Kyoto Convention

[California Republic]

With no further comment from anyone else in attendance the Japanese Representation continues.

"Japans first proposal is that a elimination of barriers specifically in regards to the transfer of energy resources, raw resources, and machined component's.

This would eliminate any existing tarriffs, duties, or fees including by all nations present at this table on the import and export of items such a as but not limited to; Japanese machine tooling and microprocessors, Francophone industrial appliances and heavy machinery, Omani Oil, and Italian natural gas, as examples.

This would lead to an immediate end to revenue from any existing fees and duties, but will significantly lower the cost of all associated production and increase overall demand, leading to higher volume of sales which can be taxed internally to the market.

In short, this will enrich us all at this table, mutually, and to relative even effect, this is Japan's major intended ontribution to the Protocols

Before a vote, Japan requests space is made for any delegation to comment on the proposal for all to hear."

[Alanston]

Prime Minister Raharjo, who had been quiet up until this point, would speak up now. First turning to the Omani representative, he asks "How would this deal, with regards to oil, impact current agreements with the UPPC?"

Following that, he turns to address the entire group, "Forgive me for being presumptuous, but this sounds very much like an exclusivity agreement. Would signing these protocols restrict trade with other nations who are not signees?

"Also, I would like to know what safeguards are in place in the event of conflicts, either, God forbid, conflicts between signing members, or between other nations that might severely limit trade in certain areas.

"Further, I would like to know what arrangements might be made to protect the industries of nations that both produce the same, or similar, resources? Would it be free trade for all, so that the nation who could outproduce, or produce at a cheaper price, would drive the other nation's industry out of business? Or would this arrangement be solely for certain products from each nation? These are important questions that I think need answering."

[California Republic]

"the goal is the exact opposite of protectionism. Protectionist policy verifiably drives up the the cost of industry, while in the short term it might seem to be a reasonable and even prudent step, in the long term it creates inefficient structures in which the people of a nation enacting protectionism pay more for the same goods as those who don't, leading to a lack of incentive for domestic competition, leading to higher costs, and leading to numerous complications in the supply chain. Why should a Francophone automobile be sold to a French citizen at a higher cost simpily beacuse it was assembled in a nation that charges import duties on the very chips which power it?

Why should a Japanese citizen pay more for rice grown in Jakarta than rice grown in Japan due to Japanese tarriffs? Why should an Italian consumer be restricted from buying goods made with Australian steel?

Let us talk about coal, Australian coal is more energy dense than that mined in Italy, if Italian plants burned Australian coal over coal from North Africa they could see an effeciancy increase which would reduce the cost of energy in Italy, reduced energy costs in Italy would lead to more productivity across the entire Italian economy, and that productivity would lead to cheaper exports which would go back to benefit Australia too.

In this example, Australia benefits twice, once from exporting the product to Italy, and again from reaping the benefits of mutual growth.

Free trade by it's very nature incurs a greater benefit upon all member parties than protectionist policy, as has been the great lesson of modernity.

Japan chose to first agree on the free trade of raw resources and machined component's as this interest is most clearly shared by everyone at this table, if Japan has cheaper access to Australian, Omani, Italian, and French resources it's economy will benefit greatly, much as everyone else at this table will benefit greatly, in your own capacities, the energy producing nations will see enhanced sales volume of energy resources, those who produce raw resources will see greater demand for their goods as a result of increased output and lower cost of trade, and both the manufactoring centers and the consumers will benefit from more goods being made more cheaply.

To be clear, what Japan proposes is free trade, but limited to these sectors, while Japan seeks unilateral free trade this is seen as the most prudent course currently."

[Kingdom of Ireland]

"The UPPC would remain an existing bloc, effectively the sole supplier of oil to the Kyoto Protocol signatories. All pre-existing deals would remain and future deals could be made, but additionally we would supply the rest of the protocol signatories at market price. We gain guaranteed customers while they gain a guaranteed oil supply. As long as we sell at a reasonable market value, I doubt we would see objection from other members. Nobody takes kindly to price gouging, which the UPPC would never be interested in doing."

[Alanston]

Raharjo would nod quietly, making a few notes as the others speak. "Thank you gentlemen, that answers my questions. As long as this agreement does not prohibit us from trading with other nations, I don't believe I have any further concerns at this time."

[Kingdom of Sweden]

"Unilateral free trade is also a priority for us. Modern economies are complex beasts covering multiple sectors, and i dont see any reason why we shouldn't allow all of those industries to flourish under this deal"