words, from 1940s to 1980s there was no official economic contact between these two countries. Sometimes we, especially to the young leaders we sometimes talk about these things by looking at where Hillary Clinton travels and saying that's the beginning of Myanmar and the rest of the world starts to ask about China. Let me be very blunt. We have many problems in these countries, our companies. You have to look at the capacity of these companies, both in terms of engineering, in terms of management. I don't quite see many Chinese companies other than Huawei. Huawei probably paying for some of the functions is not speaking up, including the individuals whose language and the cultural capacity to engage. Myanmar has an advantage, structurally speaking, than China. We pursued the process of polluting first and clean up later. But at this moment, with the assistance of opening up the discipline that's urged on the government by NGOs and what else, it's a good opportunity for our Chinese companies to learn and to play by the new rules. It's just not right to continue, to repeat the China's mistake overseas. But touching a little bit upon the question between China and Japan, we are already collaborating with each other. We have Japanese investing in industrial zones along the coastal regions. By nature, Chinese investments are more concentrated along the border regions. That does not necessarily rule out other prospects. But there is a key point here, that is, even for China, with a country that has large masses of cheap labor, we opened up in the 1970s. Up until 1994, over 60% of the total amount of Chinese export came from exporting raw resources. We exported coal, oil to Japan, we exported minerals. Even when the country was suffering from food shortage, we exported rice, soybeans. If you look at the China-Japan long-term trade agreement, written into that with the Chinese guarantee to sell some tonnage of soybeans to Japan in exchange for technology, investment, or what else. What I'm trying to say is that there is a concerns about resource curse, concerns about bringing the wealth from exporting resources to the poor and the needy. Those are all there. You have to somehow, theoretically, we're all struggling to strike that right balance between the equality and scale of in-economic growth. Here in this country, you have a good chance not to repeat China's mistake, but I would... This is a scholar, not a diplomat. It would be not to mal-mass advantage to take that equality to that kind of extreme and say everything is preconditioned upon a theoretical definition of equality. The process of development in any country is never smooth. Mr. Nishimura wants to make a very quick introduction. Yes, but you've just started a free trade negotiation with the EU and you will also start a negotiation with the US. So, EU and TPP countries, including Japan and the US, will make a new rule about the investment trade, etc. So, I believe the EU will play a big role in making a new rule and framework, trade framework. And EU is a good model for Asian integration, but we have to check carefully about the merit and demerit of our integration of currency. That's a big point, I believe. Thank you. We have time for exactly one more question and allowing for each of our speakers to give a final closing thought as they answer that question. Would anyone like to volunteer in the back? I'm not sure if this is on... I'm Cory Payne from Sydney Australia Global Shaper. I was just wondering if Australia plays a role at all in the Asian development integration, because I've been to a number of meetings and I haven't heard much about Australia. And Asia is our biggest trade partner in our future. It's a great question. I'm glad that you brought up Australia. And India has been mentioned precisely twice in the last one hour, even though this country is, of course, located between China and India, as the wonderful book title suggests. So let's have a closing round of comments and each of you talk about Australia, India, and any final thoughts you have about Myanmar and its integration in the region. Let's go in reverse order, perhaps, Professor Xia Taoxing. Obviously, I'm learning about Myanmar. It's my very first trip to the forum. Thanks to the forum for inviting me. At the end of the day, I think integration boils down to human capacity. In this regard, Myanmar has an advantage, even in comparison with China, going back to the 1980s. Myanmar has been interacting with the West, with Southeast Asia for longer. So as I go around, there are so many more Myanmarese officials and businessmen who are so fluent in English and talk about the many Chinese counterparts I meet. So it's a place with great opportunity, and it's a place whereby that offers a... I wouldn't use the opportunity. I think it offers an attraction for investors and governments to come in, and then we're all part of... We meaning those parties outside Myanmar, like China included, need to be aware that at the end of the day, Myanmar is Myanmar. We need to let the Myanmarese people and government take its own initiative. It's a good place, but it's not some sort of test ground for us to see if we can push our perceived model of what's good for this country. At the end of the day, Myanmar has to take initiatives, to see how we're feeding. Very quickly. I'll just make a point about the European Union and then Australia. Australia, of course it matters. Australia. On the European Union, very quickly, I would say the European Union is very useful to Asia because the European Union has established a gold standard for regional cooperation because in the European Union, you don't just have zero wars, you have zero prospect of war. In ASEAN today, you have zero wars but not yet zero prospect of war. So this is something that ASEAN can learn from EU. By the same time, I think the time has come for the EU to stop being condescending towards ASEAN and Asia and accept ASEAN as an equal partner. I know because I've been working on Europe-Asia relations for 20, 30 years. There's a culture of condescension which has to disappear. And the same, to some extent, is partially true because Australia, in a sense, its body is in Asia but its heart is in the West. All right, all right. Australia has got to make this very painful decision. Can it move its heart to where its body is? Good point. Can I take advantage of this opportunity to talk a little bit about the IMF and the Myanmar? Just very, very brief. We have been working with Myanmar authorities for the first few years in a very collaborative way. We have agreed with Myanmar authorities last year to work on a common framework for ASEAN macroeconomic management. And there is a program jointly monitored by the Myanmar authorities and the IMF on how to develop the framework for the macroeconomic management. But now the program is going on very well. We are discussing with the authorities to provide more technical assistance, capacity-building activities in the area of central bank management, fiscal policy and things like that. I hope that our contribution would help support solidifying the base of this economy. Thank you. Australia is a very important country for Asia because of not only the natural resources in which country but also the commitment of big role to the Asian Pacific peace-making. And also India. I believe that Japan is now becoming a driving force for Asian development, I mean economy. And India also, as well as China, will recover the economy and make economic reform and also become, I hope, India will become a driving force for Asia. Wonderful. The final word, of course, to Minister Atancha. Okay, thank you. If you look in the world map, or in the map of Asia, you will see Myanmar in a very strategic position because with this position, we can use a lot. Myanmar could connect with India, ASEAN and from Myanmar could connect with India and China as well that, you know, we can connect with Australia as well. This is a kind of, you know, a new way that we will shape the region. Myanmar could be the best place for everyone to come and work. Thank you. I think you would all agree, members of the audience, that our panelists have provided us some wonderful insight into what a very different kind of Asian century is going to look like than the one that we envisioned perhaps before, but it certainly, we've had some very cautious optimism, even a celebration, actually, of that. So I want to thank our panelists. Please join me in a round of applause. Thanks to all of you for being here. Thank you so much. And enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.