territorial claims Japan, Keywords:, Southern Kuril Islands, Taiwan, Diaoyu (Senkaku)

E. M. RUSAKOV

Candidate of Historical Sciences

The Japanese government's announcement in November 2009 of some "illegal Russian occupation" of the Southern Kuril Islands highlighted Tokyo's ongoing sluggish territorial mania.

This year 2010 marks the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II and more than half a century after the signing of the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of December 12, 1956, according to which the USSR and Japan ended the state of war, restored peace and good-neighborly relations, diplomatic and consular relations, and agreed to continue negotiations on the conclusion of a peace treaty. ¹.

But with a tenacity worthy of a better use, Tokyo has taken a hard-nosed stance all these years, seeking the South Kuril Islands, called the" northern territories " of Japan-Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan, and the South Kuril (Lesser Kuril) Ridge (Habomai).

Official Japan does not abandon attempts to rewrite the territories of other neighbors in its favor. And this applies not only to the Korean Dokdo Islands, which are discussed in the article by V. A. Grinyuk, but also to the small uninhabited Diaoyu Islands (Japanese name - Senkaku), which the Chinese consider their own, and even Taiwan, whose status, from the point of view of Tokyo, remains uncertain.

COOKIE IN YOUR POCKET

"10 theses of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan" concerning fr. Dokdo is a textbook example of the method of exhausting, blurting out and piling up facts used by Japanese diplomacy to justify territorial claims to its neighbors. With truly Jesuitical thoroughness, every fact, every incident that is interpreted by the Japanese side in favor of their claims is analyzed without a statute of limitations. All sorts of loopholes, reservations, references to Old Testament documents, and one-sided interpretations of facts and documents are used.

I would like to draw your attention to one "detail". Among the arguments used by Tokyo, a prominent place is occupied by the reference to the fact that in January 1905, the Japanese government issued a decree, according to which the Dokdo Islands became subordinate to Okinoshima County in Shimane Prefecture, Japan, and received the official name "Takeshima" ("Bamboo Island").

Recall that at the beginning of 1905, Imperial Japan not only "finished off" tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, but also began to implement its plans to establish a protectorate over Korea, which happened after the signing of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905. In other words, Dokdo Island was unilaterally annexed by Imperial Japan, which turned it into a protectorate over Korea. in 5 years to your colony and all of Korea ².

In fact, the question only gets confused. The law remains on the side of the Koreans, because Imperial Japan forcibly, without asking them, incorporated Dokdo Island into one of its prefectures, and then annexed the whole of Korea. But, in the end, after the unconditional surrender, it was forced to abandon the occupied territories.

Official Japan's approach to Taiwan is very revealing.

Tokyo has retained legal leads to prevent Taiwan from coming under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China, as far as possible, since, according to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the question of Taiwan's belonging to the People's Republic of China may arise under certain circumstances.³

In restoring diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1972, Tokyo was forced to agree to the "3 principles" put forward by Beijing for restoring these relations: recognition of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China, Taiwan as an integral part of the territory of the PRC, and termination of the Japan-Taiwan peace Treaty as invalid and illegal.⁴

According to the Joint Statement of the Governments of Japan and the People's Republic of China on the Normalization of Relations between Japan and the People's Republic of China dated September 29, 1972, the Government of the People's Republic of China confirmed that Taiwan is an integral part of the territory of the People's Republic of China, and the Government of Japan stated that it fully understands and respects this position of the Government of the People's Republic of China and firmly adheres to its position of compliance with Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration which restricts the sovereignty of Japan to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku.⁵

And the next day, on September 30, 1972, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, M. Ohira stated that although the Japanese Government fully understands and respects (emphasis added by me - E. R.) the PRC's position on Taiwan's belonging to the PRC, it does not recognize this position. ⁶ October 16, 1972 Ohira confirmed the position adopted by the Cabinet of S. Yoshida, who claimed, with reference to the San Francisco Treaty, that the issue of sovereignty over Taiwan, as well as over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, has not been definitively resolved. ⁷ He also noted that

Источник: The Asia-Pasific Journal: Japan Focus - www.japanfocus.org/Mark-selden/3173

Grumpy neighbor. According to the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, the territory of Japan was limited to 4 islands-Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido. But Tokyo claims the islands in the north - South Kuril Islands (indicated by a circle), in the west (indicated by an arrow) - Dokdo (Liancourt, Takeshima) and in the south (indicated by a circle)- Diaoyu (Senkaku). And in the west, fortunately, there are no islands all the way to California.

The Japanese Government cannot recognize the Japan-Taiwan Peace Treaty as invalid from the very beginning and believes that the issue of war reparations and ending the state of war between Japan and China is resolved by this treaty. ⁸ At the same time, the Japan-Taiwan Treaty also bypassed the issue of Taiwan's belonging to China. ⁹

One of the leading Japanese experts on foreign policy, a member of Parliament from the Liberal Democratic Party, M. Kajima, wrote on this occasion that the status of Taiwan "is not legally definitively resolved", "since neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty nor the Japan-Taiwan Treaty did not address the question of who was finally transferred to Taiwan" ¹⁰.

The Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in Beijing in 1978 also bypassed this topic, as well as the dispute over the ownership of the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu) ^.11 They were not mentioned in subsequent joint statements, in particular, during the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Japan in May 2008. It is believed that these controversial issues will have to be resolved by future generations.

It is interesting that the Japanese-Chinese Statement spoke only about ending the abnormal state of affairs, but not the state of war between the two countries, as suggested by the Chinese side. Legally, the PRC in its relations with Japan is in a unique position in international law, with its duality and Jesuit formulations, of diplomatic "semi - pregnancy" - peace, good neighborliness and overcoming "abnormality", but without ending the state of war.

The issue of ownership of the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu) came to light after Japan returned American-occupied Okinawa and other islands of the Ryukyu Archipelago in 1972. It is a group of small uninhabited islands and reefs with a total area of 6.32 square kilometers, located in the southern part of the East China Sea about 200 km east of the island. Taiwan. The PRC considers its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku) to be undisputed, as they are part of Taiwan Province ¹². Indeed, these islands were captured by Japan along with Taiwan after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895.

Rich oil and gas deposits have been discovered on the Diaoyu continental shelf (Senkaku), ¹³ which initially drew attention to these islands even before the return of the Ryukyu Archipelago to Japan by the Americans. In 2008, China and Japan reached an agreement on joint operation of a gas field in this area.

However, in January 2010, a dispute broke out over Tokyo's suspicions that the Chinese had started drilling there. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said at a meeting in Tokyo with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi that Tokyo will take appropriate measures if China unilaterally starts developing the field. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Yang Jiechi, in turn, stressed that " the Chinese side has sovereignty over the Chun Xiao oil and gas field. According to the agreement in principle, the Japanese side can invest capital on the basis of Chinese law and establish cooperation with the Chinese side in its development, which is fundamentally different from joint development. The Chinese side will firmly defend its legitimate rights in the East China Sea. " ¹⁴

"SERMYAZHNAYA" PRAVDA

To be fair, it should be noted that in territorial disputes, as a rule, both sides, trying to prove the validity of their position, erect two pyramids of arguments and historical documents on different sides of the dividing strip. And figuring out who is right and who is wrong is truly Sisyphean work.

But in the case of Tokyo's territorial claims, the essence of the matter is extremely clear, and its arguments, willingly or unwittingly, serve one purpose - to obscure, push this essence into the background, and divert the debate to the side.

The current system of international relations, its international legal and institutional formalization, primarily in relation to the participants of the Second World War, i.e. Europe and East Asia, is the result of its results and the post-war peace settlement.

This fully applies to Japan and its borders.

Tokyo's attempts to revise the results of World War II not only contradict international law, but also lay a time bomb under the entire system of modern international relations, which, in general (even despite the Cold War and many other tectonic processes, including the collapse of the colonial system), was based and is based on the treaties signed in the Soviet Union. during the post-war peace process.

The defeat of militaristic Japan in 1945 summed up not only the Second World War, but also a whole era of half a century of robbery by imperial and militaristic Japan in Northeast and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. This era lasted from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 (without declaring war, the Japanese navy sank an English transport carrying Chinese soldiers, the Japanese army invaded Korea, and then China), as a result of which Japan captured Taiwan and the Pescadores (Penghuledao) Islands. This was followed by the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. (the Japanese attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur without declaring war), Japanese intervention in the Russian Far East (1918-1920), capture of Manchuria (Northeastern China) in 1931, invasions: in the rest of China in 1937, in the area of Lake Baikal. Khasan in the USSR, the Khalkhin Gol River in Mongolia, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the occupation of Southeast Asia and part of Oceania.

All international treaties were violated by militaristic Japan, which was guided by the principle :" We look at treatises as if they were candles. Under happy circumstances, the candle itself will burn out ... "¹⁵. And if the "candle" did not burn out by itself, then it was extinguished by Japanese militarists.

The soldiers ' boots of militaristic Japan trampled on all previous treaties and treatises related to territorial demarcation.

What does the Russian-Japanese Trade Treaty (Treatise) signed in Shimoda in 1855 have to do with the territorial problem, according to which the border between the two countries was defined between the islands of Urup and Iturup, and as a result, the now disputed islands were recognized as Japanese ¹⁶?! Or the Treaty of 1875, under which Russia ceded all the Kuril Islands, and Japan gave up Sakhalin in its favor? ¹⁷! What does the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905, under which the southern part of Sakhalin was ceded to Japan, have to do with it?!

The first two treaties became invalid after the 1905 Portsmouth Peace Treaty was imposed on Russia as a result of its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, and all together, including the Portsmouth Treaty, after the Japanese intervention in the Russian Far East and the surrender of Japan in World War II.

Trying to cling to these Old Testament treatises is like Germany now starting a dispute over the long-suffering Alsace-Lorraine, referring to the Frankfurt Peace of 1871 after the defeat of France in the war with Prussia.

Many people in Tokyo can't understand this.

I remember that after the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1958, some Japanese pestered our representatives about the fact that the Soviet Union in 1945 in Manchuria "treacherously" attacked the Kwantung Army. To which they were reasonably answered: "What was the Kwantung Army doing in foreign territory? What right did she have to be there?"

Of course, despite Japan's active participation in the processes of globalization, there are still vestiges of the old isolationist or semi-isolationist approach to foreign policy, a touch of the provincialism of a country that was until the end of the nineteenth century in the backwoods of world politics. If in Europe the borders changed over the centuries, like the outlines of sand dunes in a squally wind, then there-before the aggressive escapades of Japan-they were quite stable.

But Japan positions itself in international affairs as a responsible member of the world community and even claims a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (by the way, the UN, to which Japan makes a significant contribution, especially financially, is also the brainchild of the post - war peace settlement). How can this be combined with the denial of the basis of the current system of international relations-enshrined in the documents of the post-war peace settlement?! With territorial claims to neighbors? How can a country that has not yet definitively recognized its borders with the two current permanent members of the UN Security Council - Russia and China-claim a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

Among Russian experts, there is a point of view that it is possible to dispense with a formal peace treaty, all problems, including territorial ones, were resolved by the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956, and "Japan's constant 'pedaling' on the term 'peace treaty' is a deliberate trick of Japanese diplomacy with one goal-to achieve unilateral territorial concessions from our side ¹⁸. And, for example, the absence of a peace treaty with Germany does not affect the dynamic relations of Russian-German relations.

But Germany has recognized the post-war peace settlement, including regarding borders. Moreover, the post-war settlement, including territorial separation, was developed in the Helsinki Accords and a number of other treaties. It's hard to even imagine what Europe would become if someone took it into their head to review the results of the Second World War.

As for Japan deliberately pedaling the issue of a peace treaty to reinforce its territorial claims, this is true. But without a peace treaty, Tokyo will always keep this cookie in its pocket (as with Taiwan and ending the state of war with the PRC).

The essence of the case regarding Tokyo's territorial claims to Russia was outlined in a statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry regarding the document adopted by the Japanese government on Russia's "occupation" of the Southern Kuril Islands. It says:"...The southern Kuril Islands are an integral part of the territory of the Russian Federation.-

as a result of the Second World War, in accordance with the legally binding agreements and agreements between the allied Powers for Tokyo, as well as the UN Charter, which was ratified by Japan. "¹⁹ Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it very clearly:" the statements made by the Japanese Parliament and Government regarding the status of our islands as part of the United States and the United States the occupied territories cannot but cause rejection. This is unacceptable. We will never agree to conduct a conversation based on rewriting or denying the outcome of the Second World War. " ²⁰

"SQUIGGLES": SAN FRANCISCO .. .

With the beginning of the Cold War, which turned into a "hot" war on the Korean peninsula in 1950, Washington set a course to turn Japan, which had become a springboard and rear base for American troops in Korea, into its military and political ally.

From these positions, it was prepared and signed in 1951. The San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan. An unpleasant surprise for the Americans was the decision of the USSR to participate in the San Francisco Conference. In order to bind an inconvenient guest, US Secretary of State David Acheson deprived the conference participants of the opportunity to even discuss the Anglo-American draft treaty, not to mention making amendments, leaving only the right to sign it. ²¹ The USSR did not use this right.

Nevertheless, the Americans did not dare to directly violate the fundamental agreements of the Allied Powers. Article 2, paragraph c of the San Francisco Peace Treaty states: "Japan renounces all rights, legal grounds and claims to the Kuril Islands and to that part of Sakhalin Island and adjacent islands over which Japan acquired sovereignty under the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905." ²²

But since the USSR refused to sign the treaty, the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not specify that they were returned to the Soviet Union. In fact, this doesn't seem to change much. Japan has given up these territories, they are under the sovereignty of Russia, and no one, except Tokyo, claims them.

A. I. Mikoyan, who visited Japan in 1962, lamented that the USSR did not sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

It seems to me that the Soviet signature would not have changed much.

After all, Tokyo's Jesuit argumentation consists not only in references to the Old Testament Russo-Japanese treaties of 1855 and 1875.In Japan, there is also an opinion that the Southern Kuril Islands are not the Kuril Islands, but, so to speak, its continuation of Northern Hokkaido. This is similar to the thesis of the Japanese Foreign Ministry No. 6 that Fr. Dokdo is a continuation of Okinoshima County, Japan. Diaoyu is a continuation of the Ryukyu Archipelago. If this thesis is further developed, Taiwan may be a continuation of Senkaku Island (Diaoyu), i.e. the Ryukyu Archipelago.

The problem of transferring Taiwan and the Penghuledao (Pescadoran) Islands located in the Taiwan Strait, which Japan also renounced under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was somewhat more difficult to solve.-

it seemed. Washington tried to attract the Kuomintang regime, which remained in Taiwan, to sign the treaty, but Great Britain, which recognized the PRC, resisted ²³. As a result, all these islands, including Taiwan, were also "abandoned". But, as noted above, Tokyo has reserved loopholes for itself in order not to recognize Taiwan as the territory of the PRC in the event of the reunification of the two shores of the Taiwan Strait.

...AND SHIKOTANSKAYA

In 1959, during the summer holidays, I, like other Japanese students of MGIMO, worked part-time as an interpreter on the vessels of Sakhalinrybnadzor, which detained Japanese fishing vessels that did not have a license or violated the quota for catching fish and crabs. I managed to visit the Southern Kuril Islands (Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan) (Habomai), as well as the island of Urup. We did not land on the islands of the Small Kuril Ridge-the Habomai Archipelago - but sailed literally a hundred meters away from them. These are tiny islands, even one of the largest of them - Zeleny Island-occupies an area slightly larger than a football field.

Two impressions that are directly related to the subject of this article are etched into my memory.

Almost in the deserted corners of the north of Iturup and Urup Island, there were still dilapidated Japanese pillboxes reinforced with concrete, shell casings from Japanese machine guns were lying around, traces of bullets and shells were visible on the pillboxes. Although Emperor Hirohito ordered the surrender on August 15, 1945, it apparently did not reach the Kuril Islands. One way or another, there were fierce battles, the shores of the South Kuril Islands were watered with the blood of soldiers of the Soviet Army - the army of one of the leading powers of the anti-fascist coalition.

The second impression is the complete absence of civilians and objects permanently located on Shikotan Island. Everything was demolished, including two crab canneries (to the great regret of the border guards who remained on the island: mostly young girls worked there), all but the border guards were evacuated to floating fish factories or other islands.

According to Article 9 of the 1956 Joint Declaration, everything was prepared for the transfer of Shikotan and Habomai Islands to Japan in the event of a peace treaty being signed.

How to treat this "squiggle"?

It seems to me that it did not and could not change the fundamental foundations of the post-war peace settlement.

But this does not mean that this or that allied power could not and cannot voluntarily make some gesture. For example, in 1955, the USSR gave up the rights to use the territory of Porkalla-Ud for a naval base leased by Finland to the Soviet Union for 50 years.²⁴

Such a gesture of good will motivated by the national interests of the USSR - an interest in establishing good - neighborly relations - was Moscow's promise to transfer to Japan some territories legally under the sovereignty of the USSR:"... The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state, agrees to transfer the Habomai and Shikotan Islands to Japan, but that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan will take place after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan."²⁵

In connection with the ratification of the 1960 Japan-US Security Treaty directed against the USSR and the People's Republic of China. The Soviet Government stipulated the fulfillment of this promise, in addition to signing a peace treaty between the USSR and Japan, by withdrawing all foreign troops from Japanese territory.

But in any case, Tokyo initially buried the possibility of any compromise, demanding to this day the transfer of not only the islands of Shikotan and the Small Kuril Ridge (Habomai), but also Kunashir and Iturup.

The issue of article 9 of the Joint Declaration resurfaced in the 1990s and 2000s. Once again, Tokyo's shortsightedness was clearly evident. For all their traditional politeness and sophistication, some modern Japanese figures, like their ancestors-the"samurai" of the era of imperialist robbery, sometimes behave rudely and unceremoniously.

I remember that in 1968, after the restoration of relations between the CPSU and the Communist Party of Japan, I participated in negotiations in Tokyo between a delegation headed by the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Komsomol Yu.V. Torsuev and the leadership of the League of Democratic Youth - the Japanese Komsomol - on the subject of resuming ties. By the way, this was the first trip abroad as chairman of the Committee of Youth Organizations of Gennady Yanaev, who became one of the "stars" of the State Emergency Committee in August 1991 due to his political immaturity.

We met every day for 10-11 hours without a break for lunch (we were treated to bananas), offering local "Komsomol members" a lot of compromise options. But they stood their ground to the death: "It's all or nothing." On the 8th or 9th day, realizing that they would not take us to starvation, the Japanese side suddenly broke off the negotiations, bluntly stating: "We have nothing more to talk about."

Tokyo is also impudent in seeking illegal territorial concessions. ²⁶ It is in this spirit that the Japanese government's statement about the "illegally occupied" Southern Kuril Islands by Russia was drawn up.

One gets the impression that Tokyo is once again showing a kind of kamikaze complex: gradually turning into a minor regional power against the background of a growing China, Japan cannot get rid of the territorial syndrome that poisons its relations with one of its closest neighbors - Russia (and not only with it) and further reduces its weight in regional and world politics.

Japanese politicians seem to be wandering in the dark, confused, and embarrassing their neighbors, including Russia.

And the countries to which Tokyo makes territorial claims, with enviable unanimity, fight off these claims alone.

Although there are some differences, the disputed status of the South Kuril Islands, Dokdo, Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands, and to some extent even Taiwan has a lot in common.

Their status is determined by the results of the Second World War. Japan renounced all these "disputed" territories in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration. This was confirmed by the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, but for various reasons unrelated to Japan itself, the treaty does not specify which country they were transferred to. And Tokyo's claims are based on some dubious historical and legal premises.

But so far, all the neighbors consider Tokyo's harassment only in the context of bilateral relations. Why not study the totality of the Japanese territorial syndrome at the expert level and conduct a comparative typological analysis of Japan's territorial claims to its neighbors jointly or in parallel with Russian, Chinese, and Korean specialists, and, of course, Japanese, American, and Southeast Asian countries? Brainstorming doesn't oblige you to do anything, but it allows you to see the problem more clearly and the prospects for solving it.

It would be possible to return to the discussion of article 9 of the Joint Declaration, provided that the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over all the South Kuril Islands, including Shikotan and the Small Kuril Ridge (Habomai), is recognized. As for ensuring Russia's national interests, there are many ways to ensure them, including in the field of security (joint lease of Shikotan Island while preserving the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, neutralization of the Small Kuril Islands (Habomai), their purely civilian use, etc., etc.). time B. N. Yeltsin ²⁷. You can agree with them or disagree with them, but if you separate the wheat from the chaff, they could be useful.

However, the starting point should be Japan's recognition of the post-war peace settlement, i.e. the groundlessness of any Japanese claims to the South Kuril Islands, as well as to the Dokdo and Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu) and attempts to deny Taiwan's status as an integral part of the PRC. Whether this will be followed by good gestures from Japan's neighbors is their sovereign business. Apparently, this can be interpreted as Beijing's agreement to cooperate with Japan in the development of an oil and gas field without violating the sovereignty of the PRC over this territory.

In my opinion, until Japan recognizes the legitimate rights of our country, any official discussions or conversations with Tokyo on the so-called territorial issue in the foreseeable future are likely to remain counterproductive.

Only after Tokyo recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over all the South Kuril Islands, including Shikotan and Habomai, would it be possible to talk at the official level about the kind gestures that the Russian Federation could make of its own free will.

It seems that this is a matter for the future, even for future generations. And only a more prudent and flexible Tokyo policy can bring such a future closer.

¹ Diplomatic dictionary in 3 volumes, ed. Gromyko A. L. et al. Vol. III. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1986, p. 367.

² For more information, see Voronkova I. E. Korea i russko-yaponskie otnosheniya v nachale XX v. [Korea and Russian-Japanese Relations at the beginning of the XX century].

³ Asahi, 24.08.1972.

⁴ Nittu fukko. Dokumento (Restoration of Japanese-Chinese relations. Documents). Tokyo, 1972, p. 29.

⁵ For the full text of the joint Japan-China statement, see: Ibid., pp. 162-165.

⁶ Ibid., p. 203.

⁷ Ibid., p. 193.

⁸ Ibid., p. 192.

⁹ For the text of the Japan-Taiwan Peace Treaty of 28.02.1952, see Nittu Kankei shiresu (1945-1966). Nittu boeki sokushin remmei (Collection of materials on Sino-Japanese Relations. Parliamentary League for Promoting Japanese-Chinese Trade). Tokyo, 1967, pp. 469-470.

^{Kajima Morinosuke.} 10 Nihon no gaiko. Something like genzai. (Japan's foreign policy. Past and present). Tokyo, 1967, p. 116..

¹¹ Diplomatic Dictionary in 3 volumes. Ed. Gromyko A. L. et al. Vol. II. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1986, p. 48.

¹² Sino-Japanese relations. China International Radio - http://russian.cri.cn/chinaabc/chapter4/chapter40302.htm

¹³ Diplomatic Dictionary..., vol. III, p. 31.

¹⁴ Website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu's Remarks on Exploration of Chunxiao Oil-Gas Field. 19.01.2010 -http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t652505.htm

¹⁵ Quoted from: Voronkova I. E. Decree. op.

¹⁶ Diplomatic Dictionary..., vol. II, p. 494.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 495.

¹⁸ The "territorial issue" in Russian-Japanese relations fifty years later. 22.10.2006 - http://www.parlament-club.ru/articles.special,1,148.htm

¹⁹ Statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry. 24.11.2009.

²⁰ Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Comment by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the media on the results of his participation in the meeting of the International Affairs Committee of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 14.12.2009 http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/2fee282eb6df40e643256999005e6e8c/4e19691293549a12c325768 c00512ce4?OpenDocument

^{Chace James.} 21 Acheson. The Secretary of State Who Created American World. Simon&Schuster, N.Y., 1998, p. 318.

²² For the text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, see: History of the War in the Pacific, vol. V. M., 1958, pp. 337-359.

^{Yoshida Sigeru.} 23 The Yoshida Memoirs. The Story of Japan in Crisis. London, 1961, p. 253. Chace James. Op. cit., p. 319.

²⁴ Diplomatic Dictionary..., vol. III, pp. 321-322.

²⁵ Declarations, declarations and communiques of the Soviet Government with the Governments of foreign States. 1954-1957. Moscow, 1957, pp. 313-316.

²⁶ For more information, see: Koshkin A. Russia and Japan: Is a Compromise on the Kuril Islands possible? // Asia and Africa Today, 2009, N 11.

^{Latyshev I.} 27 Japan, Japanese and Japanese Studies, Moscow, Algorithm Publ., 2001, pp. 690-691.

Permanent link to this publication: