Insolence Tokyo: Japan will pay for the expulsion of the Russian military from the Kuril Islands?
The day before, another exacerbation of an already unhealthy discussion took place around the fate of the South Kuril Islands. The head of Japanese diplomacy added fuel to the fire, saying publicly that a “peace treaty” with Moscow would also involve some kind of “military compensation”. What is going on, and where is the “squiggle” of the Kremlin external leading Russia policy?
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono stated verbatim:
Everything is in this phrase of the Japanese diplomat. Let's try to figure out who owes what to whom:
At firstJapan fought in World War II in an official alliance with the Nazi Third Reich. And she lost. Her surrender was recorded on September 2, 1945. This fact means the actual and legal termination of the state of war, which in itself makes the existence of a “peace treaty” between the Russian Federation and Japan desirable, but not necessary.
Rather, it is possible to negotiate a treaty on good neighborly relations, however, for this there is absolutely no need to return to the dust-covered 1956 Declaration. Recall that it was in it that Khrushchev gave preliminary consent to the return of Tokyo Shikotan and Habomai. By the way, it’s fashionable to accuse Nikita Sergeyevich of transferring Crimea to Ukraine, which gave rise to today's territorial problems between Moscow and Kiev. The Khrushchev’s Declaration of 1956 can hardly be a moral reference point in foreign policy, and is something other than a “specious” reason for the return of the Russian Kuril Islands to Japan.
Secondly, no "territorial problem" between Russia and Japan simply does not exist. In 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed between Japan and the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, where Japan refused, we quote:
As a matter of fact, besides impudence and a short historical memory, Tokyo has nothing behind it. That is precisely why domestic diplomacy raises questions, which, with an anguish, requires Japan to recognize Russian sovereignty over the Kuril Islands.
ThirdlyWhat kind of "military compensation"?
Yes, about 6 thousand Japanese lived in the Kuril Islands before the war. Japan, who lost the war, now offers the victorious country to pay their costs associated with the relocation and loss of property? Then Japanese impudence takes on truly unprecedented proportions. Maybe next, for the sake of friendship with Germany, to pay the costs of former residents of the Kaliningrad region?
However, experts immediately rushed to “reassure” us, saying the following:
It turns out that if such an interpretation of Kono’s statement is true, then Japan is ready to pay for the expulsion of our military from our Kuril Islands. This "normal" one turns out to be a "fork" between the options, right? In general, such impudence of Tokyo is possible only with the complete spinelessness of the second side in the negotiations.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono stated verbatim:
The conclusion of a peace treaty includes ending the state of war, resolving a territorial problem, as well as problems related to military compensation.
Everything is in this phrase of the Japanese diplomat. Let's try to figure out who owes what to whom:
At firstJapan fought in World War II in an official alliance with the Nazi Third Reich. And she lost. Her surrender was recorded on September 2, 1945. This fact means the actual and legal termination of the state of war, which in itself makes the existence of a “peace treaty” between the Russian Federation and Japan desirable, but not necessary.
Rather, it is possible to negotiate a treaty on good neighborly relations, however, for this there is absolutely no need to return to the dust-covered 1956 Declaration. Recall that it was in it that Khrushchev gave preliminary consent to the return of Tokyo Shikotan and Habomai. By the way, it’s fashionable to accuse Nikita Sergeyevich of transferring Crimea to Ukraine, which gave rise to today's territorial problems between Moscow and Kiev. The Khrushchev’s Declaration of 1956 can hardly be a moral reference point in foreign policy, and is something other than a “specious” reason for the return of the Russian Kuril Islands to Japan.
Secondly, no "territorial problem" between Russia and Japan simply does not exist. In 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed between Japan and the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, where Japan refused, we quote:
From all rights, legal bases and claims to the Kuril Islands and to that part of Sakhalin Island and the adjacent islands, over which Japan acquired sovereignty under the Portsmouth Treaty of September 5, 1905.
As a matter of fact, besides impudence and a short historical memory, Tokyo has nothing behind it. That is precisely why domestic diplomacy raises questions, which, with an anguish, requires Japan to recognize Russian sovereignty over the Kuril Islands.
ThirdlyWhat kind of "military compensation"?
Yes, about 6 thousand Japanese lived in the Kuril Islands before the war. Japan, who lost the war, now offers the victorious country to pay their costs associated with the relocation and loss of property? Then Japanese impudence takes on truly unprecedented proportions. Maybe next, for the sake of friendship with Germany, to pay the costs of former residents of the Kaliningrad region?
However, experts immediately rushed to “reassure” us, saying the following:
Japan counts on all four islands, and the armed forces are deployed on the islands of Kunashir and Iturup. And if Japan receives these islands, it will compensate for our military expenses for relocating the Russian military to the mainland.
It turns out that if such an interpretation of Kono’s statement is true, then Japan is ready to pay for the expulsion of our military from our Kuril Islands. This "normal" one turns out to be a "fork" between the options, right? In general, such impudence of Tokyo is possible only with the complete spinelessness of the second side in the negotiations.
Information