Interviewer
Prime Minister Thatcher arrived in Japan yesterday and you have been very active in your schedule and today you had the Summit meeting with Prime Minister Kaifu. I hear that you will be attending the IDU Conference, International Democrats Union, that is a meeting of the leaders of the Western camp representing the Conservative Party, and then you will be going on to Moscow to meet President Gorbachev. Your schedule is packed indeed and we are grateful that you have joined us today.
Prime Minister Kaifu, after assuming his post as Prime Minister, visited the United States, Canada and Mexico, and after returning here to Japan he has this UK/Japan Summit meeting, so we should call Prime Minister Kaifu Prime Minister of Diplomacy. [end p1]
Since we have shortage of time, I would like to be very brief in posing my questions to you. First all, with regard to liberation and democracy, senses of value of the Western camp, more attention is now given to this particular topic. My first question is addressed to you, Prime Minister Thatcher. You have been maintaining the reign [sic] of government for over ten years in the United Kingdom and you have tackled various issues in the social and economic arenas. Before you became Prime Minister, the United Kingdom was suffering from the so-called “British malaise”. I am sure that this malaise was very unpleasant for the British people, but the United Kingdom has recovered in the past decade.
But one source of concern is that after entering this year, the popularity of the Thatcher administration has been declining and there is much criticism about the quick pace of privatisation. I read the Times from London every day, I believe there was an article in June in which the Labour Party in the United Kingdom's support was above that of the Conservative Party by 7 percent according to the Public Opinion Polls. Prime Minister Thatcher, you have been tackling these various policies with great confidence?
Prime Minister
Yes, I think many of the things which I have done in the last ten years which had to be done because they were sound and right have met with criticism while they were being done but applause after they had been implemented. [end p2]
So many of my opponents have fought things tooth and nail but in fact they agree with them after they are completed, not everything but quite a lot.
Now you refer to privatisation, for example. I do not believe that governments should run industry. Governments are not equipped to run industry, that job should be run by businessmen, that job should be done by them, they know how to do it, they do it very much more efficiently and part of my policy has been to denationalise. Much industry was nationalised and it is running very much better now.
Let me give you one example. When we came into power, steel was nationalised, it cost the tax-payer a large sum of money every year in subsidies so we privatised it. It is now making a profit every year and contributing by taxation to the Exchequer. So that is good for everyone.
But there is also another reason for privatising and it is this. I am a great believer in everyone owning some capital, whoever they are, whatever background, it has long been my ambition that out of the monies you earn you should be able to save and build up capital. That was not really possible before the government which I am privileged to lead came into power. When we denationalise big industries we make a point of seeing that the workers in those industries have shares, some free and some at a preferential price, so that for the first time in their lives they are able to have some capital in shares and securities of their own as well, as we hope, owning their own home. [end p3]
So the policies have achieved two things: one, getting industry run efficiently and better; and secondly, spreading capital evermore widely.
The reason why we are not so popular now I think has more to do with the fact that inflation is higher than it should be and we are having to take rigorous measures to get it down. But this is nothing unusual - being unpopular in mid-term - we have had it before and when it comes to an election and people have to consider what government is going to be there for the future then they look at the enormous achievements of the past ten years, the economic achievements and the fact that Britain's reputation abroad has been restored. And I hope they will take the same view next time as they have taken in the last three elections.
Interviewer
I see your point. My next question is addressed to Prime Minister Kaifu. Japan, as a member of the Western camp, is trying to protect the values of liberalism as well as democracy. Based on these principles the former Nakasone, Takeshita, Uno and of course Kaifu administrations have tried to take advantage of the vitality of the private sector. For instance, privatisation of the Japan National Railroad is a case in point in the public sector. So Japan is also pursuing similar policies to the United Kingdom. [end p4]
The IDU Conference will be starting tomorrow and Prime Minister Kaifu will be making a speech setting aside problems confronted by Japan and enlarging the viewpoint to the Western camp and if we view the Eastern camp we feel that these centrally-planned economies are trying to introduce the principles of market and competition. Also many countries are introducing a multiple number of political parties and I feel that attention is being paid to the value of democracy. What kind of speech will you be making at the IDU Conference? Do you have a personal philosophy that you would be able to share with us at this occasion?
Mr. Kaifu
The values of liberalisation and democracy are very important. During the post-war period we tried to follow suit to the United Kingdom and the United States and that is how we have tried to recover in the post-war period.
I have held the summit meeting with Prime Minister Thatcher until a few minutes ago and we came to agreement on that point. As you are well aware, the Soviet Union has been pursuing perestroika and also there are developments in Eastern European countries. It seems that the flag-ship of democracy and liberalisation seem to be brighter for the people and more necessary for the people around the world and it is a fact of life which is being recognised throughout the world. [end p5]
So we have to try to strengthen solidarity amongst the people and if there are regions which are not stabilised abroad, I believe that we should try to collaborate with each other in our joint endeavour in order to stabilise such situations. I came to agreement with Prime Minister Thatcher on that point as well.
The flag-ships of liberalisation and democracy are being represented by the leaders of the Conservative Party in the IDU Conference, scheduled to be held from tomorrow in Tokyo, and we would like to try for progress towards that direction. That will be my speech.
Interviewer
The next question I would like to raise is on the environment, which will be addressed to both Prime Minister.
Very recently here in Tokyo the Conference on the Conservation of the Global Environment was convened. Japan also manifested an active position in order to contribute to the solution of this problem. Japan, although being an economic power, is only trying to solve the problem by distributing money without taking any other measures. There should be a more significant role to be played by Japan in the solution of the environmental problem. Japan is the largest importer of tropical timber in the world and Japan is destroying tropical forests and therefore Japan is often criticised about destroying such forests. [end p6]
My first question is addressed to Prime Minister Kaifu and I would like you to share with us your views on this point.
My second question on the environment will be addressed to Prime Minister Thatcher. Roughly speaking, this is an important issue of how we can protect the global environment and this is a common issue for all mankind. I was a member of the Japan/UK 2000 Committee and this environmental issue has been a common point of interest for both the United Kingdom and Japan in this forum. As you are well aware, many Japanese live in the limited land space of Japan and we wanted to become prosperous and therefore we have been industrialising at a rapid pace. In that sense, Japan has accumulated experience over the years in tackling pollution. In 1970 we established our Environmental Agency and we also introduced regulations on automotive exhausts and we have tried to grapple with this problem and we have experience in this domain. In that sense we are also interested in the problem at a global scope. The ozone layer, the chlorofluorocarbon problem is very significant and the depletion of the ozone layer is most important.
Mr Tubashi of the Showab Base (phon) made a thorough investigation of this in the South Pole, in the Antarctic, and based on his research results we realised how important this issue is for all mankind. So what we have to do is we have to identify the know-how forthcoming from the scientific research and in March of this year Prime Minister Thatcher hosted a Conference on the Ozone Layer and we are trying to decrease the chloroflurocarbon exhaust to [end p7] zero by the end of the century. How should we try to stop the CO2 emissions, unless we can stop the CO2 the environment in the world will be further deteriorated and this is a common problem which must be tackled by all mankind at large?
Mr. Kaifu
We had a Tokyo Conference of all the wise people and we also want to have a meeting of Parliamentarians around the world on this particular issue of the environment. So in order to preserve the environment, Japan would like to take advantage of our past experience and we are willing to become forthcoming in solving this problem.
The tropical forests that you have mentioned, if we tried to identify the facts involved, it is not only Japan that is importing tropical timber. There is misunderstanding there. For instance, the explosion of the population in these local countries is one problem and of course Japan is a major importer of logs from these countries, but we have to have a sustained pace of development, a sustained pace of growth.
Of course Japan is importing lumber from South East Asian countries, but also logs from South America are being exported at a very rapid pace. So environmental preservation and sustained growth must co-exist in the future. [end p8]
In the past Tokyo Conference this topic was discussed and we would like to continue with such a debate in the future. So there must be self-restraint and much effort must be made towards that direction. But we are well aware of the point that you have raised.
Interviewer
Now turning to Prime Minister Thatcher, looking back at your personal history you are a graduate of Oxford University and you majored in chemistry and you are also qualified as a lawyer and you are a first-class stateswoman. I believe that you are the most appropriate and suitable person to tackle this environmental problem. We have just heard from Prime Minister Kaifu that the depletion of the ozone layer was discussed in the London Conference in March and you served as the hostess at this Conference. In the Canadian Summit convened last year you decided to hold this conference on ozone depletion and you are very enthusiastic and zealous about resolving this problem. But I am not fully aware of the relationship involved and therefore it would be rather difficult for us to pursue measures. So Prime Minister Thatcher, can you tell us what specific measures should be taken and also what kind of future prospect do you have in order to push forward international cooperation? [end p9]
Prime Minister
Now you are asking me specifically about one aspect of the environment which is the atmosphere, the global atmosphere, round the earth, really in its two layers, the carbon dioxide layer which gives us the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer, both of vital importance to the support of life on the planet and having seen things like Voyager 2 go and look at the other planets and seen them on our television and seen the arid surface that they have, we really have a special and unique privilege in having life on this Earth and it is that atmosphere and those two layers which support life.
As Prime Minister Kaifu has pointed out, for years we thought that that atmosphere would continue unchanged and, indeed, it seems to have for many thousands, indeed millions of years. Scientific evidence is that in the last ten years we now know that it is being changed. We now have some idea why. First, because of the enormous increase in population so that what Man does, whereas it used to be small compared with the atmosphere, is now significant. [end p10]
Secondly, because we are using up fossil fuels. They have been there for millions of years; we are using them up rapidly and some of the carbon dioxide is going up there and staying up there and having an effect.
Thirdly, we have had a great industrial revolution and technological change. That is putting many chemicals up there which damage the ozone layer and damage the greenhouse layer as well; all of those things and, of course, the increase in agriculture necessary to sustain the increase in population.
And so our fundamental assumption that that atmosphere would continue unchanged has really rather been shaken in the last ten years by the scientific evidence we have got, which the Prime Minister referred to, in the ozone layer and also possibly the greenhouse effect being increased.
In face of that we cannot do nothing.
First, the chemicals as you know have been identified, the ones which damage the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect layer. They are the halogen compounds, the chlorofluorides. We use them in aerosols, we use them in dry cleaning, we use them in refrigeration and air-conditioning, we use them in the electronics industry. Some of those chemicals that did not exist fifty or sixty years ago are the ones that are causing so much damage, so the first thing that our industries are doing - and you are also involved as well as us with big research projects - is to get substitute [end p11] chemicals, so you will see around now that there are aerosols that are ozone-friendly. They are chemicals that are not quite so damaging as a prelude to chemicals that they will be able to get properly to substitute for the work that the damaging ones are doing. So we agreed, the people who belonged to that Conference and who came to that Conference, we would cut those chemicals by 50 percent as a first step within a decade and some of us have gone up to 80 percent or even more and are putting a great deal into research.
You say you are just giving money. It is not just giving money - it is what the money does - and it will enable many many people in universities and in the industry to tackle that problem.
The other one, the greenhouse effect: of course, we could not be here without a greenhouse effect, but if it gets too much and too hot, it will alter the climate and could start to melt the polar ice caps and increase the level of the sea.
What can we do about that?
First, we can be very energy-efficient. We must not waste energy. Because of the enormous increase in the price of oil, we are actually much more energy-efficient than we were twenty or so years ago, but oil is down in price now. But there are some other things we can do as well: it is the tropical forests that use up the carbon dioxide and in preference to it going up, round the Earth, they use it up on Earth and if you destroy those tropical [end p12] forests, then more carbon dioxide goes up into the atmosphere and that is why it is so vital that we should use our influence with the countries that have those tropical forests and if need be - and both of us will do it - give aid to them to continue to manage those tropical forests, to keep them.
They have been cutting them down in the belief that they could get a better living from farming. That is not correct. If they cut them down, they will not get the rain so they cannot farm. If they keep them and carefully see that they are replaced if any are cut down - of course, we cannot do without timber - whatever is used must be replaced. We find that by managing those forests they keep the natural life within them. Many of those forests are full of pharmaceuticals that we use for medicine and by using those they can have a better living - by tapping the trees for those. Leaving the trees in existence, they can have a better living than by cutting them down.
So we have signed the first agreement with Brazil on giving them aid to keep their tropical forests. That is one thing.
The other thing we know that keeps carbon dioxide from going up into the atmosphere is the food chain in the sea; the plankton and the small creatures also fix some of the carbon dioxide. Quite a lot goes into the sea and then it is fixed there and goes to the sea bed and that is why we have various rocks of chalk and so on [end p13] coming up. So we must be careful that we do not out-fish the sea, fish out the fish, nor damage the particular dependency of that food chain: large fish feed on others, and so on, right down to the plankton.
These things we now know and we are setting about doing and there is a great deal more research to be done because we want to know how the climate would change and we have in Cambridge people going up to the Arctic and down to the Antarctic to do the latest research. I visited Tokyo University yesterday. They are doing a good deal of work on the ozone layer. So we are all in this together and may I just make one point because I am afraid it is rather a long answer, but it is a vital subject:
It is not only a question of industrialised countries like Japan, the United States, Western Europe and ourselves doing something about it; it is also in the interests of the Third World. Not only the tropical forests, but making certain that they do not let too much, for example methane, go up - they use methane down here - because if we got an enhanced greenhouse effect and got a warmer climate, the people who would probably suffer most are those in the tropical areas as their monsoons and their rain may move and that would damage their whole economy immensely.
So this is one of the things where it is an absolutely world effect; it embraces all countries; it also embraces all people. Each one of us must be economical with energy; each one of us must [end p14] be careful that where the chemical become available, we use the right ones - the substitutes and not the old ones. When our old refrigerators are thrown away, they must go and be properly disposed of because those damaging chemical are what enables them to be refrigerators; they must be tapped-off and rendered harmless.
So it involves everyone and in fact sometimes, when you get unexpected circumstances or dangers, in a way it pulls the world together and it might do so in this respect, but believe you me, Japan and the United Kingdom are two of the countries that are working very hard, in conjunction with our people who are interested, to solve this problem.
I am sorry it is a long answer. It is a long subject. It is a fascinating subject. It is a vital subject.
Interviewer
I was very impressed by your enthusiasm and thank you very much for going into such detail.
The final question that I would like to raise is a common interest for both of you, Prime Minister Thatcher and Prime Minister Kaifu.
Prime Minister Thatcher, before becoming Prime Minister, you were the Minister for Education and Science and Prime Minister Kaifu also has experience as Minister for Education. [end p15]
In the 21st century, it will be important for both Japan and the United Kingdom to have the right human resources. I believe it was last year, in 1988, you submitted the Bill for Educational Reform which passed as law. There seems diversity amongst the schools in the United Kingdom and you are trying to unify the curriculum for the various schools in the United Kingdom. The opposition party - the Labour Party - is critical of this policy because it might kill individualism in the British schools. So in the United Kingdom, you seem to be aware of the problems in your schools which you want to correct. May I have your opinion?
Prime Minister
I agree with you that education is vitally important. We both agree on that, particularly as we have both been Ministers of Education and Science before we were Prime Minister, and I would never have had the chance to become Prime Minister but for the fact that I had a marvellous education at school and Alfred Robertsmy father always discussed things with me and I had a very good university education as well and that unlocked the future for me. So I am with you absolutely in its supreme importance.
The reforms that we introduced that you have indicated, let me say the reason for them: [end p16]
In the United Kingdom, strangely enough, the Central Government has never even been able to lay down the subjects in the curriculum, let alone the standards which pupils should attain. We found that although we had eleven years compulsory education as a minimum - a lot of people go on to eighteen and to college after that - that many children were coming out of school really not properly educated in mathematics or science, nor in language, nor in history, nor geography, nor some of the standard subjects, and for the first time, therefore, we set about laying down a basic national curriculum - only a basic one, schools can teach extra of course on top of that - and we had a whole series of committees of teachers setting out what should be the basic curriculum. It will be a great advantage because children who move about the United Kingdom, teachers will know roughly what they have done and so I am sure that that is to the advantage of everyone and we are going to have attainment tests to see how they are doing throughout their school career because if they are not doing well you have got to correct it while they are still at school.
Then, we have given parents a little bit more power in running the schools because parents are most passionately interested in their children's education and so, if they wish, that school can cease to be run by the local authority - the way it is run now - and it can have its money direct from Government and run the school [end p17] under a governing body and provided it comes up to certain standards, then it can continue to make its own decisions. It will have to have the basic curriculum; they will in fact have to have the same school-leaving certificate and they will have to do the basic subjects and they can do extra things.
When we came into government, one of the things that we did was insist that every secondary school - which we were able to do because we gave a grant - had microcomputers. I think we were ahead of many other countries in that and they have many microcomputers and other computers now so they got used to this computer age. We are putting them also in primary schools. So that has been our approach to the basic education of our school-children.
Interviewer
Yes, I see your point.
Now, turning to Prime Minister Kaifu, educational reform seems to have been a slogan of the government for many years now in Japan but it seems to not really grapple with the crux of the problem; especially the so-called entrance examination … is a problem and we would fail in producing the excellent human resources required for the future of Japan and there seems to be much criticism against the joint university examination system in Japan.
Prime Minister Kaifu, as an authority on educational problems, what measures do you have in mind? [end p18]
Mr. Kaifu
Picking up just school education, as Prime Minister Thatcher has very correctly pointed out, we must have a uniform curriculum so that the students will be able to attain a certain academic level. In the Japanese case, this has been done over many years. We feel that the level that we expect the students to attain is too difficult and also the entrance examination is very difficult and the students have to concentrate on obtaining a certain grade in order to pass the entrance examination.
When we first introduced a joint university entrance examination system, we set up a certain hurdle and we said that the students who are able to overcome that hurdle have the right to enter university. So we looked into the basic capability of each candidate student in order to decide whether he is going to pass or fail the examination to enter the university but this has become too excessive. The basic capability is important, but it is also significant to enhance individuality of the respective students and pupils and so we want to decrease the number of subjects taken up in the entrance examination. We want to lower the hurdle that candidate students must overcome.
So rather than studying for the sake of passing the entrance examination, we want to replace that with education in order to enhance the possibility of each student, so we want to improve the individuality of the respective children. But now we cannot be too dependent on the school system in order to improve the many aspects of education. [end p19]
What I want to stress here is that the basic component of society is the family, the home, and the first teacher that you encounter in your life is your parents so the parents must take the primary responsibility in the education of children, so we want to join the forces of home education and school education in order to enhance the creativity and individuality of our children.
The university entrance examination seems to be a bottleneck in our system at the moment and we want to replace it with an education which does not place too much emphasis on grades.
Interviewer
The point is well taken, Prime Minister.
Time seems to fly and there are many more questions that I would love to address to both of you but due to the paucity of time we have to close this interview and I would like to thank both of you for your beneficial opinions.
I do sincerely hope for the successful careers of both Prime Ministers. Thank you very much for joining us today.