Page 15 of 23 82.
As for the investment negotiations, the main obstacles lies on the divergent views in the approach towards investment liberalisation. Whereas ASEAN members want to adopt
the negative list approach, China wants to apply the positive list approach. Thailand concurred with Viet Nam’s views on investment negotiations that the fundamental deterrent
to the negotiation is the AIA Plus approach taken by ASEAN and added that ASEAN should take cautious consideration on implementing the negative list approach to non-ASEAN
parties. She suggested the possibility of reviewing this position stressing that a pragmatic approach where no rigid positions are taken and where parties are open to possible
compromises would be critical for an investment agreement to be finalised in the most immediate future.
7.2.2. High Level Seminar on Promoting SMEs Development and Investment in East Asia, 27-28 October 2005
83.
The Meeting noted the letter of invitation from China, appearing as ANNEX 36,
regarding the High-level Seminar on Promoting SMEs Development and Investment in East Asia, which will be held in Beijing on 27-28 October 2005.
84. The Meeting also noted that the SME agencies of Member Countries would be
informed of the Seminar through their respective Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Meeting encouraged SME agencies to actively participate in the said Seminar.
7.2.3 Preparations for the 9
th
SEOM – MOFCOM Consultations, 24 August 2005, Bangkok, Thailand
85. The Meeting endorsed the provisional agenda for the 9
th
SEOM-MOFCOM
Consultations, which appears as ANNEX 37. 7.3
ASEAN – Japan 7.3.1 ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership AJCEP
86. The Philippines, as the ASEAN Co-chair of the ASEAN-Japan Committee on
Comprehensive Economic Partnership, briefed the Meeting on the status of the negotiations for the regional CEP since formal negotiations were launched in Tokyo in April 2005. The
Meeting noted that ASEAN negotiators continue to struggle on the relationship between the bilateral EPAs and the regional CEP, particularly on the rules of origin and Japan’s proposal
to address the “missing link” related thereto. 87.
The Meeting also noted that 2 papers have been submitted by Japan to the AJCCEP and the preliminary views of some Member Countries that while the Japanese proposal
could be regarded as a step forward for Japan, it still falls short of what ASEAN envisages for the AJCEP.
88.
The Meeting endorsed the strategy proposed by the Philippines, i.e. continue to push for a common package of AJCEP regional concessions between ASEAN and Japan up to
the AEM and if there is no positive response from Japan, no further meetings of the AJCCEP should be considered until the Ministers have given guidance on the matter.
7.3.2 ASEAN-Japan Business Council
89. The Meeting, noting that the ACCI has endorsed the Terms of Reference TOR for
the ASEAN-Japan Business Council, did not object to the TOR, which appears as ANNEX 38.
Page 16 of 23
7.3.3 Preparations for the SEOM – METI 211 Consultations, 24 August 2005, Bangkok, Thailand
90. The Meeting, reiterating its previous decision that matters pertaining to the AJCEP
shall not be discussed at the SEOM-METI Consultations, endorsed the provisional agenda doe the SEOM-METI 211 Consultations subject to the deletion of agenda item 4.2. The
revised provisional agenda for the SEOM-METI Consultations appears as ANNEX 39.
7.4 ASEAN – Korea
