XN000022-1994-11-16 — Page 5

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994

TRANSCRIPT OF FINANCIAL SECRETARY'S REMARKS AT AIRPORT

*

AFTER

FOLLOWING IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS MADE BY THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, SIR HAMISH MACLEOD, AT THE AIRPORT TODAY (WEDNESDAY) RETURNING FROM THE APEC MEETINGS IN INDONESIA:

FS:

RIGHT, WELL I'LL JUST MAKE A FEW REMARKS OBVIOUSLY THE APEC MEETING. I USED THE WORD HISTORIC, I AGAIN. I THINK IT GENUINELY IS A HISTORIC MEETING. THE KEY ELEMENT OBVIOUSLY

IS.

THE COMMITMENT TO A TARGET OF FREE TRADE BY 2010 TO 2020. THAT WAS WHAT WE WANTED TO GET OUT OF THE MEETING, AND THAT'S WHAT

IS

ABOUT

USE

IT

OVER

BUT

A

WE DID GET OUT OF THE MEETING. THE NEXT TASK CLEARLY THE NEXT YEAR, IN OTHER WORDS BY THE NEXT LEADERS' MEETING IN A YEAR'S THAT TIME IN OSAKA TO HAVE WORKED OUT THE DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION OF

BUT VERY BROAD TARGET, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP. IT'S A MAJOR STEP. IT WAS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION AS, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE THOSE WHO HAD CONCERNS, BUT IN THE END THEY

I ALL WENT ALONG WITH THE CONSENSUS ON THE DECLARATION. KNOW THAT OF COURSE ONE MEMBER EXPRESSED SEPARATELY RESERVATIONS, THE FACT IS THAT THE DECLARATION, THERE WAS A CONSENSUS. SO THAT'S MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT, I THINK PARTICULARLY OF INTEREST FOR SOMEWHERE LIKE HONG KONG BECAUSE, OF COURSE IT IS RELATIVELY EASY FOR US TO ACHIEVE FREE TRADE, WE THINK WE HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED IT,

SEE BUT LET'S EXACTLY WHAT THE DEFINITION IS. IT MAY WELL FOR EXAMPLE INCLUDE TRADE IN SERVICES AS WELL AS TRADE IN GOODS. THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS YET ΤΟ BE DETERMINED, SO THAT'S ACCEPTED, EVERYONE WHO WAS THERE KNOWS THAT. QUESTIONS?

QUESTION:

DIDN'T YOU YOURSELF EXPRESS SOME

WITH

DISSATISFACTION

WHICH GAVE

THE FACT THAT THERE WERE THESE OPT OUT CLAUSES CONTAINED COUNTRIES LIKE MALAYSIA..

FS:

·

——

WELL. IT ALWAYS GETS TURNED AROUND THAT I EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION. I WAS ACTUALLY ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT PARAGRAPH 9 WHICH THE FIRST SECTION OF PARAGRAPH 9 HAS A PRETTY FUZZY, IT'S A PRETTY FUZZY SECTION AND IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IN MEANS, AND MY ANSWER THEN AND NOW WAS I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION THE LEADERS' MEETING, I THINK WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT MEAN,

THE AND ANSWER I WAS GIVEN WAS VERY CLEAR. FIRST OF ALL I WAS ASSURED THAT IT DOES NOT WEAKEN THE CONSENSUS RULE, THAT IS TO SAY IN APEC DECISIONS ARE REACHED BY CONSENSUS, THAT IS QUITE AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD FOR MEMBERS. AND SECONDLY THAT THE IMPLICATION THERE THAT MEMBERS CAN CHOOSE HOW FAST THEY IMPLEMENT IS AIMED AT NEW MEMBERS, THAT IS TO SAY PEOPLE WHO JOIN APEC LATER. WE WILL HAVE то WORK OUT WHAT ARRANGEMENTS APPLY TO NEW MEMBERS, SO THAT IS NOT A GET OUT CLAUSE, AND I SPECIFICALLY ASKED AND CONFIRMED IT DOES NOT MODIFY PARAGRAPH WHICH IS THE

AM KEY COMMITMENT TO REACH FREE TRADE. SO I WORRIED ABOUT

MY THAT ONE, I WAS ASKED ABOUT IT. THAT WAS DID YOU ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? OH YES THE OTHER ONE THAT I DID SAY I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO BE STRONGER WAS TO USE THE

THE SHORTHAND, STANDSTILL PARAGRAPH, THAT IS TO SAY THE PARAGRAPH WHICH SAY WE'LL

NOT то OUR BEST, WE'LL ALL DO OUR BEST, MEANWHILE IN THE SHORT TERM INTRODUCE ANY NEW PROTECTIONIST MEASURES. I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT WASN'T JUST WE'LL DO OUR BEST, BUT THAT IT WAS A CLEAR COMMITMENT NOT TO. BUT THAT WAS NEVER DRAFTED IN THAT WAY, IT WAS ALWAYS WE WOULD DO OUR BEST.

6

TOO NOT

ANSWER.

DO

IF

/QUESTION