On Growth Two

30. Kakuei Tanaka

Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was born May 4, 1918, in the prefecture of Niigata, Japan. In 1936 he obtained a certificate from a technical high school in Chuo. In 1943 he founded the Tanaka Construction Company, Limited. Four years later he was elected to the House of Representatives for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). In 1962 he

[p. 209]

accepted the first Cabinet post, as Minister of Finance in the second Ikeda Cabinet and remained in this function during the third Ikeda and first Sato Cabinets. In 1972, when he was elected president of the LDP, he was also appointed Prime Minister of Japan. This conversation took place in the Prime Minister's office in Tokyo. An amusing detail can be added. While the author was trying to get an appointment with Mr. Tanaka, he finally received a telephone call at the Imperial Hotel from a secretary, saying, ‘You can come to meet the Prime Minister on October 24 at two p.m. This was Henry Kissinger's initial appointment hour, but he had to go to Jerusalem because of critical developments in the Middle East.’

You once said that the ideas expressed in your book, Building a New Japan: A Plan for Remodeling the Japanese Archipelago,¹ cannot be realized if the ideas of the Prime Minister do not keep up with the extremely rapid changes in world developments. What is your opinion of the approach followed by the Club of Rome in relation to studies of the future and our chances of survival?

In view of the present circumstances in which the average life expectancy of man has increased and in which an increase in the birthrate cannot be prevented, it is inevitable that the world population should be constantly increasing. An additional and necessary factor is that living standards of the developing countries will have to be raised. I therefore disagree that percentages of growth would have to be zero. However, I certainly agree with the idea that within the framework of a reasonable growth rate room must be found in which we should aim at world peace and the happiness of all people.

Your approach to international matters seems to leave the road open to personal and cordial relations in comparison to the traditional Japanese approach. That is to say, modern Japanese diplomacy seems unbound by customs and is rather unorthodox. Are you in favor of direct and open diplomacy at the summit?

At the moment there is a general tendency which aims at world peace. I expect that this tendency will continue. Nevertheless, we are still faced with numerous difficulties. It is necessary that we try to achieve agreements by means of prolonged procedures with the help of conventional diplomatic

1 Building a New Japan: A Plan for Remodeling the Japanese Archipelago. Simul Press (Tokyo, 1972).

[p. 210]

methods used in the conventionally diplomatic field. But in addition to gradual consultation, there is another possibility, namely, that a fundamental agreement can be reached at a summit conference in regard to a certain development and that diplomatic activities should be based on this approach and be used as a starting point. I am of the opinion that this method is a very efficient one. I believe that diplomacy which aims at the happiness of man and at permanent world peace, achieved at the summit, which at the same time concerns itself with specific international questions, is an indispensable and new form of diplomacy. I am convinced that it is one of the methods for us to arrive at rational solutions and that everyone, no matter what generation he belongs to, will agree with this.

Do you consider frank and spontaneous opinions as expressed during summit conferences an effective method too?

Until recently the assumption prevailed in circles using conventional diplomacy that diplomacy had to be aimed at protecting the interests of one's own country. Up to now this rigid approach has prevailed in regard to most international diplomatic conduct. However, during a lengthy, time-wasting procedure, one gradually becomes aware of what one can really achieve by repeatedly holding summit consultations and allowing certain matters to be dealt with one by one, exactly like the moves of a game of chess. We have always thought that this was what constituted diplomacy. Consequently, traditional diplomacy has always needed an exceptional amount of time. A clear disadvantage, however, is that in the course of these lengthy negotiations, from beginning to end, the actual positions taken do not penetrate to higher authorities because this kind of diplomacy is essentially based on lengthy and gradual procedures conducted by lower-echelon diplomats.

Today the world has become smaller. There are major issues which are in urgent need of speedy solutions. In 1973 an armistice in the Middle East was arrived at as a result of direct contacts by phone between leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as by the dispatch of negotiators. We ourselves are now using a hot line to the White House.² The representatives of the United States and Japan can now speak to each other directly by telephone. This is a very rational method. For the same reason, the method of holding summit conferences does not result in wasting time, as used to be the case during successive and lengthy old-fashioned negotiations. A summit conference should take place in such an atmosphere as to enable leaders to frankly maintain their own point of view so that some

2 Prune Minister Tanaka pointed at a white phone which was placed next to a battery of black telephones at his desk.

[p. 211]

degree of agreement can be achieved. It might be said that an approach by means of a summit conference is a drastic way of doing business. But in my opinion, this is, nowadays, the only proper one. Every country in the modern world is now demanding it. I therefore think that this form of diplomacy has become inevitable. For world leaders to exchange summit visits is no longer a matter of sheer protocol, for they have to know each other's problems thoroughly in order to assess them and in order to be able to arrive at definite conclusions during the meetings. This applies both to world problems as to problems of the two countries concerned. Final conclusions are then incorporated into the administrative structures. The forms in which this is being done are being constantly improved. The summit conference should be free from diplomatic techniques and customs if maximum results are to be achieved. Summit diplomacy is both necessary and unavoidable in modern diplomacy. If no spontaneous and concrete opinions could be exchanged at the summit, I think that it would make this kind of conference quite meaningless.

Could one say that Japan feels today closer to the United States than to Europe? Have you, as a result of your recent visit to Europe, arrived at the conclusion that it will be possible to improve communication with Europe?

When we look at the trade figures, it is quite clear that relations between Japan and the United States are very close indeed. The total trade volume - the sum of the direct and indirect trade volume - between Japan and the United States in 1973 amounted to thirty thousand million American dollars. In addition, we have, as I said before a hot line with Washington, so the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan can speak to each other directly at any given moment.

Against this background, the trade volume with Europe in 1973 amounted to about seven thousand million American dollars. This is about ten percent of the total trade volume of Japan and about three percent of the total trade figures of the European Community. In this respect it may be said that the diplomatic pipeline between Japan and Europe has been a narrow one. But at present, there are numerous new problems which make closer cooperation between Japan and the Common Market unavoidable, such as international monetary questions, the creation of new trade agreements, questions concerning raw materials and energy, aid to developing countries, environmental protection, and so forth. I am convinced that Japan and Europe will come closer as a result of my visit to Europe in 1973 and at the same time communication lines between Japan and Europe will become more open.

[p. 212]

Do you think that you will be able to realize your revolutionary plans for the speedy modernization of Japan?

Japan is smaller than the state of California. And, moreover, thirty-two percent of its population is concentrated on one percent of its total land area. This is the present situation. But at the moment we are promoting various projects which may be completed by 1985, such as 7,000 kilometers of railways for a new superexpress train, 10,000 kilometers of highways, 1,100 dams, provincial towns in various regions, and university towns. I am convinced that I will easily be able to bring this whole enterprise of modernization to a successful conclusion.

Japan is going to restrict its exports to about 337 billion American dollars, that is to say, the greatest export restriction so far. At the same time, Japan is going to set up a steel industry in the People's Republic of China. When you look at the relations with the People's Republic of China in two ways, namely, against the background of your historically spectacular visit to Peking and the fact that China is your largest neighboring country on its way to development, in what direction, do you think, will the economic and human relations between your two countries develop?

Since the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and the People's Republic of China, the economic and human relations between Japan and China have been promoted in a flexible way. Japanese-Chinese relations have had a history of 5,000 long years behind them. When we recall the history of our relations over many centuries, I am convinced that the absence of relations during the last fifty years will not produce any major obstacles. The People's Republic of China has more than 800 million inhabitants. The friendship between Japan and this neighboring country will grow to everyone's complete satisfaction and will be broadened continuously.

I have had talks with students of the Hitotsubashi University and I received the impression that many of them are aware of modern world problems. They are becoming increasingly aware that urgent steps should be taken now to secure Japan's survival in the future. But they also show a lack of confidence in world leaders. What do you expect from, or what do you demand from, the younger generation of Japan; or, in a wider sense, from the whole world, as far as the future is concerned?

The development of communications has made the world a much smaller place to live in. The time is past when every country could exclusively pursue its own interests. In your own part of the world, we see that the nine

[p. 213]

countries of the European Economic Community are making efforts to expand and unite. Young people everywhere will have to take over the world of tomorrow. I hope that they will seriously consider the question as to what this new world will have to look like as well as question of what concrete diagnosis should be arrived at in order to realize the most ideal picture. By only criticizing the present world, no solution will ever be arrived at. It is my wish that youths occupy themselves with studying concrete examples; that is to say, with the question as to how everyone will have to fulfil his own obligations so as to support and strengthen the world. For tomorrow's world will, in the end, depend on them. And finally I would say this. During the entire history of man, no matter during what era or period, the young have always met their obligations. In doing so, they have continued the history of man. This is something that should not be forgotten.