Introduction
Conclusion
Introduction
Political conflicts have always played an important and, undoubtedly, controversial role in the world diplomatic community. Disputes over the ownership of territories seem to be particularly attractive, especially if they are as long-standing as the diplomatic conflict between the Russian Federation and Japan over the ownership of the South Kuril Islands. This is what determines relevance of this work.
The course work is written in simple and understandable language for the general public. It has not only theoretical, but also practical value: the material can be used as a reference summary when preparing for an exam in history or the fundamentals of the theory of international relations on the topic of Russian-Japanese relations.
So, we set target:
Analyze the existing problem of belonging to the Kuril Islands and propose possible ways solutions to this problem.
The goal determined and specific tasks works:
ñ Collect theoretical material on this topic, analyzing and systematizing the information;
ñ Form the positions of each party in a diplomatic conflict;
ñDraw conclusions.
The work is based on the study of monographs on conflictology and diplomacy, historical sources, news and report reviews and notes.
In order to facilitate the perception of incoming information, we have divided all the work into three stages.
diplomatic conflict Kuril Island
The first stage consisted of defining key theoretical concepts (such as conflict, state border, right to own territory). He formed the conceptual foundation of this work.
At the second stage, we looked at the history of Russian-Japanese relations on the issue of the Kuril Islands; the Russian-Japanese conflict itself, its causes, prerequisites, development. We devoted special attention to the present time: we analyzed the state and development of the conflict at the present stage.
On final stage conclusions were drawn.
Chapter I. The essence and concepts of diplomatic conflict in the system of international relations
1.1 Definition of conflict and diplomatic conflict
Humanity has been familiar with conflicts since its inception. Disputes and wars broke out throughout the historical development of society between tribes, cities, countries, and blocs of states. They were generated by religious, cultural, ideological, ethnic, territorial and other contradictions. As the German military theorist and historian K. von Clausewitz noted, the history of the world is the history of wars. And although this definition of history suffers from a certain absolutization, there is no doubt that the role and place of conflicts in human history are more than significant. The end of the Cold War in 1989 once again gave rise to rosy forecasts about the advent of an era of conflict-free existence on the planet. It seemed that with the disappearance of the confrontation between the two superpowers - the USSR and the USA - regional conflicts and the threat of a third world war would sink into oblivion. However, hopes for a calmer and more comfortable world were once again destined to not come true.
So, from all of the above it follows that conflict is the most acute way of resolving contradictions in interests, goals, views, arising in the process of social interaction, consisting in the opposition of the participants in this interaction, and usually accompanied negative emotions, going beyond rules and regulations. Conflicts are the subject of study of the science of conflictology. Consequently, states that have opposing points of view on the subject of the dispute participate in an international conflict.
When countries try to resolve a conflict diplomatically - that is, without resorting to military action - their actions are aimed, first of all, at finding a compromise at the negotiating table, which can be very difficult. There is an explanation for this: often state leaders simply do not want to make concessions to each other - they are satisfied with some semblance of armed neutrality; Also, one cannot take into account the causes of the conflict, its history and, in fact, the subject of the dispute. National characteristics and needs play a big role important role in the development of the conflict - taken together, this can significantly slow down the search for a compromise between the participating countries.
1.2 State border and the right to challenge it by another country
Let us define the state border:
The state border is a line and a vertical surface running along this line that define the limits of the state territory (land, water, subsoil and airspace) of the country, that is, the spatial limit of the action of state sovereignty.
The following statement indirectly follows from the definition - the state protects its sovereignty, and, consequently, its air and land resources. Historically, one of the most motivating reasons for military action is precisely the division of territories and resources.
1.3 Right to own territories
The question about the legal nature of state territory presupposes the answer that there is a state territory from a legal point of view, or more precisely, that there is a state territory from an international legal point of view.
State territory is a part of the Earth's surface that legally belongs to a certain state, within which it exercises its supremacy. In other words, state sovereignty underlies the legal nature of state territory. According to international law, a territory is associated with its population. State territory and its population are necessary attributes of the state.
Territorial supremacy means the complete and exclusive power of a state over its territory. This means that the public authority of another power cannot operate on the territory of a particular state.
Trends in the development of modern international law indicate that a state is free to use its territorial supremacy to the extent that the rights and legitimate interests of other states are not affected.
The concept of state jurisdiction is narrower in scope than the concept of territorial supremacy. The jurisdiction of a state refers to the right of its judicial and administrative bodies to consider and resolve any cases within its borders, in contrast to territorial supremacy, which means the entirety of state power in a certain area.
Chapter II. Russo-Japanese conflict regarding the Kuril Islands
2.1 History of the conflict: causes and stages of development
The main problem on the way to reaching an agreement is Japan's putting forward territorial claims to the southern Kuril Islands (Iturup Island, Kunashir Island and the Lesser Kuril Islands).
The Kuril Islands are a chain of volcanic islands between the Kamchatka Peninsula and the island of Hokkaido (Japan), separating the Sea of Okhotsk from the Pacific Ocean. They consist of two parallel ridges of islands - the Big Kuril and the Lesser Kuril 4. The first information about the Kuril Islands was reported by the Russian explorer Vladimir Atlasov.
In 1745, most of the Kuril Islands were included in the “General Map of the Russian Empire” in the Academic Atlas.
In the 70s In the 18th century, there were permanent Russian settlements in the Kuril Islands under the command of the Irkutsk tradesman Vasily Zvezdochetov. On the map of 1809, the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka were assigned to the Irkutsk province. In the 18th century, the Russians' peaceful colonization of Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, and northeastern Hokkaido was largely over.
In parallel with the development of the Kuril Islands by Russia, the Japanese were advancing into the Northern Kuril Islands. Reflecting the Japanese onslaught, Russia in 1795 built a fortified military station on the island of Urup.
By 1804, dual power had actually developed in the Kuril Islands: the influence of Russia was felt more strongly in the Northern Kuril Islands, and that of Japan in the Southern Kuril Islands. But formally, all the Kuril Islands still belonged to Russia.
On February 1855, the first Russian-Japanese treaty was signed - the Treaty on Trade and Borders. He proclaimed relations of peace and friendship between the two countries, opened for Russian ships three Japanese ports and established a border in the Southern Kuril Islands between the islands of Urup and Iturup.
In 1875, Russia signed the Russo-Japanese Treaty, according to which it ceded 18 Kuril Islands to Japan. Japan, in turn, recognized the island of Sakhalin as completely belonging to Russia.
From 1875 to 1945, the Kuril Islands were under Japanese control.
February 1945 between leaders Soviet Union, USA and Great Britain - Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill signed an agreement according to which, after the end of the war against Japan, the Kuril Islands should be transferred to the Soviet Union.
September 1945 Japan signed the Act on unconditional surrender, accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, according to which its sovereignty was limited to the islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido, as well as less large islands Japanese archipelago. The islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai went to the Soviet Union.
February 1946, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Kuril Islands Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai were included in the USSR.
On September 1951, at an international conference in San Francisco, a peace treaty was concluded between Japan and the 48 countries participating in the anti-fascist coalition, according to which Japan renounced all rights, legal grounds and claims to the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin. The Soviet delegation did not sign this treaty, citing the fact that it viewed it as a separate agreement between the governments of the United States and Japan.
From the point of view of contract law, the question of ownership of the Southern Kuril Islands remained uncertain. The Kuril Islands ceased to be Japanese, but did not become Soviet. Taking advantage of this circumstance, Japan in 1955 presented the USSR with claims to all the Kuril Islands and the southern part of Sakhalin. As a result of two years of negotiations between the USSR and Japan, the positions of the parties came closer: Japan limited its claims to the islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashir and Iturup.
October 1956, a Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan was signed in Moscow on ending the state of war between the two states and restoring diplomatic and consular relations. In it, in particular, the Soviet government agreed to the transfer to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty of the islands of Habomai and Shikotan.
After the conclusion of the Japan-US Security Treaty in 1960, the USSR annulled the obligations assumed by the 1956 declaration. During the Cold War, Moscow did not recognize the existence of a territorial problem between the two countries. The presence of this problem was first recorded in the 1991 Joint Statement, signed following the visit of the USSR President to Tokyo.
In 1993, in Tokyo, the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan signed the Tokyo Declaration on Russian-Japanese relations, which recorded the agreement of the parties to continue negotiations with the aim of concluding a peace treaty as quickly as possible by resolving the issue of ownership of the islands mentioned above5.
2.2 Current development of the conflict: positions of the parties and search for a solution
IN last years In order to create an atmosphere during the negotiations that is conducive to the search for mutually acceptable solutions, the parties pay great attention to establishing practical Russian-Japanese interaction and cooperation in the island area. One of the results of this work was the beginning of the implementation in September 1999 of an agreement on the most simplified procedure for visits to the islands by their former residents from among Japanese citizens and members of their families. Cooperation in the fisheries sector is carried out on the basis of the current Russian-Japanese Agreement on fisheries in the southern Kuril Islands of February 21, 1998.
The Japanese side puts forward claims to the southern Kuril Islands, motivating them with references to the Russian-Japanese Treaty on Trade and Borders of 1855, according to which these islands were recognized as Japanese, and also to the fact that these territories are not part of the Kuril Islands, from which Japan refused the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. Japan made the signing of a peace treaty between the two countries dependent on the resolution of the territorial dispute.
The position of the Russian side on the issue of border demarcation is that the southern Kuril Islands passed to our country following the Second World War on a legal basis in accordance with the agreements of the allied powers (Yalta Agreement of February 11, 1945, Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945 d) and Russian sovereignty over them, which has the appropriate international legal registration, cannot be doubted.
Confirming its commitment to previously reached agreements on holding negotiations on a peace treaty, including the issue of border demarcation, the Russian side emphasizes that the solution to this problem must be mutually acceptable, not harm the sovereignty and national interests of Russia, and receive the support of the public and parliaments of both countries.
Despite all the measures taken, a recent visit to D.A. Medvedev on November 1, 2010, the disputed territory caused a storm of discontent in the Japanese media; Thus, the Japanese government appealed to the Russian president with a request to abandon the event in order to avoid aggravation of relations between the countries.
The Russian Foreign Ministry refused the request. In particular, the message from the diplomatic department noted that “the President of Russia independently determines travel routes within the territory of his country,” and advice on this matter “from the outside” is inappropriate and unacceptable7 .
At the same time, the restraining influence of the unresolved territorial problem on the development of Russian-Japanese relations has significantly decreased. This is due, first of all, to the strengthening of Russia’s international positions and Tokyo’s understanding of the need to develop Russian-Japanese relations, including trade and economic cooperation, against the backdrop of the progressive growth of the Russian economy and increasing the investment attractiveness of the Russian market.
Conclusion
The problem remains a problem. Russia and Japan have been living without any peace treaty since World War II - this is unacceptable from a diplomatic point of view. Moreover, normal trade and economic relations and political interaction are possible subject to the complete resolution of the Kuril Islands issue. A vote among the population of the disputed Kuril Islands may help bring the final point, because first of all, you need to listen to the opinion of the people.
The only key to mutual understanding between the two countries is the creation of a climate of trust, trust and more trust, as well as broad mutually beneficial cooperation in a variety of areas of politics, economics and culture. Reducing the mistrust accumulated over a century to zero and starting to move towards trust with a plus is the key to the success of a peaceful neighborhood and tranquility in the border maritime areas of Russia and Japan. Will current politicians be able to realize this opportunity? Time will tell.
List of sources used
1.Azriliyan A. Legal dictionary. - M.: Institute of New Economics, 2009 - 1152 p.
2.Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. The meaning, subject and tasks of conflictology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008 - 496 p.
.Biryukov P.N. International law. - M.: Yurist, 2008 - 688 p.
.Zuev M.N. Russian history. - M.: Yurayt, 2011 - 656 p.
.Klyuchnikov Yu.V., Sabanin A. International politics of modern times in treaties, notes and declarations. Part 2. - M.: Reprint edition, 1925 - 415 p.
.Turovsky R.F. Political regionalism. - M.: GUVSHE, 2006 - 792 p.
7.http://www.bbc. co. UK
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
To the roots of the problem
One of the first documents regulating Russian-Japanese relations became the Shimoda Treaty, signed on January 26, 1855. According to the second article of the treatise, the border was established between the islands of Urup and Iturup - that is, all four now islands that Japan claims today were recognized as the possession of Japan.
Since 1981, the day of the conclusion of the Shimoda Treaty in Japan has been celebrated as “Northern Territories Day”. Another thing is that, relying on the Shimoda Treaty as one of the fundamental documents, Japan forgets about one important point. In 1904, Japan, having attacked the Russian squadron in Port Arthur and unleashed the Russo-Japanese War, itself violated the terms of the treaty, which provided for friendship and good neighborly relations between states.
The Shimoda Treaty did not determine the ownership of Sakhalin, where both Russian and Japanese settlements were located, and by the mid-70s a solution to this issue was ripe. The St. Petersburg Treaty was signed, which was assessed ambiguously by both sides. Under the terms of the agreement, all the Kuril Islands were now completely transferred to Japan, and Russia received full control over Sakhalin.
Then, as a result of the Russo-Japanese War, according to the Treaty of Portsmouth, the southern part of Sakhalin up to the 50th parallel went to Japan.
In 1925, a Soviet-Japanese convention was signed in Beijing, which generally confirmed the terms of the Portsmouth Treaty. As you know, the late 30s and early 40s were extremely tense in Soviet-Japanese relations and were associated with a series of military conflicts of varying scales.
The situation began to change by 1945, when the Axis powers began to suffer heavy defeats and the prospect of losing World War II became increasingly clear. Against this background, the question of the post-war world order arose. Thus, according to the terms of the Yalta Conference, the USSR pledged to enter the war against Japan, and Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands were transferred to the Soviet Union.
True, at the same time the Japanese leadership was ready to voluntarily cede these territories in exchange for the neutrality of the USSR and the supply of Soviet oil. The USSR did not take such a very slippery step. The defeat of Japan by that time was not a quick matter, but it was still a matter of time. And most importantly, by avoiding decisive action, the Soviet Union would actually be handing the situation in the Far East into the hands of the United States and its allies.
By the way, this also applies to the events of the Soviet-Japanese War and the Kuril Landing Operation itself, which was not initially prepared. When it became known about the preparations for the landing of American troops on the Kuril Islands, in urgently The Kuril landing operation was prepared within 24 hours. Fierce fighting in August 1945 ended with the surrender of the Japanese garrisons in the Kuril Islands.
Fortunately, the Japanese command did not know the real number of Soviet paratroopers and, without fully using their overwhelming numerical superiority, capitulated. At the same time, the Yuzhno-Sakhalin offensive operation was carried out. Thus, at the cost of considerable losses, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands became part of the USSR.
The Kuril Islands are represented by a series of Far Eastern island territories; one side is the Kamchatka Peninsula, and the other is the island. Hokkaido in . The Kuril Islands of Russia are represented by the Sakhalin region, which stretches approximately 1,200 km in length with an area of 15,600 square kilometers.
The islands of the Kuril chain are represented by two groups located opposite each other - called Big and Small. Large group, located in the south, belongs to Kunashir, Iturup and others, in the center are Simushir, Keta and in the north are the remaining island territories.
Shikotan, Habomai and a number of others are considered the Lesser Kuril Islands. For the most part, all island territories are mountainous and reach a height of 2,339 meters. The Kuril Islands on their lands have approximately 40 volcanic hills that are still active. Also here are the locations of hot springs mineral water. The south of the Kuril Islands is covered with forests, and the north attracts with unique tundra vegetation.
The problem of the Kuril Islands lies in the unresolved dispute between the Japanese and Russian sides over who owns them. And it has remained open since the Second World War.
After the war, the Kuril Islands became part of the USSR. But Japan considers the territories of the southern Kuril Islands, and these are Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan with the Habomai group of islands, its territory, without having a legal basis. Russia does not recognize the fact of a dispute with the Japanese side over these territories, since their ownership is legal.
The problem of the Kuril Islands is the main obstacle to a peaceful settlement of relations between Japan and Russia.
The essence of the dispute between Japan and Russia
The Japanese are demanding the Kuril Islands be returned to them. Almost the entire population there is convinced that these lands are originally Japanese. This dispute between the two states has been going on for a very long time, escalating after the Second World War.
Russia is not inclined to yield to Japanese state leaders on this issue. The peace agreement has not yet been signed, and this is connected precisely with the four disputed South Kuril Islands. About the legality of Japan's claims to the Kuril Islands in this video.
Meanings of the Southern Kuril Islands
The Southern Kuril Islands have several meanings for both countries:
- Military. The Southern Kuril Islands are of military importance due to the only access to the Pacific Ocean for the country's fleet. And all because of the scarcity of geographical formations. At the moment, ships are entering ocean waters through the Sangar Strait, because it is impossible to pass through the La Perouse Strait due to icing. Therefore, submarines are located in Kamchatka - Avachinskaya Bay. The military bases operating during the Soviet era have now all been looted and abandoned.
- Economic. Economic significance - the Sakhalin region has quite serious hydrocarbon potential. And the fact that the entire territory of the Kuril Islands belongs to Russia allows you to use the waters there at your discretion. Although its central part belongs to the Japanese side. In addition to water resources, there is such a rare metal as rhenium. By extracting it, the Russian Federation is in third place in the production of minerals and sulfur. For the Japanese, this area is important for fishing and agricultural needs. This caught fish is used by the Japanese to grow rice - they simply pour it onto the rice fields to fertilize it.
- Social. By and large, there is no special social interest for ordinary people in the southern Kuril Islands. This is because there are no modern megacities, people mostly work there and their lives are spent in cabins. Supplies are delivered by air, and less frequently by water due to constant storms. Therefore, the Kuril Islands are more of a military-industrial facility than a social one.
- Tourist. In this regard, things are better in the southern Kuril Islands. These places will be of interest to many people who are attracted by everything real, natural and extreme. It is unlikely that anyone will remain indifferent at the sight of a thermal spring gushing out of the ground, or from climbing the caldera of a volcano and crossing the fumarole field on foot. And there’s no need to talk about the views that open up to the eye.
For this reason, the dispute over the ownership of the Kuril Islands never gets off the ground.
Dispute over Kuril territory
Who owns these four island territories - Shikotan, Iturup, Kunashir and the Habomai Islands - is not an easy question.
Information from written sources points to the discoverers of the Kuril Islands - the Dutch. The Russians were the first to populate the territory of Chishimu. Shikotan Island and the other three were designated for the first time by the Japanese. But the fact of discovery does not yet provide grounds for ownership of this territory.
The island of Shikotan is considered the end of the world because of the cape of the same name located near the village of Malokurilsky. It impresses with its 40-meter drop into the ocean waters. This place is called the edge of the world due to the stunning view of the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.
Shikotan Island translates as Big city. It stretches for 27 kilometers, measures 13 kilometers in width, and occupies an area of 225 square meters. km. The highest point of the island is the mountain of the same name, rising 412 meters. Part of its territory belongs to the state nature reserve.
Shikotan Island has a very rugged coastline with numerous bays, capes and cliffs.
Previously, it was thought that the mountains on the island were volcanoes that had ceased to erupt, with which the Kuril Islands abound. But they turned out to be rocks displaced by shifts of lithospheric plates.
A little history
Long before the Russians and Japanese, the Kuril Islands were inhabited by the Ainu. The first information from Russians and Japanese about the Kuril Islands appeared only in the 17th century. A Russian expedition was sent in the 18th century, after which about 9,000 Ainu became Russian citizens.
A treaty was signed between Russia and Japan (1855), called Shimodsky, where boundaries were established allowing Japanese citizens to trade on 2/3 of this land. Sakhalin remained no man's territory. After 20 years, Russia became the undivided owner of this land, then lost the south in the Russo-Japanese War. But during the Second World War, Soviet troops were still able to regain the south of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands as a whole.
A peace agreement was nevertheless signed between the victorious states and Japan, and this happened in San Francisco in 1951. And according to it, Japan has absolutely no rights to the Kuril Islands.
But then the Soviet side did not sign, which was considered by many researchers to be a mistake. But there were serious reasons for this:
- The document did not specifically indicate what was included in the Kuril Islands. The Americans said that it was necessary to apply to a special international court for this. Plus, a member of the Japanese delegation announced that the southern disputed islands are not the territory of the Kuril Islands.
- The document also did not indicate exactly who would own the Kuril Islands. That is, the issue remained controversial.
In 1956, the USSR and the Japanese side signed a declaration preparing a platform for the main peace agreement. In it, the Country of the Soviets meets the Japanese halfway and agrees to transfer to them only the two disputed islands of Habomai and Shikotan. But with a condition - only after signing a peace agreement.
The declaration contains several subtleties:
- The word “transfer” means that they belong to the USSR.
- This transfer will actually take place after the signatures on the peace treaty have been signed.
- This applies only to the two Kuril Islands.
This was a positive development between the Soviet Union and the Japanese side, but it also caused concern among the Americans. Thanks to Washington pressure, the Japanese government completely changed ministerial positions and new officials who took high positions began to prepare a military agreement between America and Japan, which began to operate in 1960.
After this, a call came from Japan to give up not two islands offered to the USSR, but four. America puts pressure on the fact that all agreements between the Country of Soviets and Japan are not necessary to be fulfilled; they are supposedly declarative. And the existing and current military agreement between the Japanese and the Americans implies the deployment of their troops on Japanese territory. Accordingly, they have now come even closer to Russian territory. 
Based on all this, Russian diplomats stated that until all foreign troops are withdrawn from its territory, a peace agreement cannot even be discussed. But in any case, we are talking about only two islands in the Kuril Islands.
As a result, American security forces are still located on Japanese territory. The Japanese insist on the transfer of 4 Kuril Islands, as stated in the declaration.
The second half of the 80s of the 20th century was marked by the weakening of the Soviet Union and in these conditions the Japanese side again raises this topic. But the dispute over who will own the South Kuril Islands remains open. The Tokyo Declaration of 1993 states that the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the Soviet Union, and accordingly, previously signed papers must be recognized by both parties. It also indicated the direction to move towards resolving the territorial affiliation of the disputed four Kuril Islands.
The advent of the 21st century, and specifically 2004, was marked by the raising of this topic again at a meeting between Russian President Putin and the Prime Minister of Japan. And again everything happened again - the Russian side offers its conditions for signing a peace agreement, and Japanese officials insist that all four South Kuril Islands be transferred to their disposal. 
2005 was marked by the Russian president's readiness to end the dispute, guided by the 1956 agreement, and transfer two island territories to Japan, but Japanese leaders did not agree with this proposal.
In order to somehow reduce tensions between the two states, the Japanese side was offered to help develop nuclear energy, develop infrastructure and tourism, and also improve the environmental situation, as well as security. The Russian side accepted this proposal.
At the moment, for Russia there is no question of who owns the Kuril Islands. Without any doubt, this is the territory of the Russian Federation, based on real facts- based on the results of the Second World War and the generally recognized UN Charter. 
The history of the end of the Second World War is interesting.
As you know, on August 6, 1945, the American Air Force dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, and then on August 9, 1945, on Nagasaki. The plan was to drop several more bombs, the third of which would be ready by August 17-18 and would have been dropped if such an order had been given by Truman. Tom did not have to resolve the dilemma, since on August 14-15 the Japanese government announced surrender.
Soviet and Russian citizens, of course, know that by dropping nuclear bombs, the Americans committed a war crime, purely in order to scare Stalin, and the Americans and Japanese - that they forced Japan to surrender in World War II, thereby saving at least a million human lives, mostly military ones and Japanese civilians, and, of course, Allied soldiers, mainly Americans.
Let's imagine for a moment whether the Americans scared Stalin nuclear bomb, even if they suddenly set such a goal? The answer is obvious - no. The USSR entered the war with Japan only on August 8, 1945, i.e. 2 days after the bombing of Hiroshima. The date May 8 is not accidental. At the Yalta Conference on February 4-11, 1945, Stalin promised that the USSR would enter the war with Japan 2-3 months after the end of the war with Germany, with which [Japan] there was a neutrality pact concluded on April 13, 1941 (see. the main events of World War II according to the author of this LJ). Thus, Stalin fulfilled his promise on the last day of the promised 2-3 months after the surrender of Germany, but immediately after the bombing of Hiroshima. Whether he would have fulfilled this promise or not without her is an interesting question, perhaps historians have an answer to it, but I don’t know.
So, Japan announced surrender on August 14-15, but this did not lead to the end of hostilities against the USSR. The Soviet army continued to advance in Manchuria. Again, it is obvious to Soviet and Russian citizens that hostilities continued because the Japanese army refused to surrender due to the fact that some did not receive the order to surrender, and some ignored it. The question is, of course, what would have happened if the Soviet army had stopped offensive operations after August 14-15. Would this have led to the surrender of the Japanese and saved about 10 thousand lives of Soviet soldiers?
As is known, there is still no peace treaty between Japan and the USSR, and subsequently Russia. The problem of the peace treaty is linked to the so-called “northern territories” or the disputed islands of the Lesser Kuril chain.
Let's begin. Below the cut is a Google Earth image of the territory of Hokkaido (Japan) and now the Russian territories to the north - Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka. The Kuril Islands are divided into the Large Ridge, which includes large and small islands from Shumshu in the north to Kunashir in the south, and the Small Ridge, which includes from Shikotan in the north to the islands of the Habomai group in the south (limited on the diagram by white lines).
From the blog
To understand the problem of disputed territories, let’s plunge into the deep history of the development of the Far East by the Japanese and Russians. Before both of them, local Ainu and other nationalities lived there, whose opinion, according to the good old tradition, does not bother anyone due to their almost complete disappearance (Ainu) and/or Russification (Kamchadals). The Japanese were the first to come to these territories. First they came to Hokkaido, and by 1637 they had drawn up maps of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.
From the blog Later, the Russians came to these places, drew up maps and dates, and in 1786 Catherine II declared the Kuril Islands her possessions. At the same time, Sakhalin remained a draw.
From the blog In 1855, namely on February 7, an agreement was signed between Japan and Russia, according to which Urup and the islands of the Greater Kuril ridge to the north went to Russia, and Iturup and the islands to the south, including all the islands of the Lesser Kuril ridge, went to Japan. Sakhalin, speaking modern language, was a disputed possession. True, due to the small number of Japanese and Russian populations, the issue was not so serious at the state level, except that problems arose among traders.
From the blog In 1875, in St. Petersburg, the Sakhalin issue was resolved. Sakhalin passed completely to Russia, in return Japan received all the Kuril Islands.
From the blog In 1904, the Russo-Japanese War began in the Far East, in which Russia was defeated and as a result, in 1905 the southern part of Sakhalin passed to Japan. In 1925, the USSR recognized this state of affairs. Afterwards there were all sorts of minor skirmishes, but the status quo lasted until the end of the Second World War.
From the blog Finally, at the Yalta Conference on February 4-11, 1945, Stalin discussed the issue of the Far East with the allies. I repeat, he promised that the USSR would enter the war with Japan after the victory over Germany, which was just around the corner, but in return the USSR would return Sakhalin, as illegally conquered by Japan during the 1905 war, and would receive the Kuril Islands, albeit in an indefinite amount.
And here the most interesting thing begins in the context of the Kuril Islands.
August 16-23 with battles Soviet army defeats the Japanese group in the Northern Kuril Islands (Shumshu). On August 27-28, without a fight, since the Japanese capitulated, the Soviet Army took Urup. On September 1, landings take place on Kunashir and Shikotan; the Japanese offer no resistance.
From the blog September 2, 1945 Japan signs surrender - World War II officially ends. And then our Crimean operation takes place to capture the islands of the Lesser Kuril Ridge, located south of Shikotan, known as the Habomai Islands.
The war is over, but the Soviet land continues to grow natively Japanese islands. Moreover, I never found when Tanfilyev Island (a completely deserted and flat piece of land off the very coast of Hokkaido) became ours. But what is certain is that in 1946 a border post was established there, which became famous for the bloody massacre carried out by two Russian border guards in 1994.
From the blog As a result, Japan does not recognize the seizure of its “northern territories” by the USSR and does not recognize that these territories passed to Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR. February 7 (according to the date of the treaty with Russia in 1855) celebrates the day of the Northern Territories, which, according to the treaty of 1855, includes all the islands south of Urup.
An attempt (unsuccessful) to solve this problem was made in 1951 in San Francisco. Japan, under this treaty, must renounce any claims to Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, with the exception of Shikotan and the Habomai group. The USSR did not sign the treaty. The United States signed the treaty with the clause: “ It is provided that the terms of the Treaty will not mean recognition for the USSR of any rights or claims in the territories that belonged to Japan on December 7, 1941, which would harm Japan's rights and title to these territories, nor will any whatever the provisions in favor of the USSR in relation to Japan contained in the Yalta Agreement.»
Comments from the USSR regarding the treaty:
Comment by Gromyko (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR) regarding the treaty: The Soviet delegation has already drawn the attention of the conference to the inadmissibility of such a situation when the draft peace treaty with Japan does not say anything about the fact that Japan must recognize the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. The project is in gross contradiction with the obligations regarding these territories assumed by the United States and England under the Yalta Agreement. http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/195_dok/19510908gromy.php
In 1956, the USSR promised Japan to return Shikotan and the Habomai group if Japan did not lay claim to Kunashir and Iturup. Whether the Japanese agreed with this or not, opinions differ. We say that yes - Shikotan and Habomai are yours, and Kunashir and Iturup are ours. The Japanese say that everything south of Urup is theirs.
UPD Text of the declaration: At the same time, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state, agrees to the transfer of Habomai Islands and Shikotan Islands to Japan, however, that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan will be made after the conclusion.
The Japanese then retreated back (perhaps under pressure from the Americans), linking together all the islands south of Urup.
I don’t want to predict how history will unfold next, but most likely Japan will use the ancient Chinese wisdom and wait until all the disputed islands sail to them. The only question is whether they will stop at the 1855 treaty or go further to the 1875 treaty.
____________________________
Shinzo Abe announced that he would annex the disputed islands of the South Kuril chain to Japan. “I will solve the problem of the northern territories and conclude a peace treaty. As a politician, as a prime minister, I want to achieve this at any cost,” he promised his compatriots.
According to Japanese tradition, Shinzo Abe will have to commit hara-kiri to himself if he does not keep his word. It is quite possible that Vladimir Putin will help the Japanese prime minister live to a ripe old age and die a natural death.
In my opinion, everything is heading towards the fact that the long-standing conflict will be resolved. The time for establishing decent relations with Japan has been chosen very well - for the empty, hard-to-reach lands, which their former owners now and then look nostalgically at, you can get a lot of material benefits from one of the most powerful economies in the world. And the lifting of sanctions as a condition for the transfer of the islands is far from the only and not the main concession that, I am sure, our Foreign Ministry is now seeking.
So the quite expected surge of quasi-patriotism of our liberals, directed at the Russian president, should be prevented.
I have already had to analyze in detail the history of the islands of Tarabarov and Bolshoy Ussuriysky on the Amur, the loss of which Moscow snobs cannot come to terms with. The post also discussed a dispute with Norway over maritime territories, which was also resolved.
I also touched on the secret negotiations between human rights activist Lev Ponomarev and a Japanese diplomat about the “northern territories,” filmed and posted online. Generally speaking, this one video it is enough for our concerned citizens to bashfully swallow the return of the islands to Japan if it takes place. But since concerned citizens will definitely not remain silent, we must understand the essence of the problem.
Background
February 7, 1855 - Shimoda Treaty on Trade and Borders. The now disputed islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai group of islands were ceded to Japan (therefore, February 7 is annually celebrated in Japan as Northern Territories Day). The issue of the status of Sakhalin remained unresolved.
May 7, 1875 - Treaty of St. Petersburg. Japan was given the rights to all 18 Kuril Islands in exchange for all of Sakhalin.
August 23, 1905 - Treaty of Portsmouth following the results of the Russo-Japanese War. Russia ceded the southern part of Sakhalin.
February 11, 1945 - Yalta Conference. The USSR, USA and Great Britain reached a written agreement on the Soviet Union's entry into the war with Japan, subject to the return of South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to it after the end of the war.
On February 2, 1946, on the basis of the Yalta Agreements, the South Sakhalin Region was created in the USSR - on the territory of the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands. On January 2, 1947, it was merged with the Sakhalin region of the Khabarovsk Territory, which expanded to the borders of the modern Sakhalin region.
Japan enters the Cold War
On September 8, 1951, the Peace Treaty between the Allied Powers and Japan was signed in San Francisco. Regarding the currently disputed territories, it says the following: “Japan renounces all rights, title and claims to the Kuril Islands and to that part of Sakhalin Island and the adjacent islands over which Japan acquired sovereignty under the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.”
The USSR sent a delegation to San Francisco headed by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs A.A. Gromyko. But not in order to sign a document, but to voice my position. We formulated the mentioned clause of the agreement as follows: “Japan recognizes the full sovereignty of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics over the southern part of Sakhalin Island with all the adjacent islands and the Kuril Islands and renounces all rights, title and claims to these territories.”
Of course, in our version the agreement is specific and more in line with the spirit and letter of the Yalta agreements. However, the Anglo-American version was accepted. The USSR did not sign it, Japan did.
Today, some historians believe that the USSR should have signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the form in which it was proposed by the Americans - this would have strengthened our negotiating position. “We should have signed the agreement. I don’t know why we didn’t do this - perhaps because of vanity or pride, but above all, because Stalin overestimated his capabilities and the degree of his influence on the United States,” N.S. wrote in his memoirs .Khrushchev. But soon, as we will see further, he himself made a mistake.
From today's perspective, the absence of a signature on the notorious treaty is sometimes considered almost a diplomatic failure. However, the international situation at that time was much more complex and was not limited to the Far East. Perhaps what seems like a loss to someone, in those conditions became a necessary measure.
Japan and sanctions
It is sometimes mistakenly believed that since we do not have a peace treaty with Japan, then we are in a state of war. However, this is not at all true.
On December 12, 1956, a ceremony for the exchange of documents took place in Tokyo, marking the entry into force of the Joint Declaration. According to the document, the USSR agreed to “the transfer to Japan of the islands of Habomai and the island of Shikotan, however, that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan will be made after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan.”
The parties came to this formulation after several rounds of long negotiations. Japan's initial proposal was simple: a return to Potsdam - that is, the transfer of all the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin to it. Of course, such a proposal from the side that lost the war looked somewhat frivolous.
The USSR was not going to give up an inch, but unexpectedly for the Japanese, they suddenly offered Habomai and Shikotan. This was a fallback position, approved by the Politburo, but declared prematurely - the head of the Soviet delegation, Ya. A. Malik, was acutely worried about N. S. Khrushchev’s dissatisfaction with him due to the protracted negotiations. On August 9, 1956, during a conversation with his counterpart in the garden of the Japanese Embassy in London, the fallback position was announced. It was this that was included in the text of the Joint Declaration.
It must be clarified that the influence of the United States on Japan at that time was enormous (as it is now). They carefully monitored all its contacts with the USSR and, undoubtedly, were a third party to the negotiations, albeit invisible.
At the end of August 1956, Washington threatened Tokyo that if, under a peace treaty with the USSR, Japan renounces its claims to Kunashir and Iturup, the United States would forever retain the occupied island of Okinawa and the entire Ryukyu archipelago. The note contained wording that clearly played on the national feelings of the Japanese: “The US government has come to the conclusion that the islands of Iturup and Kunashir (along with the islands of Habomai and Shikotan, which are part of Hokkaido) have always been part of Japan and should rightly be considered as belonging to Japan " That is, the Yalta agreements were publicly disavowed.
The ownership of the “northern territories” of Hokkaido, of course, is a lie - on all military and pre-war Japanese maps, the islands were always part of the Kuril ridge and were never designated separately. However, I liked the idea. It was on this geographical absurdity that entire generations of politicians in the Land of the Rising Sun made their careers.
The peace treaty has not yet been signed - in our relations we are guided by the Joint Declaration of 1956.
Price issue
I think that even in the first term of his presidency, Vladimir Putin decided to resolve all controversial territorial issues with his neighbors. Including with Japan. In any case, back in 2004, Sergei Lavrov formulated the position of the Russian leadership: “We have always fulfilled and will fulfill our obligations, especially ratified documents, but, of course, to the extent that our partners are ready to fulfill the same agreements . So far, as we know, we have not been able to come to an understanding of these volumes as we see it and as we saw in 1956.”
“Until Japan’s ownership of all four islands is clearly determined, a peace treaty will not be concluded,” reacted then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The negotiation process has again reached a dead end.
However, this year we again remembered the peace treaty with Japan.
In May, at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, Vladimir Putin said that Russia is ready to negotiate with Japan on the disputed islands, and the solution should be a compromise. That is, neither party should feel like a loser. “Are you ready to negotiate? Yes, we are ready. But we were surprised to hear recently that Japan has joined some kind of sanctions - what does Japan have to do with this, I don’t really understand - and is suspending the negotiation process on this topic. So, are we ready, is Japan ready, I still haven’t figured it out for myself,” said the Russian President.
It looks like the pain point has been found correctly. And the negotiation process (hopefully, this time in offices tightly closed from American ears) is underway full swing at least six months. Otherwise, Shinzo Abe would not have made such promises.
If we fulfill the terms of the 1956 Joint Declaration and return the two islands to Japan, 2,100 people will have to be resettled. They all live on Shikotan; only the border post is located on Habomai. Most likely, the problem of our armed forces being on the islands is being discussed. However, for complete control over the region, the troops stationed on Sakhalin, Kunashir and Iturup are quite sufficient.
Another question is what kind of reciprocal concessions we expect from Japan. It is clear that sanctions must be lifted - this is not even discussed. Perhaps access to credit and technology, increased participation in joint projects? It's possible.
Be that as it may, Shinzo Abe faces a difficult choice. The conclusion of a long-awaited peace treaty with Russia, flavored with the “northern territories,” would certainly make him the politician of the century in his homeland. It will inevitably lead to tension in Japan's relations with the United States. I wonder what the Prime Minister will prefer.
But we will somehow survive the internal Russian tension that our liberals will fan.
From the blog The Habomai Island group is labeled "Other Islands" on this map. These are a few white spots between Shikotan and Hokkaido.
(The post was written more than two years ago, but the situation as of today has not changed, but talk about the Kuril Islands in last days have become active again, - editor's note)
The conflict over the Kuril Islands began long before World War II.
The dispute over the southernmost Kuril Islands - Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai - has been a point of tension between Japan and Russia since they were captured by the Soviet Union in 1945. More than 70 years later, Russian-Japanese relations are still not normal due to the ongoing territorial dispute. To a large extent, it was historical factors that prevented the solution of this issue. These include demographics, mentality, institutions, geography and economics—all of which encourage tough policies rather than compromise. The first four factors contribute to the continuation of the impasse, while the economy in the form of oil policy is associated with some hope of resolution.
Russia's claims to the Kuril Islands date back to the 17th century, resulting from periodic contacts with Japan through Hokkaido. In 1821, a de facto border was established, according to which Iturup became Japanese territory, and Russian land began from the island of Urup. Subsequently, according to the Treaty of Shimoda (1855) and the Treaty of St. Petersburg (1875), all four islands were recognized as Japanese territory. IN last time The Kuril Islands changed their owner as a result of World War II - in 1945 in Yalta, the Allies essentially agreed to transfer these islands to Russia.
The dispute over the islands became part of Cold War politics during the negotiations for the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Article 2c of which forced Japan to renounce all its claims to the Kuril Islands. However, the Soviet Union's refusal to sign this agreement left these islands in a state of uncertainty. In 1956, a joint Soviet-Japanese declaration was signed, which de facto meant the end of the state of war, but could not resolve the territorial conflict. After the ratification of the US-Japan Security Treaty in 1960, further negotiations ceased, and this continued until the 1990s.
However, after the end of the Cold War in 1991, there seemed to be a new opportunity to resolve this issue. Despite the turbulent events in world affairs, the positions of Japan and Russia on the Kuril Islands issue have not undergone much change since 1956, and the reason for this situation was five historical factors outside the Cold War.
The first factor is demographic. Japan's population is already declining due to low level fertility and aging, while Russia's population has been declining since 1992 due to excess alcohol consumption and other social ills. This shift, coupled with the weakening of international influence, has led to the emergence of backward-looking trends, and both nations are now largely trying to resolve the issue by looking back rather than forward. Given these attitudes, it can be concluded that the aging populations of Japan and Russia are making it impossible for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Vladimir Putin to negotiate due to their deeply entrenched views on the Kuril Islands issue.
Context
Is Russia ready to return the two islands?
Sankei Shimbun 10/12/2016Military construction in the Kuril Islands
The Guardian 06/11/2015Is it possible to agree on the Kuril Islands?
BBC Russian Service 05/21/2015All this also plays into the hands of the mentality and perception of the outside world, which are formed on the basis of how history is taught, and in a broader sense, on the basis of how the media present it mass media and public opinion. For Russia, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a severe psychological blow, accompanied by a loss of status and power, as many former Soviet republics seceded. This significantly changed Russia's borders and created significant uncertainty about the future of the Russian nation. It is well known that in times of crisis, citizens often exhibit stronger feelings of patriotism and defensive nationalism. The Kuril Islands dispute fills a void in Russia and also provides an opportunity to speak out against perceived historical injustices committed by Japan.
The perception of Japan in Russia was largely shaped by the issue of the Kuril Islands, and this continued until the end of the Cold War. Anti-Japanese propaganda became common occurrence after Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905, and it was strengthened as a result of Japanese intervention during civil war in Russia (1918-1922). This led many Russians to believe that as a result, all previously concluded treaties were annulled. However, Russia's victory over Japan in World War II ended the previous humiliation and strengthened the symbolic significance of the Kuril Islands, which came to represent (1) the irreversibility of the results of World War II and (2) Russia's status as a great power. From this point of view, the transfer of territory is seen as a revision of the outcome of the war. Therefore, control of the Kuril Islands remains of great psychological importance for the Russians.
Japan is trying to define its place in the world as a “normal” state, located next to an increasingly powerful China. The issue of the return of the Kuril Islands is directly related to the national identity of Japan, and these territories themselves are perceived as the last symbol of defeat in World War II. The Russian offensive and seizure of Japan's "inalienable territory" contributed to the victim mentality that became the dominant narrative after the end of the war.
This attitude is reinforced by Japanese conservative media, which often support foreign policy government. In addition, nationalists often use the media to viciously attack academics and politicians who hint at the possibility of compromise on the issue, leaving little room for maneuver.
This, in turn, affects political institutions both Japan and Russia. In the 1990s, President Boris Yeltsin's position was so weak that he feared possible impeachment if the Kuril Islands were transferred to Japan. At the same time, the central Russian government was weakened as a result of the growing influence of regional politicians, including two governors of the Sakhalin region - Valentin Fedorov (1990 - 1993) and Igor Fakhrutdinov (1995 - 2003), who actively opposed the possible sale of the Kuril Islands to Japan. They relied on nationalist feelings, and this was enough to prevent the completion of the treaty and its implementation in the 1990s.
Since President Putin came to power, Moscow has brought regional governments under its influence, but other institutional factors have also contributed to the stalemate. One example is the idea that a situation must mature before some issue or problem can be resolved. During the initial period of his rule, President Putin had the opportunity, but did not have the desire, to negotiate with Japan over the Kuril Islands. Instead, he decided to spend his time and energy trying to resolve the Sino-Russian border conflict through the issue of the Kuril Islands.
Since returning to the presidency in 2013, Putin has become increasingly dependent on the support of nationalist forces, and it is unlikely that he will be willing to cede the Kuril Islands in any meaningful sense. Recent events in Crimea and Ukraine clearly demonstrate how far Putin is willing to go to protect Russia's national status.
Japanese political institutions, although they differ from Russian ones, also support a tough course of action in negotiations regarding the Kuril Islands. As a result of reforms carried out after the end of World War II, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) occupies a dominant position in Japan. With the exception of the period from 1993 to 1995 and from 2009 to 2012, the LDP has had and continues to have a majority in the national legislative assembly, and in fact its party platform on the return of the four southern islands of the Kuril chain has been an integral part of national policy since 1956.
Moreover, as a result of the 1990-1991 real estate crash, the Liberal Democratic Party has produced only two effective prime ministers, Koizumi Junichiro and Shinzo Abe, both of whom rely on nationalist support to maintain their positions. Finally, regional politics plays an important role in Japan, and elected politicians on the island of Hokkaido are pushing the central government to take an assertive stance in the dispute. Taken together, all these factors are not conducive to reaching a compromise that would include the return of all four islands.
Sakhalin and Hokkaido emphasize the importance of geography and regional interests in this dispute. Geography influences how people see the world and how they observe policy formation and implementation. Russia's most important interests are in Europe, followed by the Middle East and Central Asia, and only after that Japan. Here is one example: Russia devotes a significant part of its time and effort to the issue of NATO expansion to the east, into the eastern part of Europe, as well as negative consequences related to events in Crimea and Ukraine. As for Japan, for it the alliance with the United States, China and the Korean Peninsula have a higher priority than relations with Moscow. The Japanese government must also take into account public pressure to resolve issues with North Korea regarding kidnapping and nuclear weapons, which Abe has promised to do several times. As a result, the issue of the Kuril Islands is often relegated to the background.
Probably the only factor contributing to a possible resolution of the Kuril Islands issue is economic interests. After 1991, both Japan and Russia entered a period of prolonged economic crisis. The Russian economy hit its lowest point during its currency crisis in 1997, and is now facing serious difficulties due to the collapse in oil prices and economic sanctions. However, the development of oil and gas fields in Siberia, during which Japanese capital and Russian natural resources are combined, contributes to cooperation and the possible resolution of the issue of the Kuril Islands. Despite the sanctions imposed, 8% of the oil consumed by Japan in 2014 was imported from Russia, and the increase in oil and natural gas consumption is largely due to the consequences of the disaster in nuclear power plant in Fukushima.
Taken together, historical factors largely determine the continued stagnation in resolving the issue of the Kuril Islands. Demographics, geography, political institutions, and the attitudes of Japanese and Russian citizens all contribute to a tough negotiating position. Oil policy provides some incentives for both nations to resolve disputes and normalize relations. However, this has not yet been enough to break the deadlock. Despite the possible change of leaders around the world, the main factors that have driven this dispute to an impasse will most likely remain unchanged.
Michael Bacalu is a member of the Council on Asian Affairs. He received a master's degree in international relations from Seoul University. South Korea and a bachelor's degree in history and political science from Arcadia University. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author as an individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization with which he has an association.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editorial board of InoSMI.