An in-depth study of the problem, however, quickly shows that in fact, it isn’t a problem at all. On the surface, it is clear as day: Russia and Japan have not signed a peace treaty to this day, because every time Russia tries to discuss it, Japan responds by demanding Russia “return” part of the Kuril Islands – Kunashir, Etorofo, Shikotan and the Minor Kuril Range.
But do we need this peace treaty so much as to make territorial concessions? Do we need it at all? Most people are awed by the very words “peace treaty,” shuddering at the thought that we might be at war tomorrow. On the other hand, a peace treaty simply means an agreement on the termination of war. Are we at war with Japan? No. There are other countries besides Japan which have no peace treaties with Russia. So what? We have wholesome economic partnerships with them. What we need is a friendship and cooperation agreement with Japan, rather than a “peace treaty.”
In any case, whatever the title of the document we lack, the territorial dispute is far-fetched. The Japanese often emphasize the historic aspect referring to the fact that all of the islands had formerly belonged to them. But if we really study the history of the place (even though the Kuril issue rather has to do with international law, and we’ll argue this point hereafter), the Kurils had initially been explored by Russian pioneers, as well as Sakhalin, an island which the Japanese believed to be a peninsula.
Today’s Japan is no longer the pre-war militarist nation it used to be, or “imperialist” nation as it was dubbed in the USSR. All the historic proofs it now presents rather belong to that former nation which is long gone from the international arena, and have nothing to do with the country we deal with today. A “return” of the Kuril Islands is out of the question. Just like present-day Germany, Japan cannot be a legal successor of the pre-war state which had unleashed and lost that war. It is implied by the unconditional surrender principle, and both countries have signed relevant acts.
It follows that the problem cannot be looked at from a historic perspective only. It would be more natural to discuss it as a legal issue. The term “return” is inapplicable here; therefore, it is a question of concession, or transfer, of the territories. Japan refers to a number of international agreements signed back in the 19th century, including the Treaty of Shimoda and the St. Petersburg Treaty. However, the Japanese have repeatedly violated those treaties by trespassing Russia’s territorial waters. Even forgetting that, the Russo-Japanese War invalidated all the earlier agreements between the two nations altogether. According to one of the basic principles of international law, a state of war between two nations cancels any previous agreements between them. Consequently, Japan had lost the right to refer to those treaties back in 1904, even before 1945.
As for the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905, which has often been described as the greatest defeat of Russian diplomacy, it was cancelled by Japan’s involvement in the Second World War.
The legal framework for today’s Kuril dispute settlement is expressly drawn by the outcomes of the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, as well as by the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan. In compliance with those resolutions, all of the Kuril Archipelago and Sakhalin went to the Soviet Union for ever. In a similar fashion, Alsace-Lorraine became part of France, Silesia, part of Poland (after having belonged to Prussia for 400 years), while the Dodecanese Islands (formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, then Italy) came under Greek sovereignty.
In a bid to prove the Yalta conference results “invalid,” Japan often points to the fact that it was not a participant in that conference and therefore cannot be committed by its resolutions. On the other hand, the Japanese emperor had never asked for anyone’s consent before beginning that war! The victorious nations moved the Polish border westward (to the Oder-Neisse line) without consulting Keitel who signed the act of surrender; does that mean parts of Poland have to be “returned” to Germany now, let alone the Kaliningrad Region which came under Soviet sovereignty according to the international resolutions made in Yalta and Potsdam? Those agreements cannot be modified in part. They could only be revised as a package, but would the other nations – France or Greece, for example – agree to that?
Incidentally, by signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, Japan in fact renounced all territorial claims on the Kurils and the part of Sakhalin it received under the Portsmouth Treaty. The San Francisco document was signed by 51 countries, including the United States.
No wonder Japan had trouble proving its current position on the Kuril issue after having signed that unambiguous document. That is why it ended up making an incredible “geographic discovery.” The Japanese now claim that the island of Shikotan and the Minor Kuril Range in fact belong to the Hokkaido system, while the notion of “Kurile Islands” does not include South Kurils – Kunashir and Etorofu. One doesn’t have to be expert in geography to see the absurdity of this statement. The Kuril Range is marked as an integral whole in any world atlas. The San Francisco Treaty indicated clearly and expressly that Japan relinquished sovereignty claims over the Kuril Islands, without mentioning four of them as a separate group. Japan even admitted that on various occasions.
Nikita Khrushchev somewhat complicated the matters in 1956 by signing the Russo-Japanese declaration. Under that document, the USSR was to cede Shikotan and the Minor Kuril Range to Japan, but only after a peace treaty is signed. However, legally, a declaration is different from a treaty, and again, “to cede” implies an act of goodwill, not a liability like “to return.”
Today’s politicians and diplomats often refer to that document while discussing further relations with Japan, but there are a number of international-law subtleties to it. First of all, there are serious doubts as to whether Russia should still abide by that declaration at all, after Japan violated it more than once. For example, it has signed a military cooperation agreement with the U.S., which allows the latter to deploy its forces to Japan for an indefinite period of time. The Soviet officials even amended the declaration in 1960 adding that the islands would go to Japan after a peace treaty was signed and all foreign forces withdrawn from the Japanese territory. For some reason, present-day politicians tend to forget about that statement by the USSR… Japan’s participation in supporting the U.S. occupation regime in Iraq can also be viewed as a unilateral violation of that declaration.
Occasionally, timid proposals are voiced to relinquish the islands after all, as we do not really need them that much, while peace and stability in the region are something we value. But ceding the islands won’t contribute to peace and stability. On the contrary, if we do it without proper legal grounds, it will entail serious consequences for both Russia and the APR. First of all, the Yalta agreements revised, we’ll be back to the 1905 situation, when the Portsmouth Treaty was in effect. Wouldn’t Japan be tempted to claim the remaining Kurils and the southern part of Sakhalin into the bargain?
Second, it would damage Russia’s economy: the Kuril area accounts for over 30% of all seafood caught in Russia. Third, it would seriously hit Russia’s defense: if the straits are closed, Russia’s Pacific Fleet will no longer be able to respond to emerging threats promptly enough. Moreover, it would disrupt the defense infrastructure in Russia’s Far East; U.S. missiles would soon be based in the islands which would be later used as footholds for hostilities in the region. Russia’s foreign policy and influence on the international arena would be harmed, too: it would be seen as a weak and dependant nation yielding to external pressure. Public discontent would grow. And finally, it would act as a precedent bringing up a whole chain of territorial issues: the Kaliningrad Region, the part of the Pechory District of the Pskov Region (claimed by Estonia) and parts of the Leningrad and Murmansk Regions and Karelia (claimed by Finland). Chechnya’s independence claims would come into political spotlight again. WW2 outcomes would be questioned as well as the post-war world order. That would in turn undermine stability both in Europe and Asia, and would be unacceptable in any case.
The Kuril problem is far-fetched; it doesn’t even exist. It all boils down to one nation’s territorial claims, groundless both historically and legally, of another one. To “resolve” the Kuril issue would therefore mean to define the disputed territories’ sovereignty. The Kuril Islands are part of Russia, which is confirmed by legal documents. Why should we cede our property? Just imagine a visitor asking to cede part of your own house or apartment you own on legal ground…
If one can afford to let one’s imagination run, suppose there is a nation in the contemporary world which is a successor, say, of the Golden Horde, or claims to be one. Suppose it now claims the city of Kazan, which Russian Czar Ivan IV (Terrible) once had so much trouble storming, insisting it was part of their lands “historically.” Right, we all have done history in high school. And they also taught us that America’s territory historically belonged to Indians – should it be ceded now, too? To Indians, or, possibly to Great Britain, which is a viable option, as the United States had once been British colonies… And after that, why don’t we revise the outcomes of the War of Independence?
