The Kuril Islands and the peace treaty between Russia and Japan: why the Japanese are so brazenly climbing on Russian soil. The problem of the Kuril Islands in relations between Russia and Japan Will this state of affairs affect Russian-Chinese relations

On the question of Japan's claims to our Kuriles

Japanese politicians "push on the pedal" time after time, initiating conversations with Moscow on the subject that, they say, "it's time to return the Northern Territories to the Japanese masters."

We didn't really react to Tokyo's hysteria before, but now it seems we need to respond.

To begin with, a picture with text, which better than any analytical articles represents Japan's real position at the time when she was winner Russia. Now they are whining panhandling, but as soon as they feel their strength, they immediately begin to play "king of the hill":

Japan took away a hundred years ago our Russian lands- half of Sakhalin and all the Kuril Islands as a result of the defeat of Russia in the war of 1905. Since then, the famous song “On the Hills of Manchuria” has remained, which still in Russia reminds of the bitterness of that defeat.

However, times have changed, and Japan itself has become defeatist in World War II, which personally started against China, Korea and other Asian countries. And, overestimating its strength, Japan even attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor in December 1941 - after that, the United States entered the war against Japan and its ally Hitler. Yes Yes, Japan was an ally of Hitler but little is remembered about that today. Why? Who did not like History in the West?

As a result of its own military disaster, Japan signed in September 1945 the "Act on unconditional surrender"(!), where in text it is clearly stated that "We hereby pledge that the Japanese Government and its successors will faithfully fulfill the conditions" Potsdam Declaration". And in that Potsdam Declaration» clarified that « Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and themes smaller islands that we will indicate". And where are the "northern territories" that the Japanese demand "back" from Moscow? In general, what kind of territorial claims against Russia can be discussed in Japan, which deliberately went to the aggression in alliance with Hitler?

- Taking a purely negative attitude towards any transfer of any islands to Japan, nevertheless, it should be fair to explain: the tactics of recent years, which are perfectly clear to professionals, are as follows - do not deny outright the promise of the previous authorities, speak only about the fidelity of the 1956 Declaration, that is only about Habomai and Shikotane, thus excluding from the problem Kunashir and Iturup, which appeared under pressure from Japan in the negotiations in the mid-90s, and, finally, to accompany the words about "loyalty" of the Declaration with such wording that today does not strictly coincide with the position of Japan.

- The declaration assumed first the conclusion of a peace treaty and only then the "transfer" of the two islands. The transfer is an act of goodwill, a willingness to dispose of one's own territory "in meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state." Japan, on the other hand, insists that the “return” precede the peace treaty, because the very concept of “return” is the recognition of the illegality of their belonging to the USSR, which is a revision not only of the results of the Second World War itself, but also of the principle of the inviolability of these results.

- Satisfaction of Japanese claims to "return" the islands would mean a direct undermining of the principle of indisputability of the results of World War II and would open up the possibility of questioning other aspects of the territorial status quo.

– The “complete and unconditional surrender” of Japan is fundamentally different from a simple surrender in legal, political and historical consequences. A simple "surrender" means an acknowledgment of defeat in hostilities and does not affect the international legal personality of the defeated power, no matter what losses it may suffer. Such a state retains its sovereignty and legal personality and itself, as a legal party, negotiates peace terms. “Complete and unconditional surrender” means the cessation of the existence of a subject of international relations, the dismantling of the former state as a political institution, the loss of sovereignty and all power powers that pass to the victorious powers, which themselves determine the conditions for peace and the post-war structure and settlement.

– In case of "total and unconditional surrender" with Japan, then Japan retained the former emperor, which is used to assert that Japan's legal personality was not interrupted. However, in reality, the source of the preservation of imperial power is different - it is the will and decision of the Winners.

- US Secretary of State J. Byrnes pointed out to V. Molotov: "Japan's position does not withstand criticism that it cannot consider itself bound by the Yalta agreements, since it was not a party to them." Today's Japan is a post-war state, and the settlement can proceed solely from the post-war international legal basis, especially since only this basis has legal force.

- In the "Soviet-Japanese Declaration of October 19, 1956", the readiness of the USSR was recorded to "transfer" to Japan the islands of Habomai and Shikotan, but only after the conclusion of the Peace Treaty. It's about not about "return", but about "transfer", that is, about the readiness to dispose of as act of goodwill its territory, which does not create a precedent for revising the results of the war.

- The United States exerted direct pressure on Japan during the Soviet-Japanese negotiations in 1956 and did not stop at ultimatum: The United States stated that if Japan signs a "Peace Treaty" with the USSR, in which it agrees to recognize South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands as part of the territory of the USSR, " The United States will keep the Ryukyu Islands in perpetuity."(Okinawa).

- The signing of the "Soviet-Japanese Declaration", according to the reckless plan of N. Khrushchev, was supposed to keep Japan from concluding a military cooperation treaty with the United States. However, such an agreement between Tokyo and Washington followed on January 19, 1960, and according to it perpetual stay of American armed forces on Japanese territory.

- On January 27, 1960, the Soviet government announced "a change in circumstances" and warned that "only subject to the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory of Japan and the signing of the Peace Treaty between the USSR and Japan, the islands of Habomai and Shikotan will be transferred to Japan".

These are the considerations about the Japanese "Wishlist".

Kuriles: not four bare islands

Recently, the "question" about the South Kuriles has been raised again. The media of disinformation are fulfilling the task of the current government - to inspire the people that we do not need these islands. The obvious is hushed up: after the transfer of the South Kuriles to Japan, Russia will lose a third of the fish, our Pacific Fleet will be locked up and will not get free access to the Pacific Ocean, the entire border system in the east of the country will need to be revised, etc. I, a geologist who has worked in the Far East, Sakhalin for 35 years, and who has been to the South Kuriles more than once, is especially outraged by the lie about "four bare islands", supposedly representing the South Kuriles.

Let's start with the fact that the South Kuriles are not 4 islands. They include o. Kunashir, about. Iturup And all the islands of the Lesser Kuril Ridge. The latter includes Fr. Shikotan(182 sq. km), about. Green(69 sq. km), about. Polonsky(15 sq. km), about. Tanfiliev(8 sq. km), about. Yuri(7 sq. km), about. Anuchin(3 sq. km) and many smaller islands: about. Demina, about. shards, about. watchdog, about. Signal and others. Yes, to the island Shikotan usually includes islands Grieg And Aivazovsky. The total area of ​​the islands of the Lesser Kuril Ridge is about 300 sq. km, and all the islands of the South Kuriles - over 8500 sq. km. The fact that the Japanese, and after them "our" democrats and some diplomats call the island habo mai, is about 20 islands.

The bowels of the Southern Kuriles contain a large complex of minerals. Its leading elements are gold and silver, the deposits of which have been explored on about. Kunashir. Here, at the Prasolovsky deposit, in some areas the content gold reaches a kilogram or more, silver– up to 5 kg per ton of rock. The predicted resources of the North Kunashir ore cluster alone are 475 tons of gold and 2160 tons of silver (these and many other figures are taken from the book "The Mineral Raw Material Base of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands at the Turn of the Third Millennium" published last year by the Sakhalin Book Publishing House). But, apart from Fr. Kunashir, other islands of the South Kuriles are also promising for gold and silver.

In the same Kunashir, polymetallic ores are known (Valentinovskoye deposit), in which the content zinc reaches 14%, copper - up to 4%, gold– up to 2 g/t, silver– up to 200 g/t, barium– up to 30%, strontium- until 3 %. Stocks zinc are 18 thousand tons, copper- 5 thousand tons. On the islands of Kunashir and Iturup there are several ilmenite-magnetite placers with a high content of gland(up to 53%), titanium(up to 8%) and increased concentrations vanadium. Such raw materials are suitable for the production of high-grade vanadium iron. In the late 60s, Japan offered to buy Kuril ilmenite-magnetite sands. Is it because of the high content of vanadium? But in those years, not everything was sold and bought, there were values ​​more expensive than money, and transactions were by no means always accelerated by bribes.

Of particular note are the recently discovered rich accumulations of ore in the South Kuriles. rhenium, which goes to the details of supersonic aircraft and missiles, protects the metal from corrosion and wear. These ores are modern ejecta from volcanoes. The ore continues to accumulate. It is estimated that only one Kudryavy volcano on about. Iturup takes out 2.3 tons of rhenium per year. In places, the content of this valuable metal in the ore reaches 200 g/t. Will we give it to the Japanese too?

From non-metallic minerals, we single out deposits sulfur. Now this raw material is one of the scarcest in our country. Deposits of volcanic sulfur have long been known in the Kuriles. The Japanese developed it in many places. Soviet geologists explored and prepared for development a large sulfur deposit Novoye. Only on one of its sites - Western - industrial reserves of sulfur are more than 5 million tons. On the islands of Iturup and Kunashir there are many smaller deposits that can attract entrepreneurs. In addition, some geologists consider the region of the Lesser Kuril Ridge to be promising for oil and gas.

In the South Kuriles there are very scarce in the country and very valuable thermal mineral waters. The most famous of them are the "Hot Beach" springs, in which waters with a high content of silicic and boric acids have a temperature of up to 100 ° C. There is a balneary. Similar waters - in the North Mendeleevsky and Chaikinsky sources on about. Kunashir, as well as in a number of places on about. Iturup.

And who hasn't heard about the thermal waters of the Southern Kuriles? In addition to being a tourism destination, this thermal power raw materials, the importance of which has recently increased due to the ongoing energy crisis in the Far East and the Kuril Islands. So far, geothermal hydroelectric power station, using underground heat, operates only in Kamchatka. But it is possible and necessary to develop high-potential coolants - volcanoes and their derivatives - on the Kuril Islands. To date, on about. Kunashir has explored the Hot Beach steam-hydrotherm deposit, which can provide the city of Yuzhno-Kurilsk with heat and hot water (partially, the steam-water mixture is used to heat the military unit and state farm greenhouses). On about. Iturup explored a similar field - Ocean.

It is also important that the South Kuril Islands is a unique testing ground for the study of geological processes, volcanism, ore formation, the study of giant waves (tsunamis), and seismicity. There is no second such scientific testing ground in Russia. And science, as you know, is a productive force, the fundamental basis for the development of any society.

And how can you call the South Kuriles "bare islands" if they are covered with almost subtropical vegetation, where there are a lot of medicinal herbs and berries (aralia, lemongrass, redberry), the rivers are rich red fish(chum salmon, pink salmon, sima), fur seals, sea lions, seals, sea otters live on the coast, shallow water is dotted with crabs, shrimps, trepangs, scallops?

Isn't all of the above known in the government, in the embassy of the Russian Federation in Japan, "our" democrats? I think that the arguments about the possibility of transferring the South Kuriles to Japan - not from stupidity, but from meanness. Some figures like Zhirinovsky offer to sell our islands to Japan and name specific amounts. Russia sold Alaska on the cheap, also considering the peninsula "unnecessary land." And now the US gets a third of its oil from Alaska, more than half of its gold, and much more. So still sell cheap, gentlemen!

How Russia and Japan will divide the Kuriles. We answer eight naive questions about the disputed islands

Moscow and Tokyo, possibly as close as ever to solving the problem of the South Kuril Islands - this is the opinion of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. For his part, Vladimir Putin explained that Russia was ready to discuss this issue only on the basis of the Soviet-Japanese declaration of 1956 - according to it, the USSR agreed to transfer to Japan only two the smallest South Kuril Islands - Shikotan and coming Habomai. But left behind large and inhabited islands Iturup And Kunashir.

Will Russia agree to a treaty and where did the “Kuril issue” come from? Viktor Kuzminkov.

1. Why do the Japanese claim the Kuriles at all? After all, they abandoned them after the Second World War?

- Indeed, in 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded, where it was stated that Japan refuses from all claims to the Kuril Islands, - agrees Kuzminkov. - But a few years later, in order to get around this moment, the Japanese began to call four islands - Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai - northern territories and deny that they belong to the Kuril ridge (but, on the contrary, belong to the island of Hokkaido). Although on the pre-war Japanese maps they were designated precisely as the South Kuriles.

2. Still, how many disputed islands - two or four?

- Now Japan claims all four of the above islands - in 1855, the border between Russia and Japan passed through them. But immediately after the Second World War - both in San Francisco in 1951 and in 1956 at the signing of the Soviet-Japanese declaration - Japan disputed only Shikotan and Habomai. At that time, they recognized Iturup and Kunashir as the Southern Kuriles. It is about returning to the positions of the 1956 declaration that Putin and Abe are now talking about.

“Joint management in the Kuriles was discussed, but I believe that this is a stillborn project,” the expert commented. - Japan will demand such preferences for itself that will cast doubt on Russia's sovereignty in these territories.

Similarly, the Japanese are not ready to agree to the lease of the islands from Russia (such an idea was also voiced) - they consider the northern territories to be their ancestral land.

In my opinion, the only real option for today is the signing of a peace treaty, which means little to both countries. And the subsequent creation of a commission on the delimitation of borders, which will sit for at least 100 years, but will not come to any decision.

HELP "KP"

The total population of the South Kuril Islands is about 17 thousand people.

Island group Habomai(more than 10 islands) - uninhabited.

On the island Shikotan– 2 settlements: Malokurilskoye and Krabozavodskoye. There is a cannery. In the Soviet years, it was one of the largest in the USSR. But now little is left of its former power.

On the island Iturup- the city of Kurilsk (1600 people) and 7 settlements. In 2014, the Iturup International Airport was opened here.

On the island Kunashir- Yuzhno-Kurilsk settlement (7700 people) and 6 smaller settlements. Here is a geothermal power plant and more than a hundred military facilities.

Russia and Japan came to a unified decision on the Kuriles! We remember this date, it will certainly become a key one in the history of not only our country, but also the geopolitical situation as a whole.

Remember, Putin said that Russia does not trade territories, but that a solution is being sought in which neither side will feel defeated or lost? So, this phrase, which, for sure, will be remembered more than once, in principle, is fully consistent with the decision made.

Today Russia and Japan have agreed on joint economic activities in the Kuriles.

As Yury Ushakov, an aide to the President of the Russian Federation, told Interfax, experts had been preparing the text of the statement for several weeks, but they could not draw up a document that would suit both sides. Putin and Abe agreed on a document within 40 minutes, the contents of which will be made public on December 16. Ushakov stressed that economic activity will be carried out in the Kuriles in accordance with Russian legislation.

When it was announced that "Ball" and "Bastion" were installed in the Kuril Islands, I wrote that such information is being replicated for a reason, but in order to clearly show the vector that Putin will choose on December 15 in questions about the islands. This vector was precisely connected with the fact that Japan would take part in the development of the Far East under our strict guidance.

This was obvious, because even after the news about "Ball" and "Bastion" Japan still agreed to negotiate.

Here is what I wrote earlier:

"Despite the fact that Putin is presented as a tough politician, his tactics are soft, so the decision that Japan's role will not be the last in the future fate of the Kuriles will not surprise at all. Most likely, it will be either a lease or some other contract"

In order to objectively assess what happened, you need to look wider. And take into account the interests not only of Japan and Russia, but also of other countries.

Until today, there has been no economic breakthrough in the relations between our countries, since a huge stone of the unremovable Kuril issue, which the United States once established in order to slow down development, stood in the way of constructive strategic interaction between Russia and Japan. They installed it themselves, and helped to clean it up now.

For what?

Now the main rival of the United States is not us at all, but China, so America needs to build defense from this "side". For this, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was created to counterbalance China's growing economic power in the Far East.

The essence of the TPP is to remove barriers to trade between 12 countries. China is not among them, so the level of trade with China will decrease.

For China, the TPP means that its competitors will import duty-free into the US. China will only benefit from this if it invests in manufacturing in TPP member countries such as Vietnam. And if China wants to enter the TPP, it will have to make the economy more transparent, which will not pass by the United States.

The development of TTP is very slow for various reasons. Due to the large number of countries included in it, it is becoming more and more difficult to find favorable conditions for all, because the interests of each country must be protected. Against this background, partnership with Japan, South Korea and us looks much more advantageous for the United States.

Pay attention to Trump's plans, which considers the withdrawal of the US from the TPP as a top priority for America.

The reaction of the Prime Minister of Japan was not long in coming, and he suggested that without the US, the TPP would not make sense.

Japan is one of the three countries with the strongest economy. She needs to develop her potential somewhere, because. the country is moving forward. Japan will be even more able to break away from competitors if it is provided with resources. We have these resources.

Due to the devaluation of the ruble, production can now be transferred to Russia: its cost is now lower than in China. This is true even if foreign raw materials and components are used.

The average monthly salary in Russia in dollar terms, according to Rosstat, fluctuates around $500. Official data on the average salary in China is in the region of $700.

That is why we are now a more profitable party for cooperation, which is also a definite plus for us, because jobs will appear.

Moreover, it is likely that new projects will be created that can seriously affect the balance of power in the world. Putin has already spoken about the implementation of over 300 investment projects.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has already suggested that Vladimir Putin think about cooperation between the economies of the two countries and called for a new era of interstate relations.

In addition, the Japanese Prime Minister proposed to make Vladivostok a gateway that will connect Eurasia and the Pacific Ocean, which is also an important point.

The growing influence of China is pushing the United States out of important economic and political niches, therefore it is America that, first of all, benefits from the development of Japan, which, in turn, will be able to implement it in the territories of the Far East, thereby rebuilding it for us and investing in the further development of the region.

As a result, we get a rebuilt region, which remains with us, and the United States becomes Japan's allies, which will eventually move China. The development of the Japanese economy through cooperation with Russia is the most beneficial outcome for America - that's a fact.

Will this state of affairs affect Russian-Chinese relations?

First, do not exaggerate China's benevolence. Although official Beijing does not support the West's anti-Russian sanctions, large Chinese banks that do nothing without the knowledge of the country's leadership have de facto joined the West's banking sanctions against Russia. Since May last year, China's banks have been refusing to issue loans to Russian companies and individuals under any pretext, forcing them to close their accounts and withdraw money to banks in other countries.

Secondly, it is China that is already looking towards the sparsely populated Far East. It is China, with its huge and rapidly growing population, that poses a real demographic threat to Russia, while Japan, with its catastrophically aging population, does not.

After the PRC government abandoned the one-child policy last year and allowed Chinese families to have a second child, the demographic threat to Russia from China has increased dramatically. Beijing is pursuing an unspoken policy of expanding the eastern regions of Russia with the help of creeping and well-organized Chinese migration to Siberia and the Russian Far East.

Thirdly, political scientists suggest that the likelihood of a Sino-Japanese war is high. Japan has an economic motivation for starting a war with China. It was because of the economic boom that began in China in the first half of the 90s that a protracted economic crisis began in Japan. Since the 1990s, the PRC, with the help of a weak national currency, has ousted Japanese producers from world markets. Against the backdrop of cheap goods from Chinese manufacturers, which automatically copy all the scientific and economic innovations of the United States and Japan, high-quality, but relatively expensive Japanese goods in many countries of the world turned out to be unclaimed. Because of this, Japan could not cope with deflation for 15 years. Therefore, with the help of war, Japan can destroy the economy of the Celestial Empire and return the former markets for its goods.

If a war breaks out, Japan will cut off China's tanker oil, which is supplied from Saudi Arabia and makes up the bulk of the oil received, so China will be forced to turn to us for oil.

Moreover, if the war does happen, then the Chinese economy will sag, the US and Japanese economies will sag. all resources will be directed to the war. Against this backdrop, we can rise. It's easier than being in the lead in quiet times.

Therefore, Russia, having entered into an agreement with Japan, loses practically nothing. Will Japan share with us the heavy burden of lifting the region from its knees? It's for the best. It is not worth now either sowing panic about the surrender of the Kuriles to the Japanese, or being subjected to it yourself. Judging by how Putin is now investing in the development of the Far East and by what advantages we can get from cooperation, no one really began to trade territories. The islands remained with us, which is what the media says.

A feature of Russia's relations with Japan is the existence in them of the problem of concluding a peace treaty, which would include the solution of the issue of border delimitation.

The main obstacle to reaching an agreement is Japan's unfounded territorial claims to the southern Kuril Islands (Iturup Island, Kunashir Island and the Lesser Kuril Ridge).

The Kuril Islands are an archipelago of volcanic islands on the border of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean, between the island of Hokkaido and the Kamchatka Peninsula. They consist of two parallel ridges of islands - the Greater Kuril and the Lesser Kuril. The first information about the Kuril Islands was reported by the Russian explorer Vladimir Atlasov. In 1745, most of the Kuril Islands were mapped.

In parallel with the development of the Kuriles by Russia, the Japanese were advancing to the Northern Kuriles. Reflecting the Japanese onslaught, Russia in 1795 built a fortified military camp on the island of Urup. By 1804, dual power had actually developed in the Kuriles: the influence of Russia was more strongly felt in the Northern Kuriles, and Japan's influence in the Southern Kuriles. But formally, all the Kuriles still belonged to Russia.

On February 7 (January 26, old style), 1855, the first Russian-Japanese treaty, the Treaty on Trade and Borders, was signed. He proclaimed relations of peace and friendship between the two countries, opened three Japanese ports for Russian ships and established a border in the South Kuriles between the islands of Urup and Iturup.

In 1875, a new Treaty was concluded, according to which Russia ceded 18 Kuril Islands to Japan. Japan, in turn, recognized the island of Sakhalin as wholly owned by Russia.

With the conclusion of a new agreement - the Treatise on Trade and Navigation between Russia and Japan (1895), the Treaty of 1855 became invalid, but the validity of the agreement of 1875 was confirmed.

In turn, the Treaty of 1895 was unilaterally torn up by Japan after the attack on Russia in 1904. The Treaty of 1875 remained in force until 1905, when, following the results of the Russo-Japanese War, as a result of which Japan emerged victorious, the Treaty of Portsmouth was signed, according to which Russia ceded to Japan all the Kuriles and southern Sakhalin (south of the 50th parallel of northern latitude) . Moreover, from 1920 to May 1925, Northern Sakhalin was under the occupation of Japan.

On February 11, 1945, at the Crimean (Yalta) conference between the leaders of the Soviet Union, the USA and Great Britain, Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, an agreement was signed according to which, in exchange for the participation of Soviet troops in the war against Japan, the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin, lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

On September 2, 1945, Japan signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender, accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, which limited its sovereignty 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 Khabomai went to the Soviet Union.

At the 1951 San Francisco Conference, the USSR did not sign a peace treaty with Japan. One of the reasons for this step was the absence in the text of the treaty of clear indications that South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands came under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union (in accordance with the decisions of the Crimean (Yalta) conference of 1945).

The refusal to sign had serious diplomatic consequences. Taking advantage of this fact, Japan, on the recommendation of the United States, in 1955 presented the USSR with claims to all the Kuril Islands and the southern part of Sakhalin, this time referring to the bilateral Treaty on Trade and Borders of 1855. As a result of two years of negotiations, the positions of the parties drew closer, and Japan limited its claims to the islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashir and Iturup.

On October 19, 1956, the Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan on the termination of the state of war between the two states and the restoration of diplomatic and consular relations was signed in Moscow. The declaration recorded the parties' renunciation of mutual claims that arose as a result of the war, as well as the USSR's renunciation of reparation claims against Japan. The leadership of the USSR found it possible to note in the document that the Soviet Union, meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state, agrees to the transfer of the Habomai Islands and the island of

Shikotan, however, with the fact that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan will be made after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the parties.

Simultaneously with the declaration, a protocol on the development of trade with the mutual granting of most favored nation treatment was signed.

After the conclusion of the Japanese-American security treaty in 1960, the USSR canceled the obligations assumed by the 1956 declaration.

During the Cold War, Moscow was between the two countries.

In April 1991, following an official visit to Japan by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, a Joint Soviet-Japanese Statement was signed, in which the Soviet Union for the first time officially recognized the existence of a territorial problem in relations with Japan, the importance of accelerating the work to complete the preparation of a peace treaty using the accumulated experience in bilateral negotiations, starting with the Joint Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956.

After the collapse of the USSR, a new stage began in Russian-Japanese relations. In October 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin paid an official visit to Japan. During the negotiations, on October 13, the Tokyo Declaration was signed, which spoke of the need to "overcome the difficult legacy of the past in bilateral relations" and "to conclude a peace treaty as soon as possible by resolving this issue" in order to fully normalize bilateral relations.

In subsequent years, the leaders of Russia and Japan repeatedly returned to the issue of a peace treaty and the territorial problem, but to no avail, since the positions of the parties are diametrically opposed.

Japan claims the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai, referring to the bilateral Treatise on Trade and Frontiers of 1855. Moscow's position is that the southern Kuriles became part of the USSR following World War II, and Russian sovereignty over them has a corresponding international legal framework.

According to the Joint Declaration of 1956, the transfer of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty was stipulated, and the fate of Kunashir and Iturup was not affected. It is precisely the delimitation of the status of the two pairs of islands in this document, according to experts, that created the main difficulties for the entire negotiation process over the next 60 years. The idea of ​​transferring two islands to Japan first, as stipulated in the 1956 declaration, was discussed at a meeting of the leaders of Russia and Japan, Vladimir Putin and Yoshiro Mori in 2001, but with the coming to power of Junichiro Koizumi, the idea was shelved.

In mid-October 2016, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that President Vladimir Putin should take responsibility and jointly advance negotiations to resolve the issue of a peace treaty.

(Additional

The issue of concluding a Russian-Japanese peace treaty has alarmed the Japanese opposition - it is going to demand clarification from Prime Minister Abe about his negotiations with Vladimir Putin in Singapore. The slightest suspicion of surrendering positions causes indignation not only in Japan, but also in Russia. However, it looks very likely that Abe is indeed trying to find a compromise with Putin. The question now is whether Russia needs it.

The Singapore meeting between Putin and Abe was already the third this year - and not the last, because the politicians are going to talk again in two weeks in Argentina. But it was the current conversation that became a turning point - the Japanese prime minister said that his country was ready to return to discussing the territorial issue with Russia on the basis of the 1956 Declaration. That is, on the way to moving towards a peace treaty between the two countries, which Abe vows to conclude without leaving the problem to future generations, there seems to have been a breakthrough. Why a breakthrough and why, it seems?

Because the declaration signed by the Soviet and Japanese premiers in the fall of 1956 just provides for the solution of the so-called. territorial problem through the conclusion of a peace treaty and the subsequent transfer to Japan of two of the four islands (Shikotan and Habomai, smaller in area and importance). The declaration, although it was approved by the parliaments of the two countries, did not lead to success - it, in fact, was buried by the conclusion of a military alliance with the United States in 1960 by Japan.

When in 2013 Putin and Abe decided to start settling the issue of a peace treaty and closing the topic of the territorial dispute, they returned to the declaration again - Putin spoke more than once about our recognition of it. Japan has always stipulated that it is interested in all four islands - but now in Singapore, Abe himself announced his intention to speed up negotiations on a peace treaty, "taking as a basis" the 1956 declaration. So in that sense, it's a breakthrough.

But, on the other hand, Abe cannot now afford to officially recognize the rejection of the demand for all four islands (even as a condition for concluding a treaty) - this will cause a huge scandal and a political storm. The Japanese opposition was already alarmed. On Thursday, the leaders of all six of the country's opposition parties held an emergency meeting and decided to summon the prime minister to parliament as soon as possible to give a detailed account of the talks with Putin in Singapore:

“We have very little information.

Howondering if things are moving towards the return of the four northern islands or if there will be a change of course in negotiations with Russia?

That is, the opposition is afraid that Abe will conclude a peace treaty without receiving the islands - and in exchange for the promise of two, not four. To reassure the public, a Japanese government spokesman said nothing had changed:

“The consistent position of our country is that a peace treaty is concluded after the decision on the ownership of the northern territories. And there is no change on this point.”

But there is no smoke without fire - it seems that Abe is really testing the ground for a compromise with Putin through the abandonment of claims to Iturup and Kunashir. Moreover, no one in the world believes that Russia will ever give up these islands, and the realist Abe understands this as well as Putin. And in order to reach an agreement with Russia, he has three years left: at the end of 2021, he will cease to be prime minister. In September, in Vladivostok, Putin challenged Abe by suggesting that he conclude a peace treaty right now, and only then talk about everything else. Abe then, of course, refused. But now he made a move.

In response, the Russian side was followed by a comment by Vladimir Putin, which he gave, answering questions from the press at the end of his trip to Singapore:

“Japan would be ready to return to the discussion of this problem on the basis of the 1956 declaration. But this, of course, requires a separate, additional serious study, bearing in mind that far from everything is clear in the declaration itself.

There, in principle, only the problem is stated that the Soviet Union is ready to transfer two islands to the southern part of the ridge, but it is not said on what grounds and under whose sovereignty they fall. This is all the subject of serious study, especially since Japan itself once refused to implement these agreements.”

That is, translating from diplomatic - now we will think about how to interpret the promise to transfer the two islands. It is clear that after the conclusion of a peace treaty, but what does “hand over” mean? Maybe rent it out, or under joint management (condominium)? And these are not tricks - but a normal element of negotiations, diplomatic bargaining. Now let the Japanese continue to persuade us to return to the declaration, to hear how we understand its content.

Moreover, until Abe himself declares publicly that "now we want two, not four" (at least in this form - "we agree to signing an agreement with a promise to transfer two islands, and on the other two we will negotiate later”), there is no point in meeting halfway between someone who has not settled the issue of new Japanese conditions with Japanese society itself. Let Abe first deal with the Japanese, survive the inevitable scandal and storm, and then we will talk concretely.

That is, Abe tried to throw the ball to Putin's side. But do it in such a way that it seems to the Japanese that the position on the four islands remains unchanged. Putin does not like this turn, and he actually returns the ball to Abe, pushing him to talk with his own people.

Why is it difficult for Abe to admit the obvious - Russia will never negotiate the fate of Iturup and Kunashir, and if Japan wants to conclude a peace treaty with Russia, it needs to agree with what they give (that is, they promise to transfer two islands, and then subject to certain conditions)? Because public opinion is strongly opposed to giving up claims to all four islands, and any attempt by Abe to change Tokyo's position will be used to accuse him of national betrayal.

But Abe and Japan have no alternative. It is pointless to wait for Russia to change its position, and Tokyo needs normal and even close relations with Moscow much more than we do. Because the process of restoring full-fledged Japanese sovereignty, initiated by Abe, does not concern the Kuril Islands, but Japan itself - and for its successful advancement, Tokyo needs to build the right balance in its relations with the China-Russia-US triangle.

Japan cannot become more self-reliant and more independent from the US if it maintains bad relations with Russia and is in a tough confrontation with China. But if it has a lot of serious historical and modern disputes and contradictions with China, then the establishment of relations with Russia is hindered by one, completely far-fetched and inflated at the suggestion of the same Americans, the “problem of northern territories”.

Solving it means significantly facilitating and accelerating Japan's path to gaining real sovereignty. Will Shinzo Abe have the guts to do it?

September 8, 1951 Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida signs the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Photo: ria.ru (archive)

In December 2016, the leaders of Russia and Japan issued a statement on joint economic activities on the four South Kuril Islands. In Russia, an agreement Vladimir Putin And Shinzo Abe regarded as de facto recognition by Japan of Russian sovereignty over these islands. The past year has shown that in Japan it is assessed somewhat differently: as the beginning of the “pre-sale preparation” of the islands.

In general, in the Far East, the intensification of Russian-Japanese cooperation is becoming more noticeable, at least at the level of discussion and criticism of the proposed projects. But with regard to Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai group, there is nothing to discuss and criticize ... because of the desire of the Japanese side to introduce such “cunning” conditions into the projects that would imply a certain “special legal regime”, first of all, the regime extraterritoriality for the activities of Japanese companies.

On December 19, the Prime Minister of Japan reaffirmed the invariance of Tokyo's position. "We will consistently move towards resolving the problem of ownership of these four islands and concluding a peace treaty," Abe said at a meeting with leading Japanese experts on foreign and domestic policy. Along the way, complaining that Russia is in no hurry to "concrete" joint projects in the southern Kuriles. “Concretization” is, we recall, a special regime for Japanese companies.

Some revival of the topic (so far only informational) of the southern Kuriles was worked out only by domestic Japanophiles. In Russia, they react sharply to the statement of a secular lioness, whom someone told that Crimea “from the point of view of international law” belongs to Ukraine. Such statements regarding the four Kuril Islands, perhaps slightly covered up by the format of "forecasts and reasoning", have become commonplace.

This is despite the fact that in Japan even a hint from any prominent expert, not to mention politicians, in favor of recognizing the Russian ownership of the four Kuril Islands is unthinkable. It is noteworthy that the Japanese Communist Party from Soviet times to this day insists on the return of not only the southern, but also the northern Kuriles.

In Russia, a leading expert from one of the MGIMO research centers can easily admit the possibility of transferring Russian territory to Japan. Of course, through “if” and “under certain conditions”: “It must be understood that if we nevertheless agree with the Japanese on the transfer of the islands, one of the most important conditions for such an agreement will be that the islands will become a demilitarized zone. And not only are there no military bases of the United States or other third countries, but there can be no Japanese military bases there either. It should be clearly spelled out." After that, the international expert, without batting an eyelid, flogs utter nonsense: “In the event of an attempt to place bases there, Japan automatically loses sovereignty over the islands.” This is how it will be “written” and how it will be executed?

At the same time, following the meeting between Putin and Abe in the fall of 2016, another expert, a leading researcher at the IMEMO Center for North American Studies, bravely demanded that the Japanese not push too hard: “They say that there should be no preconditions, but we believe that to be". And he repeated the well-known Japanese proposal on “delayed sovereignty”: Russia today recognizes the islands as Japanese, and is leaving there gradually. And of course, "no foreign bases and ships."

In December 2017, the topic was marked by a well-known senior researcher at the Higher School of Economics in the media space: “The disputed territories - partially or completely - will pass to Japan with some restrictions. One of them is that there should be no US military presence in the territories transferred by Russia.” And in order to emphasize his access to insider information, he added nonsense on his own behalf: “In general, the negotiations are kept secret so that nationalist elements on both sides cannot interfere in them.” These negotiations are not kept secret, as they are not intended to reach a secret agreement. These are the basics. The closed part here, as in any (!) negotiations, are the details of the discussions and subtotals. This is also basics.

And this is all against the backdrop of a statement by the Secretary of the Security Council of Japan Shotaro Yachi that after the return of the "Northern Territories" they will be fully covered by the US-Japanese Treaty on Mutual Cooperation and Security Guarantees, and therefore: "Yes, such a possibility (appearance of US troops in the southern Kuriles) exists."

That is, the Russians are not even offered a discussion on the topic: “Whose Kuriles?”. Here, an honest discussion will be over in half an hour: Japanese arguments are a mixture of unparalleled lies, stupidity and rudeness. It is proposed to recognize Japanese rights a priori and immediately move on to a discussion on the topic: "On what conditions will we surrender?"

The position of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which does not enter into and does not encourage public discussions on this topic, is generally understandable. The position is precisely in the unwillingness to legalize such discussions. At the same time, based on the principle of “sufficiency of reason”, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs periodically voices the only official argument: “Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands passed to the USSR / Russia as a result of the Yalta-Potsdam agreements and the defeat of Japanese militarism in World War II.” Indeed, any extension of the argument beyond what is necessary will become ... an invitation to discussion.

But there are a couple of nuances. First, a comfortable environment is being created for those who like to speculate about what Russia could ask for the return of the "Japanese islands." There are plenty of informational reasons for this: in February, another “Day of the Northern Territories” will be held in Japan, in May Shinzo Abe is going to visit Moscow, then another anniversary of the defeat of Japan, plus meetings at the G20 APEC summits, etc.

The second nuance is that the Japanese side does not formally deny the argument of the Russian Foreign Ministry! “Yes, the USSR occupied the islands as a result of the Second World War, but there are some misunderstandings here.” That is, the main argument of the Russian Foreign Ministry does not work without a comprehensive criticism of the Japanese arguments. Only the organization of a broad, aggressive discussion on the Kuriles with a consistent defeat of the miserable Japanese (and pro-Japanese) argumentation will discourage the enemy from the desire and even the very sense to talk about the conditions for the surrender of the islands, will force him to go on the defensive. It is necessary first of all to reach out to the Japanese audience. Without any "Russian propaganda", already over 50% of the Japanese surveyed in 2016 declared their readiness to resolve the conflict on the basis of the Moscow Declaration of 1956. So far, the noisy minority sets the tone. This means that those who are inclined towards a settlement should become an overwhelming majority.

A small digression. According to the Moscow Declaration of 1956, the state of war between the two countries ended, and the USSR undertook to transfer Shikotan and Habomai to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty. After the signing of the Japanese-American security treaty in 1960, the USSR canceled the obligations assumed by the 1956 declaration, because. "transferring said islands to Japan would expand the territory used by foreign forces." The exchange of instruments of ratification has already taken place, and the denunciation of the agreement would mean a formal return to a state of war. Therefore, the withdrawal of the clause on the return of the islands was of a “hypothetical” nature: there is no peace treaty yet, which means that Moscow cannot be accused of violating the declaration because of the refusal to return the two islands. TO Mikhail Gorbachev there are many complaints, but in 1991, during a visit to Japan, he refused to mention the Moscow Declaration in his speech. BUT Boris Yeltsin not only recognized in 1993 the relevance of the declaration, but also stated in 1997 at a meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Ryu Hashimoto("Friend Ryu") about readiness to recognize the Shimoda Treaty of 1855. Fortunately, the statement was made in such an "informal setting" that the assistants immediately cleared up the misunderstanding as translation difficulties. The Japanese did not even have time to rejoice.

So, the arguments of the Japanese side. Many of them are difficult to name arguments. For example, the argument that the Soviet troops occupied the "disputed" islands after Japan "agreed to surrender." Here, firstly, there is a small forgery: agreeing to surrender and signing an act of surrender are not the same thing. Japan did officially declare on August 10, 1945, its readiness "in general" to accept the terms of surrender, but continued hostilities until the clause on the personal immunity of the emperor was agreed. The act of surrender was signed on 2 September. By this time, Soviet troops occupied Iturup, Kunashir and Shikotan (that is, all the islands except Habomai, theirs - on September 2). Secondly, not only in Germany, but even in the Courland Cauldron (Latvian SSR) there were many villages where the Red Army entered after May 9th. And what are the legal consequences of this?

Or the argument that the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 are not relevant to the USSR (Russia), since it did not sign this treaty. The problem of the Japanese side is that Japan's obligations are addressed to the world: "Japan renounces all rights, titles and claims to the Kuril Islands and to that part of Sakhalin Island and the islands adjacent to it, sovereignty over which Japan acquired under the Portsmouth Treaty of September 5, 1905 .". Their entry into force is not conditioned by the presence of signatures of all members of the anti-Japanese coalition. Under the contract there is no signature of China (both), Korea (both), Myanmar, India. Does this mean that Japan can again offer them its "protection"? And (sedition!) Let's even agree that the San Francisco Treaty has nothing to do with the USSR / Russia (after all, there is no peace treaty between the two countries). We agree with the reservation of the US Senate, which leaves room for further negotiations on the Kuriles. At the same time, the Senate "cancelled" the Yalta agreements in this part.

Probably feeling the futility of its main argument and the reservations of the parliament of a third country, Tokyo immediately offers an argument ... also appealing to the San Francisco Treaty (“having nothing to do with the USSR / Russia”!): It does not indicate the country to which the islands are transferred. It would be better if they didn't. "Recipient" is not specified for other territories that Japan has refused (Korea, Guam, Micronesia, Taiwan). However, no new agreements had to be signed to secure, say, Taiwan for China. Perhaps some state signatory to the treaty (Australia? Ethiopia? Honduras? Haiti? Laos?) will eventually lay claim to the Kuriles. Well, then Russia will have to sort things out with them. Japan has nothing to do with this.

An enchanting argument: in the San Francisco Treaty, the term “Kuril Islands” (“Tishima”) meant only their middle and northern part, but not the southern one. Of course, with a strong desire, Kunashir and Iturup can be declared a special group of islands. But in order for the trick to be successful, it was necessary to take care of the props in advance. Alas, on Japanese pre-war maps (physical, administrative, and others), the Kuriles (Tishima) are a single whole. And in October 1951, at a meeting of the Committee of the House of Representatives of the Japanese Parliament during the ratification of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the head of the treaty department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kumao Nishimura confirmed: "The territorial limits of the Tisima archipelago, referred to in the treaty, include both Northern Tisima and Southern Tisima."

The second group of Japanese arguments looks a little more solid. For example, the one that, in the spirit of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan abandoned the territories annexed as a result of wars. The Russian-Japanese Treaty of 1855 "On Permanent Peace and Sincere Friendship" (Shimodsky Treaty), according to which the southern part of the Kuril Islands was assigned to Japan, was concluded in peace. Consequently, their accession to the USSR in 1945 is illegal. But here Japan also has a problem. The treaty of 1855 spoke of the indivisibility of Sakhalin and the equal rights of both powers throughout the island. And according to the next, also peace treaty of 1875 "On the exchange of territories" (St. Petersburg Treaty), Russia received Sakhalin, ceding the northern part of the Kuriles to the "sincere friend". Thus, appealing to the "peaceful nature of annexation", Tokyo must either demand the indivisibility of Sakhalin, or heed the opinion of the Japanese Communist Party and demand the entire Kuriles. And so it turns out that Japan demands a "return" to a border that never existed before, only partially coinciding with the border of 1855! Towards a new frontier!

Let's say the Japanese are modest. And this is more than understandable. Not so much even by the attack on Port Arthur in 1904, but by the annexation of the southern part of Sakhalin under the terms of the Peace of Portsmouth in 1905, i.e., by violating some of the articles of the previous treaties (1855 and 1875), Japan personally tore one and the other and has no legal nor the moral right to refer to them. The head of the Russian delegation at the talks in Portsmouth, Count Witte. The peaceful character of the Shimoda Treaty was destroyed at Portsmouth. This is not an opinion, but international law regarding the continuity of treaties. One can even agree that by 1855 the southern part of the Kuriles was already de facto mastered by Japan, that in Shimoda there was only a demarcation in accordance with the actual ownership. But even in this case, 1905 crossed out the peaceful nature of the agreements, and a new delimitation will have to be made according to the current state of actual ownership. The legal resuscitation of the "original", "historical" borders can only encourage the aggressors ("What's mine is mine, and what's yours - we'll see"). By the way, hello to the US Senate, which “annulled” Yalta and San Francisco, but forgot about Cairo: “Japan must also be expelled from all other territories captured by it through violence and greed” (Cairo Declaration-1943).

The last group of Japanese arguments appeals to morality. For example: in 1945, the USSR carried out a perfidious, unprovoked attack on Japan. Let's agree. But only after the condemnation of the Yalta-Potsdam agreements by the UN. Moreover, unlike the US Senate, "in a package." That is, not only in terms of the obligations of the USSR to enter the war against Japan 2–3 months after the end of the war in Europe, but also in terms of agreements on the creation of the UN itself as an instrument of peace and the prevention of aggression and territorial claims in the post-war world.

If the statement that every nation has the government it deserves is true, then another is also true: the people must be responsible for the actions of their government. Russians, Germans, all the peoples of the world at one time or another have experienced this rule for themselves. The Japanese people cannot claim an exception for themselves. This is immoral.

Albert Hakobyan (Urumov)