Kuril Islands Dispute

Case Study of Russian-Japanese Relations

Jason Boothe GEOG 443

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................... II INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 GEOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 2 EARLY HISTORY AND RELATIONS.................................................... 3 EARLY HISTORY ................................................................................3 THE FIRST TREATIES...........................................................................4 20TH CENTURY CONFLICTS............................................................. 5 SECOND WORLD WAR.........................................................................5 THE TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO............................................................7 SOVIET-JAPANESE JOINT DECLARATION OF 1956.........................................7 PRESENT DAY AND CURRENT VIEWS................................................ 8 PRESENT SITUATION...........................................................................8 CURRENT VIEW OF JAPAN.....................................................................9 CURRENT VIEW OF RUSSIA..................................................................10 CONCLUSION............................................................................... 11 APPENDIX..................................................................................... A MAPS............................................................................................. A BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................. C

ii

Introduction
Since the time of the Edo period, if not earlier, Japan has been a series of territorial disputes with its neighbors. For the most part, many of these territorial disputes remain today. Some have faded away over time, while others still persist today. These issues present a constant challenge to the relations between Japan and its neighbors. While serious armed conflicts between Japan and its neighbors over territory has not happened since the Second World War, tensions over these disputed territories remain, and it is not uncommon to hear of skirmishes. One issue in particular is that of the Japanese dispute with Russia over the Kuril Islands (Russian: , Kuril'skie ostrova; Japanese: , Chishima rett). The dispute over the sovereignty of these islands dates to nearly the time that Russian Empire began to make its presence known in the Pacific in the 1600s. Armed conflict and subsequent treaties in the 1800s and 1900s lead to several border changes between the two nations involving the island chain. Currently the dispute arises from the perceived ambiguity on both sides left behind by the Yalta Agreement, the Potsdam Declaration and the Treaty of San Francisco, particularly pertaining to the area of the Kuril Islands known to the Japanese as The Northern Territories (Japanese: Hopp Rydo), the islands of Iturup 1

(Russian: )/Etorofu Island (Japanese: Etorofu-t), Kunashir (Russian: )/Kunashiri Island (Japanese: Kunashiri-t), Shikotan (Russian: )/Shikotan Island (Japanese: Shikotant), and Habomai rocks (Russian: ostrova Habomai)/Habomai Islands (Japanese: Habomai-shot). The purpose of this paper is to examine the geographic background of the islands, the history of the dispute, the perspective of the current status of the dispute from both the Russians and Japanese, as well as what the future possibly holds.

Geography
The Kuril Islands are a volcanic archipelago stretching approximately 810 miles northeast from Hokkaido to the southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula. There are fifty-six identifiable islands in the chain, as well as a number of islets and rocks. Currently the entire chain is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, administered by Sakhalin Oblast. Japan disputes this and has claimed that the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, and the Habomai rocks are part of its territory, though it maintains no administrative control over the disputed area. The islands represent an area of high volcanic and seismic activity.

Early History and Relations

Early History
It is believed that the Ainu people were the first inhabitants of the islands, little documentation exists pertaining to human settlement of the islands prior to 17th century. The Japanese were the first to take administrative control over the islands during the Edo period. The control was nominal and in the form of claims made by the Matsumae clan. By the 17th century, the Russian Empire began to encroach on the Kurils; however, this encroachment was limited to research and hunting expeditions that never ventured south of Urup Island (Kashrinnkov, 1972.). By the 18th century, Russian settlements began to spread as far south as Iturup. It was at this time that agents representing the Russian Empire made contact with and established limited relations with the Japanese people. At the same time, the Japanese under the leadership of the Tokugawa shogunate, began to exert limited control over the lower Kuril Islands (Stephan, 1974.). These relations, however, did not lead to constant harmony between the two groups. It was not uncommon for members of one nation to inadvertently wander into or become shipwrecked in the territory to the other, knowledge of the borders were ill defined at the time. These incidents continued to increase to the point of full attacks

by Russian settlers on Japanese controlled sites in the island chain. By the early 19th century, it was clear that a border would have to be decided between the two nations. After some discussion, the Russian government de facto recognized Etorofu as Japanese territory, thus establishing the first delamination, though not official, of a border between the two nations (Stephan, 1974.).

The First Treaties

This, however, would only lead to a short-term peace. By the mid century, both nations began to saber rattle over issues concerning Sakhalin. By 1855, the Russian government entered into negotiations with the Japanese government seeking an attempt to resolve these issues. The result was the Treat of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation or Shimoda Treaty. The Treaty, while officially establishing diplomatic and trade relations between the nations, would also demarcate an official border between Russia and Japan, between Etorofu and Uruppu (Hasegawa, 1998.). The treaty, however, failed to effectively address the Sakhalin Island issues. By 1869, the now Meiji government of Japan negotiated the Treaty of Saint Petersburg with the Russian government. The Treaty effectively acted as a trade, in which the Russia gained complete control of Sakhalin (Japan giving up all claims of the island), giving the Japan control over the entirety of the Kuril Islands (Hasegawa, 1998.). 4

The next several decades were relative quiet in regards to the Kuril Islands. While Japan and Russia/Soviet Union were involved military conflicts between the signing of the Treaty of Saint Petersburg and the Second World War, all were centered on mainland Asia (Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula) or Sakhalin Island. The results of the conflicts also played little part in border changes with regards to the Kuril Islands (Hasegawa, 1998.).

20th Century Conflicts

Second World War
From the end of the Japanese-Soviet Border Wars in 1939 to when the Soviet Union declared war on the Japanese Empire in 1945 there were virtually no hostilities between the two nations. Between August 18 and September 3, Soviet forces captured the Kuril Islands in anticipation of a possible invasion of Hokkaido. The war concluded prior to an invasion of Hokkaido commenced (Hasegawa, 1998.) (Kimura, 2008). The modern day dispute arises from this incident and subsequent agreements and treaties. Major ambiguities and disagreements over the status of the Kuril Islands is the result primarily of the Yalta agreement, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Treaty of San Francisco. (Kimura, 2008)

The Yalta agreement, negotiated between the Allied powers (United States, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union) and signed by them in February of 1945, stated that the Kurile Islands should be handed over to the Soviet Union. Japan disputes this in that it believes that the area of the Kuril Islands it calls the Northern Territories are not part of the Kuril Islands, so there for the Yalta agreement should not apply to them (Elleman, Nichols, and Ouimet, 1998) (Kimura, 2008). Japan points to wording in the Potsdam Declaration, which refers to the Cairo Declaration, to support its claim to the Northern Territories. The Potsdam Declaration mentions that Japanese sovereignty following the Second World War be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and minor outlining islands to be determined by the terms set in the Cairo Declaration. The Cairo Declaration, agreed to in 1943 by the Allied powers, stated Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. Japan has argued that neither the Cairo nor Potsdam Declarations applied to the Northern Territories. Prior to the war, the islands were possessions of Japan (since 1855), and they were not among those territories that Japan acquired by violence or greed during the Second World War (Elleman, Nichols, and Ouimet, 1998) (Kimura, 2008) (Hasegawa, 1998.).

The Treaty of San Francisco

In the early 1950s, the Allied powers began to negotiate with Japan for a permanent peace treaty that would reintroduce Japan back into the international community. However during negotiations, a substantial dispute arose between Japan, the Unites States, and the Soviet Union, in regards to the Kuril Islands. The point of discontent for the Soviet Union was text in a draft stating that while Japan would renounce all of their right to the Kuril Islands (as well as southern Sakhalin), they would not have to recognize the sovereignty of the Soviet Union to these territories. A variation of this would be in the final version of the treaty (Kimura, 2008) (Hara, 2001). The Soviet Union would end up not signing the treaty, which was officially signed by 49 other nations including Japan and the United States. The Soviets stated publicly that the Kuril Island issue, as well as other issues, led them not to agree with the terms of the treaty, and therefor not sign it. The United States would go on to pass a resolution giving support to the Japanese position of the Soviet Union having no claim to the Kurils, with particular mention of the islands making up the Northern Territories (Hara, 2001) (Narochniskaya, 2005).

Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956

By 1956, another attempt was made for a peace treaty between the Japanese and the Soviets. The Soviets put forth a proposal that

they would settle the dispute by returning to Japan Shikotan and Habomai for the ratification of the treaty. Japan, realizing that its claims to Etorofu and Kunashiri were relatively weak, agreed to the settlement. The United States attempted to scuttle the treaty by asserting that the San Francisco treaty left the sovereignty of territories renounced by Japan undetermined, and that because of this Japan does not have the right to transfer sovereignty of said territories (Hara, 2001).

Irregardless of the to the dissatisfaction of the United States, the Soviet Union and Japan signed the Joint Declaration on October 19, 1956 in Moscow. While this ended the sate of war between the two nations, it did not address the Kuril Islands dispute. To this day the Russians have yet to return the sovereignty of Shikotan and Habomai to the Japanese. Ambiguous language in the Joint Declaration places the time of a transfer of sovereignty for the two island happening after a formalized peace treaty is adopted by both nations, a step that has yet to occur (Hara, 2001) (Kimura, 2008).

Present Day and Current Views

Present Situation
Since the 1956 Joint Declaration, little has happened in regards to the settlement of the Kuril Islands Dispute. No peace treaty has been formalized between the nations; with both nations are holding 8

positions similar to those they had when the 1956 Joint Declaration was implemented.

According to scholars, now looking at it in retrospect, the best opportunity to reach a settlement, at least favorable to the Japanese, might have come during the Gorbachev and Yeltsin Presidencies of the Soviet Union/Russia. At this time, relations between the two nations were seen as more favorable than previously and currently. Several dialogs were attempted during this time, but none would pan out (Satoshi, 1991) (Okuyama, 2003) (Hasegawa, 1998.). In recent years, neither Tokyo nor Moscow, have put forth much effort in regards to attempting a mutual settlement for this dispute. In fact, both nations have made moves reinforcing their claims.

Current View of Japan

Japan is primarily interested in the part of the Kuril Islands that sits nearest to Hokkaido, the territory it labels the Northern Territories. The Government of Japan makes it case for its claim primarily in the forum of international law and historical arguments. The government states that Soviet Union broke international law when it occupied the Northern Territories in 1945, a violation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Act. Japan also states that the Yalta Agreement is invalid, being that as it was not a party to it when it was negotiated or agreed

upon. The Potsdam and Cairo Declarations do not apply to the Northern Territories, as Russia had no claim to the territory prior to 1904. Japan has also stated that the San Francisco Treaty does not apply for the reason that the Soviet Union never agreed to it. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has produced a pamphlet that lists several other reasons it disputes the claims of Russia (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan), 2005). However there is one significant argument that Japanese Government continues to make. That is the Northern Territories are a separate entity from the Kuril Islands. They fail to state if they define it as a political difference, or a physical difference. The public's interest in the dispute is difficult to gauge. While much of the scholarly works on this subject comes out of Japan, there is little in the way of pure opinion on the subject. There are private groups that advocate the government for a return of Japanese control to the Northern Territories, but their influence is seen as limited. Some nationalist parties and sects have expressed interest in retaking the islands, but it is difficult to determine their effect on public policy.

Current View of Russia

Russia views the Kuril Islands as a strategic part of their Far East/Pacific territories. Their basis for continuing to hold sovereignty over the Kuril Islands and the Northern Territories lies in the actions of 10

the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Moscow states that the Yalta agreement, and subsequent agreements and Treaties gave the Soviet Union the right to the entirety of the Kuril Islands. As the successor state to the Soviet Union, the claims and agreements that were afforded to the Soviet Union have been passed onto the Russian Federation. Moscow also believes that Tokyos claim that the Northern Territories are distinct from the rest of the Kuril Islands is not supported by either history or geography (Narochnitskaya, 2005). The Russian publics attitude towards is similar to that of their government. The Russian people believe that the entirety Kuril Islands are rightfully theirs. This is a theme that is often repeated in the Russian media as well. While the Russian government, the Russian media and the Russian public play a hardline stance, Moscow has made overtures to Tokyo about resuming negotiations on a peace treaty. At the same time though Moscow has pumped billions of dollars in development aid to the Kuril Islands as well as increases their military presence in the archipelago (RAI Novosit, 2011).

Conclusion
In conclusion, while both side seem amicable to discussing a peace treaty and resolving this dispute, I do not foresee a resolution any time in the future. The actions taken by the government in Moscow, such as the further militarization of the Islands and the 11

propaganda visits, shows to me that the Russians have little to no interest in returning the Northern Territories to Japan. Japan seems to have just as little interest, at least what i can see from the government, in having the islands returned. Japan is concerned with the amount of influence that is being projected by the Russians from these Islands. One concern that seems to be increasing with Japan is Russias military build-up on the Islands.

In evaluating the claims, I would have to give the edge to Japan. Though Ill admit my opinion on this could be seen as biased, for the reason being Japanese writers wrote most of the scholarly information that I examined on the dispute. I see their claim being on more solid footing in both a legal and historical sense then the Russian claim to the Islands. It has been said though To the Victor Goes the Spoils, and being that Japan was not the victor in the Second World War, it lost its spoils to the Soviet Union, who now as the Russian Federation is particularly reluctant to relinquish.

12

Appendix
Maps

Map 1. Map of Chisima, Gisuke Sasmori (1915)

Map 2. Kuril Islands overview map with current Russian names (English transliteration). Borders of Shimoda Treaty (1855) and Treaty of St. Petersburg (1875) shown in red, ChrisDHDR (2008)

Bibliography
A Georgia-Japan alliance against the Russian occupier? | Features & Opinion | RIA Novosti. http://en.rian.ru/trend/kuril_2010/ (Accessed May 3, 2011). ChrisDHDR. 2008. Kuril Islands overview map with current Russian names (English transliteration). Borders of Shimoda Treaty (1855) and Treaty of St. Petersburg (1875) shown in red. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Demis-kurils-russian_names.png (Accessed May 3, 2011). Elleman, Bruce A., Michael R. Nichols, and Matthew J. Ouimet. 1998. A Historical Reevaluation of Americas Role in the Kuril Islands Dispute. Pacific Affairs 71(4): 489-504. Hara, Kimie. 2001. 50 Years from San Francisco: Re-Examining the Peace Treaty and Japans Territorial Problems. Pacific Affairs 74(3): 361-382. Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. 1998. The Northern Territories dispute and Russo-Japanese relations. Berkeley CA: University of California International and Area Studies. History of the Northern Territories. http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sm/hrt/hp-en/hist-en.htm (Accessed May 3, 2011). Kimura, Hiroshi. 2008. The Kurillian Knot. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Krashrninnikov, Stepan. 1972. Explorations of Kamchatka. Portland, OR: Glass-Dahlstrom Printers. Narochnitskaya, Natalia. 2005. Russians Want Back What Was Taken From Them. International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy & International Relations 51(3): 179-184. Okuyama, Yutaka. 2003. The Dispute Over the Kurile Islands between Russia and Japan in the 1990s. Pacific Affairs 76(1): 37. Sasamori, Gisuke. 1915. Map of Chisima. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Map_of_Chishima_by_Gisuke_Sasamori.jpg (Accessed May 2, 2001). Satoshi, Takayama. 1991. From Contention to Cooperation with the Soviets. Japan Quarterly 38(1): 33. Stephan, John. 1974. The Kuril Islands: Russo-Japanese frontier in the Pacific. Oxford: Clarendon Press.