What is the problem of the Kuril Islands? Sushi question. Why Russia will never give up the Southern Kuril Islands to Japan. Maps of the Kuril Islands

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 to solve 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.

At the 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 by negative emotions, going beyond the rules and norms. 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 an important role in the development of the conflict - 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 full extent of state power in a certain territory.

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 three Japanese ports to Russian ships and established a border in the South 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.

On February 1945, an agreement was signed between the leaders of the Soviet Union, the USA and Great Britain - Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, 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 of 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 the smaller islands of the 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 recent years, in order to create an atmosphere at the negotiations conducive to the search for mutually acceptable solutions, the parties have been paying 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.

Relations between Russia and Japan have intensified to such an extent that they have not yet been seen in all 60 years since the restoration of diplomatic ties between the countries. The leaders of both countries meet constantly to discuss something. What exactly?

It is publicly stated that the subject of discussion is joint economic projects, but a number of experts believe otherwise: the real reason for the meetings is the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands, which Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are busy resolving. And then the Nikkei newspaper published information that Moscow and Tokyo seem to be planning to introduce joint management of the northern territories. So what are they preparing to transfer the Kuril Islands to Japan?

The warming in relations became especially noticeable six months ago, during Shinzo Abe’s May visit to Sochi. Then the Japanese prime minister called the Russian president first name, explaining that in Japan they only address a friend this way. Another sign of friendship was Tokyo’s refusal to join economic sanctions against Russia.

Abe proposed to Putin an eight-point plan for economic cooperation in a variety of areas - industry, energy, gas sector, trade partnership. In addition, Japan is ready to invest in Russian healthcare and transport infrastructure. In general, it’s a dream, not a plan! What in return? Yes, the painful topic of the Kuril Islands was also touched upon. The parties agreed that resolving the territorial dispute is an important step towards signing a peace treaty between the countries. That is, there were no hints about the transfer of the islands. Nevertheless, the first stone in the development of a sensitive topic was laid.

The danger of angering the dragon

Since then, the leaders of Russia and Japan have met on the sidelines of international summits.

In September, during the Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Abe again promised economic cooperation, but this time he directly called on Putin to jointly solve the problem of the northern territories, which has been clouding Russian-Japanese relations for several decades.

Meanwhile, the Nikkei newspaper reported that Tokyo expects to establish joint control over the islands of Kunashir and Iturup, while hoping to eventually obtain Habomai and Shikotan in its entirety. The publication writes that Shinzo Abe should discuss this issue with Vladimir Putin during their meeting scheduled for December 15.

Nihon Kezai also wrote about the same thing: the Japanese government is discussing a project of joint management with Russia as a measure that will help move the territorial problem from a dead point. The publication even reports: there is information that Moscow has begun the process of setting goals.

And then the results of the opinion poll arrived. It turns out that more than half of the Japanese are already “ready to show flexibility in resolving the issue of the Kuril Islands.” That is, they agree that Russia should hand over not four disputed islands, but only two - Shikotan and Habomai.

Now the Japanese press writes about the transfer of the islands as a practically resolved issue. It is unlikely that information on such an important topic will be sucked out of thin air. The main question remains: is Moscow really ready to give up territories in exchange for economic cooperation with Japan and its help in the fight against sanctions?

It is obvious that, with all the goodness of Putin’s communication with Abe, it is difficult to believe that the President of the Russian Federation, who after the annexation of Crimea gained fame as a “gatherer of Russian lands,” would agree to a soft and gradual, but still loss of territories. Moreover, the 2018 presidential elections are just around the corner. But what will happen after them?

The All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research last conducted a survey on the transfer of the Kuril Islands in 2010. Then the overwhelming majority of Russians - 79% - were in favor of leaving the islands for Russia and stopping discussing this issue. It is unlikely that public sentiment has changed much over the past six years. If Putin really wants to go down in history, it is unlikely that he will be pleased to be associated with unpopular politicians who have already attempted to transfer the islands.

However, the lands were transferred to China, and nothing - the public remained silent.

On the other hand, the Kuril Islands are a symbol, that’s why they are popular. But if you want, you can find an explanation for anything. Moreover, there will be arguments for mass consumption. Thus, TASS Tokyo correspondent Vasily Golovnin writes: as compensation for the transfer of the Southern Kuril Islands, Japan promises to establish postal and hospital operations in Russia, at its own expense equipping clinics with equipment for early diagnosis of diseases. In addition, the Japanese intend to offer their developments in the field of clean energy, housing construction, and year-round cultivation of vegetables. So there will be something to justify the transfer of a couple of islands.

Moscow's friendship with Tokyo worries Beijing

However, there is another side to this issue. The fact is that Japan has territorial claims not only to Russia, but also to China and South Korea. In particular, Tokyo and Beijing have had a long-standing dispute over the status of an uninhabited piece of land called Okinotori. According to the Japanese version, this is an island, but China considers it rocks, which means it does not recognize Tokyo’s international right to establish a 200-mile exclusive economic zone around it. The subject of another territorial dispute is the Senkaku Archipelago in the East China Sea, 170 kilometers northeast of Taiwan. Japan has a dispute with South Korea over the ownership of the Liancourt Islands, located in the western part of the Sea of ​​Japan.

Therefore, if Russia satisfies Japan's territorial claims, a precedent will arise. And then Tokyo will begin to seek similar actions from its other neighbors. It is logical to assume that these neighbors will regard the transfer of the Kuril Islands as a “set-up.” Should we quarrel with China, our main strategic partner in Asia? Especially now, when construction of the second branch of the Russian gas pipeline to China has begun, when the Chinese are investing in our gas companies. Of course, policy diversification in Asia is a useful thing, but it requires great caution from the Kremlin.

How the Kuril Islands tried to return to Japan

Nikita Khrushchev, when he was the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, proposed returning to Japan the two islands lying closest to its borders. The Japanese side ratified the treaty, but Moscow changed its mind due to the increased US military presence in Japan.

The next attempt was made by the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Kozyrev was already preparing documents for the visit of the head of state to Japan, during which it was planned to formalize the transfer of the islands. What prevented Yeltsin's plans? There are different versions on this matter. FSO Major General in reserve Boris Ratnikov, who from 1991 to 1994 worked as first deputy head of the Main Directorate of Security of the Russian Federation, told in an interview how his department upset Yeltsin’s visit to Japan, allegedly for security reasons. According to another version, Yeltsin was dissuaded by Anatoly Chubais, actually embodying a scene from the film “Ivan Vasilyevich Changes His Profession,” where the thief Miloslavsky throws himself at the feet of the liar with the words: “They didn’t order execution, they ordered him to say his word.”

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 with 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. The last time the Kuril Islands changed their owner was 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, a new opportunity to resolve this issue seemed to arise. 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 birth rates 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 10/12/2016

Military construction in the Kuril Islands

The Guardian 06/11/2015

Is it possible to agree on the Kuril Islands?

BBC Russian Service 05/21/2015
All this also plays into the mentality and perceptions of the outside world, which are shaped by how history is taught and, more broadly, by how it is presented by the 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 after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and it was intensified by Japanese intervention during the Russian Civil War (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 Japan's conservative media, which often supports the government's foreign policies. 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, influences the political institutions of 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 the negative consequences associated with the 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 heed public pressure to resolve issues with North Korea over 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 currently facing serious difficulties due to the collapse of 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 Japan's oil consumption in 2014 was imported from Russia, and the increase in oil and natural gas consumption is largely due to the consequences of the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

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 of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

Illustration copyright RIA Image caption Before Putin and Abe, the issue of signing a peace treaty between Russia and Japan was discussed by all their predecessors - to no avail

During a two-day visit to Nagato and Tokyo, the Russian president will agree with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on investments. The main question - the ownership of the Kuril Islands - will, as usual, be postponed indefinitely, experts say.

Abe became the second G7 leader to host Putin after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014.

The visit was supposed to take place two years ago, but was canceled due to sanctions against Russia, supported by Japan.

What is the essence of the dispute between Japan and Russia?

Abe is making progress in a long-standing territorial dispute in which Japan claims the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, as well as the Habomai archipelago (there is no such name in Russia; the archipelago and Shikotan are united under the name of the Lesser Kuril Ridge).

The Japanese elite understands perfectly well that Russia will never return the two large islands, so they are ready to take the maximum - two small ones. But how can we explain to society that they are abandoning large islands forever? Alexander Gabuev, expert at the Carnegie Moscow Center

At the end of World War II, in which Japan fought on the side of Nazi Germany, the USSR expelled 17 thousand Japanese from the islands; A peace treaty was never signed between Moscow and Tokyo.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and Japan established the sovereignty of the USSR over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, but Tokyo and Moscow never agreed on what to mean by the Kuril Islands.

Tokyo considers Iturup, Kunashir and Habomai to be its illegally occupied “northern territories”. Moscow considers these islands part of the Kuril Islands and has repeatedly stated that their current status is not subject to revision.

In 2016, Shinzo Abe flew to Russia twice (to Sochi and Vladivostok), and he and Putin also met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Lima.

In early December, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow and Tokyo have similar positions on the peace treaty. In an interview with Japanese journalists, Vladimir Putin called the lack of a peace treaty with Japan an anachronism that “must be eliminated.”

Illustration copyright Getty Images Image caption Migrants from the “northern territories” still live in Japan, as well as their descendants who do not mind returning to their historical homeland

He also said that the foreign ministries of the two countries need to resolve “purely technical issues” between themselves so that the Japanese have the opportunity to visit the southern Kuril Islands without visas.

However, Moscow is embarrassed that if the southern Kuril Islands are returned, US military bases may appear there. The head of the National Security Council of Japan, Shotaro Yachi, did not rule out this possibility in a conversation with Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, the Japanese newspaper Asahi wrote on Wednesday.

Should we wait for the Kuriles to return?

The short answer is no. “We should not expect any breakthrough agreements, or even ordinary ones, on the issue of ownership of the southern Kuril Islands,” says former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Kunadze.

“The expectations of the Japanese side, as usual, are at odds with Russia’s intentions,” Kunadze said in an interview with the BBC. “In the last days before leaving for Japan, President Putin repeatedly said that for Russia the problem of belonging to the Kuril Islands does not exist, that the Kuril Islands are , in essence, a military trophy following the results of the Second World War, and even that Russia’s rights to the Kuril Islands are secured by international treaties.”

The latter, according to Kunadze, is a controversial issue and depends on the interpretation of these treaties.

“Putin is referring to the agreements reached in Yalta in February 1945. These agreements were of a political nature and required appropriate legal formalization. It took place in San Francisco in 1951. The Soviet Union did not sign a peace treaty with Japan at that time. Therefore “, there is no other consolidation of Russia’s rights in the territories that Japan renounced under the San Francisco Treaty,” the diplomat sums up.

Illustration copyright Getty Images Image caption The Russians, like the Japanese, do not expect concessions from their authorities on the Kuril Islands

“The parties are trying to deflate the public’s mutual expectations as much as possible and show that a breakthrough will not happen,” comments Carnegie Moscow Center expert Alexander Gabuev.

“Russia’s red line: Japan recognizes the results of World War II, renounces claims to the southern Kuril Islands. As a gesture of goodwill, we are transferring two small islands to Japan, and on Kunashir and Iturup we can make visa-free entry, a free zone for joint economic development - everything that whatever," he believes. "Russia cannot give up two large islands, because it would be a loss, these islands are of economic importance, a lot of money has been invested there, there is a large population, the straits between these islands are used by Russian submarines when they go out to patrol the Pacific Ocean" .

Japan, according to Gabuev’s observations, has softened its position on the disputed territories in recent years.

“The Japanese elite understands perfectly well that Russia will never return two large islands, so they are ready to take a maximum of two small ones. But how can they explain to society that they are abandoning the large islands forever? Japan is looking for options in which it takes the small ones and retains its claim to large. For Russia this is unacceptable, we want to resolve the issue once and for all. These two red lines are not yet so close that a breakthrough can be expected,” the expert believes.

What else will be discussed?

The Kuril Islands are not the only topic that Putin and Abe discuss. Russia needs foreign investment in the Far East.

According to the Japanese publication Yomiuri, trade turnover between the two countries has decreased due to sanctions. Thus, imports from Russia to Japan decreased by 27.3% - from 2.61 trillion yen ($23 billion) in 2014 to 1.9 trillion yen ($17 billion) in 2015. And exports to Russia increased by 36.4% - from 972 billion yen ($8.8 billion) in 2014 to 618 billion yen ($5.6 billion) in 2015.

Illustration copyright RIA Image caption As head of the Russian state, Putin last visited Japan 11 years ago.

The Japanese government intends, through the state oil, gas and metals corporation JOGMEC, to acquire part of the gas fields of the Russian company Novatek, as well as part of the shares of Rosneft.

It is expected that dozens of commercial agreements will be signed during the visit, and the working breakfast of the Russian President and the Japanese Prime Minister will be attended, in particular, by the head of Rosatom Alexey Likhachev, the head of Gazprom Alexey Miller, the head of Rosneft Igor Sechin, the head of the Russian Direct Fund investments Kirill Dmitriev, entrepreneurs Oleg Deripaska and Leonid Mikhelson.

So far, Russia and Japan are only exchanging pleasantries. Based on whether at least part of the economic memoranda is implemented, it will become clear whether they can still agree on something.

Disputes about the four South Kuril Islands, which currently belong to the Russian Federation, have been going on for quite some time. As a result of agreements and wars signed at different times, this land changed hands several times. Currently, these islands are the cause of an unresolved territorial dispute between Russia and Japan.

Discovery of the islands

The issue of the discovery of the Kuril Islands is controversial. According to the Japanese side, the Japanese were the first to set foot on the islands in 1644. A map of that time with the designations “Kunashiri”, “Etorofu” and others marked on it is carefully preserved in the National Museum of Japan. And Russian pioneers, the Japanese believe, first came to the Kuril ridge only during the time of Tsar Peter I, in 1711, and on the Russian map of 1721 these islands are called “Japanese Islands”.

But in reality the situation is different: firstly, the Japanese received the first information about the Kuril Islands (from the Ainu language - “kuru” means “a person who came from nowhere”) from the local Ainu residents (the oldest non-Japanese population of the Kuril Islands and the Japanese Islands) during an expedition to Hokkaido in 1635. Moreover, the Japanese did not reach the Kuril lands themselves due to constant conflicts with the local population.

It should be noted that the Ainu were hostile to the Japanese, and initially treated the Russians well, considering them their “brothers”, due to the similarity in appearance and methods of communication between the Russians and small nations.

Secondly, the Kuril Islands were discovered by the Dutch expedition of Maarten Gerritsen de Vries (Fries) in 1643, the Dutch were looking for the so-called. "Golden Lands" The Dutch did not like the lands, and they sold their detailed description and map to the Japanese. It was on the basis of Dutch data that the Japanese compiled their maps.

Thirdly, the Japanese at that time did not control not only the Kuril Islands, but even Hokkaido; only their stronghold was in its southern part. The Japanese began conquering the island at the beginning of the 17th century, and the fight against the Ainu continued for two centuries. That is, if the Russians were interested in expansion, then Hokkaido could become a Russian island. This was made easier by the good attitude of the Ainu towards the Russians and their hostility towards the Japanese. There are also records of this fact. The Japanese state of that time did not officially consider itself the sovereign of not only Sakhalin and the Kuril lands, but also Hokkaido (Matsumae) - this was confirmed in a circular by the head of the Japanese government, Matsudaira, during Russian-Japanese negotiations on the border and trade in 1772.

Fourthly, Russian explorers visited the islands before the Japanese. In the Russian state, the first mention of the Kuril lands dates back to 1646, when Nekhoroshko Ivanovich Kolobov gave a report to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich about the campaigns of Ivan Yuryevich Moskvitin and spoke about the bearded Ainu inhabiting the Kuril Islands. In addition, Dutch, Scandinavian and German medieval chronicles and maps report about the first Russian settlements in the Kuril Islands at that time. The first reports about the Kuril lands and their inhabitants reached the Russians in the middle of the 17th century.

In 1697, during the expedition of Vladimir Atlasov to Kamchatka, new information about the islands appeared; the Russians explored the islands as far as Simushir (an island in the middle group of the Great Ridge of the Kuril Islands).

XVIII century

Peter I knew about the Kuril Islands; in 1719, the tsar sent a secret expedition to Kamchatka under the leadership of Ivan Mikhailovich Evreinov and Fyodor Fedorovich Luzhin. Marine surveyor Evreinov and surveyor-cartographer Luzhin had to determine whether there was a strait between Asia and America. The expedition reached the island of Simushir in the south and brought local residents and rulers to swear allegiance to the Russian state.

In 1738-1739, the navigator Martyn Petrovich Shpanberg (Danish by origin) walked along the entire Kuril ridge, put all the islands he encountered on the map, including the entire Small Kuril ridge (these are 6 large and a number of small islands that are separated from the Great Kuril ridge in the South -Kuril Strait). He explored the lands as far as Hokkaido (Matsumaya), bringing the local Ainu rulers to swear allegiance to the Russian state.

Subsequently, the Russians avoided voyages to the southern islands and developed the northern territories. Unfortunately, at this time, abuses against the Ainu were noted not only by the Japanese, but also by the Russians.

In 1771, the Lesser Kuril Ridge was removed from Russia and came under the protectorate of Japan. The Russian authorities sent the nobleman Antipin with the translator Shabalin to rectify the situation. They were able to persuade the Ainu to restore Russian citizenship. In 1778-1779, Russian envoys brought more than 1.5 thousand people from Iturup, Kunashir and even Hokkaido into citizenship. In 1779, Catherine II freed those who had accepted Russian citizenship from all taxes.

In 1787, the “Extensive Land Description of the Russian State...” contained a list of the Kuril Islands up to Hokkaido-Matsumaya, the status of which had not yet been determined. Although the Russians did not control the lands south of Urup Island, the Japanese were active there.

In 1799, by order of seii-taishogun Tokugawa Ienari, he headed the Tokugawa Shogunate, two outposts were built on Kunashir and Iturup, and permanent garrisons were placed there. Thus, the Japanese secured the status of these territories within Japan by military means.

Satellite image of the Lesser Kuril Ridge

Agreements

In 1845, the Empire of Japan unilaterally declared its power over all of Sakhalin and the Kuril ridge. This naturally caused a violent negative reaction from the Russian Emperor Nicholas I. But the Russian Empire did not have time to take action; the events of the Crimean War prevented it. Therefore, it was decided to make concessions and not bring matters to war.

On February 7, 1855, the first diplomatic agreement was concluded between Russia and Japan - Treaty of Shimoda. It was signed by Vice Admiral E.V. Putyatin and Toshiakira Kawaji. According to Article 9 of the treaty, “permanent peace and sincere friendship between Russia and Japan” were established. Japan ceded the islands from Iturup and to the south, Sakhalin was declared a joint, indivisible possession. Russians in Japan received consular jurisdiction, Russian ships received the right to enter the ports of Shimoda, Hakodate, and Nagasaki. The Russian Empire received most favored nation treatment in trade with Japan and received the right to open consulates in ports open to Russians. That is, in general, especially considering the difficult international situation of Russia, the agreement can be assessed positively. Since 1981, the Japanese have celebrated the day of signing the Shimoda Treaty as “Northern Territories Day.”

It should be noted that in fact, the Japanese received the right to the “Northern Territories” only for “permanent peace and sincere friendship between Japan and Russia,” most favored nation treatment in trade relations. Their further actions de facto annulled this agreement.

Initially, the provision of the Shimoda Treaty on joint ownership of Sakhalin Island was more beneficial for the Russian Empire, which was actively colonizing this territory. The Japanese Empire did not have a good one, so at that time it did not have such an opportunity. But later the Japanese began to intensively populate the territory of Sakhalin, and the question of its ownership began to become increasingly controversial and acute. The contradictions between Russia and Japan were resolved by signing the St. Petersburg Treaty.

St. Petersburg Treaty. It was signed in the capital of the Russian Empire on April 25 (May 7), 1875. Under this agreement, the Empire of Japan transferred Sakhalin to Russia as full ownership, and in exchange received all the islands of the Kuril chain.

St. Petersburg Treaty of 1875 (Japanese Foreign Ministry Archive).

As a result of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 and Treaty of Portsmouth On August 23 (September 5), 1905, the Russian Empire, according to Article 9 of the agreement, ceded southern Sakhalin to Japan, south of 50 degrees north latitude. Article 12 contained an agreement to conclude a convention on Japanese fishing along the Russian shores of the Japanese, Okhotsk and Bering Seas.

After the death of the Russian Empire and the beginning of foreign intervention, the Japanese occupied Northern Sakhalin and participated in the occupation of the Far East. When the Bolshevik Party won the Civil War, Japan did not want to recognize the USSR for a long time. Only after the Soviet authorities canceled the status of the Japanese consulate in Vladivostok in 1924 and in the same year the USSR was recognized by Great Britain, France and China, the Japanese authorities decided to normalize relations with Moscow.

Beijing Treaty. On February 3, 1924, official negotiations between the USSR and Japan began in Beijing. Only on January 20, 1925, the Soviet-Japanese convention on the basic principles of relations between countries was signed. The Japanese pledged to withdraw their forces from the territory of Northern Sakhalin by May 15, 1925. The declaration of the USSR government, which was attached to the convention, emphasized that the Soviet government did not share with the former government of the Russian Empire political responsibility for the signing of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905. In addition, the convention enshrined the agreement of the parties that all agreements, treaties and conventions concluded between Russia and Japan before November 7, 1917, except for the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, should be revised.

In general, the USSR made great concessions: in particular, Japanese citizens, companies and associations were granted the rights to exploit natural raw materials throughout the Soviet Union. On July 22, 1925, a contract was signed to grant the Japanese Empire a coal concession, and on December 14, 1925, an oil concession in Northern Sakhalin. Moscow agreed to this agreement in order to stabilize the situation in the Russian Far East, since the Japanese supported the White Guards outside the USSR. But in the end, the Japanese began to systematically violate the convention and create conflict situations.

During the Soviet-Japanese negotiations that took place in the spring of 1941 regarding the conclusion of a neutrality treaty, the Soviet side raised the issue of liquidating Japan's concessions in Northern Sakhalin. The Japanese gave their written consent to this, but delayed the implementation of the agreement for 3 years. Only when the USSR began to gain the upper hand over the Third Reich did the Japanese government implement the agreement that had been given earlier. Thus, on March 30, 1944, a Protocol was signed in Moscow on the destruction of Japanese oil and coal concessions in Northern Sakhalin and the transfer of all Japanese concession property to the Soviet Union.

February 11, 1945 at the Yalta conference three great powers - the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain - reached a verbal agreement on the USSR's entry into the war with the Japanese Empire on the terms of the return of South Sakhalin and the Kuril ridge to it after the end of World War II.

In the Potsdam Declaration dated July 26, 1945, it was stated that Japanese sovereignty would be limited only to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and other smaller islands, which would be designated by the victorious countries. The Kuril Islands were not mentioned.

After the defeat of Japan, on January 29, 1946, Memorandum No. 677 of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Powers, American General Douglas MacArthur, excluded the Chishima Islands (Kuril Islands), the Habomadze group of islands (Habomai) and the Sikotan Island (Shikotan) from Japanese territory.

According to San Francisco Peace Treaty dated September 8, 1951, the Japanese side renounced all rights to South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. But the Japanese claim that Iturup, Shikotan, Kunashir and Habomai (islands of the Lesser Kuril Islands) were not part of the Chishima Islands (Kuril Islands) and they did not abandon them.

Negotiations in Portsmouth (1905) - from left to right: from the Russian side (far part of the table) - Planson, Nabokov, Witte, Rosen, Korostovets.

Further agreements

Joint Declaration. On October 19, 1956, the Soviet Union and Japan adopted a Joint Declaration. The document ended the state of war between the countries and restored diplomatic relations, and also spoke of Moscow’s consent to the transfer of the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to the Japanese side. But they were supposed to be handed over only after the signing of a peace treaty. However, later Japan was forced to refuse to sign a peace treaty with the USSR. The United States threatened not to give up Okinawa and the entire Ryukyu Archipelago to the Japanese if they renounced their claims to the other islands of the Lesser Kuril chain.

After Tokyo signed the Cooperation and Security Treaty with Washington in January 1960, extending the American military presence on the Japanese Islands, Moscow announced that it refused to consider the issue of transferring the islands to the Japanese side. The statement was justified by the security issue of the USSR and China.

In 1993 it was signed Tokyo Declaration about Russian-Japanese relations. It stated that the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR and recognizes the 1956 agreement. Moscow expressed its readiness to begin negotiations regarding Japan's territorial claims. In Tokyo this was assessed as a sign of impending victory.

In 2004, the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov, made a statement that Moscow recognizes the 1956 Declaration and is ready to negotiate a peace treaty based on it. In 2004-2005, this position was confirmed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But the Japanese insisted on the transfer of 4 islands, so the issue was not resolved. Moreover, the Japanese gradually increased their pressure; for example, in 2009, the head of the Japanese government at a government meeting called the Lesser Kuril Ridge “illegally occupied territories.” In 2010 and early 2011, the Japanese became so excited that some military experts began to talk about the possibility of a new Russian-Japanese war. Only the spring natural disaster - the consequences of a tsunami and a terrible earthquake, the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant - cooled Japan's ardor.

As a result, the loud statements of the Japanese led to Moscow declaring that the islands are the territory of the Russian Federation legally following the Second World War, this is enshrined in the UN Charter. And Russian sovereignty over the Kuril Islands, which has the appropriate international legal confirmation, is beyond doubt. Plans were also announced to develop the islands' economy and strengthen Russia's military presence there.

Strategic importance of the islands

Economic factor. The islands are economically underdeveloped, but they have deposits of valuable and rare earth metals - gold, silver, rhenium, titanium. The waters are rich in biological resources; the seas that wash the shores of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands are among the most productive areas of the World Ocean. The shelves, where hydrocarbon deposits are found, are also of great importance.

Political factor. The cession of the islands will sharply lower Russia’s status in the world, and there will be a legal opportunity to review other results of the Second World War. For example, they may demand that the Kaliningrad region be given to Germany or part of Karelia to Finland.

Military factor. The transfer of the South Kuril Islands will provide the Japanese and US naval forces with free access to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. It will allow our potential adversaries to exercise control over strategically important strait zones, which will sharply worsen the deployment capabilities of the Russian Pacific Fleet, including nuclear submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles. This will be a strong blow to the military security of the Russian Federation.