Since Japan, upon becoming a member of the UN, ratified its Charter, which has Article 107, which states that “everything that was done by the victorious powers in World War II is non-negotiable.” According to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for Russia, there is simply no territorial dispute with Japan. The Russian affiliation of the Southern Kuriles has been declared final and does not require discussion.
After Tokyo joined Western sanctions, as stated by the Russian Foreign Minister, it became impossible to conduct a dialogue on a peace treaty with Japan, which is pursuing an unfriendly policy towards our state. In such circumstances, the height of the Japanese leadership’s naivety would be to expect Moscow to return to an official discussion of claims to the Russian lands of the Southern Kuriles protected by Article 67 of the Russian Constitution. Since, according to Russia’s Basic Law of 2020, any “actions aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as calls for such actions, are not allowed.”
Resolving the territorial issue of the Southern Kuriles on Japanese terms could also open a Pandora‘s box regarding the ownership of the Sea of Okhotsk. In 2014, the UN Commission on the Continental Shelf handed over to Russia a document recognizing the Sea of Okhotsk as fully Russian. According to this document, the inclusion of the enclave in the Russian shelf establishes Russia‘s exclusive rights to the resources of the subsurface and the seabed of the enclave (including fishing for sedentary species, i.e. crab, shellfish, etc.), and also extends Russian jurisdiction to the territory of the enclave in terms of requirements for fisheries, safety and environmental protection.
Russian legislation on the continental shelf applies to the territory of the enclave. Thus, the Sea of Okhotsk is recognized by the international community as an inland sea of Russia.
But everything could change dramatically if the four islands of the Southern Kuril Islands, whose shores are part of the Sea of Okhotsk, were ceded to Japan, and thus this sea could not be considered only Russian and, in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, would become international. These are the serious problems Moscow would have faced if supporters of the transfer of the islands, close to former President Yeltsin, had managed to do so in the 1990s.
As for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan, after 80 years since the end of the war, it can already be considered a pure anachronism. There is no “state of war“ or “unresolved issues“ between the two states. Since the Joint Soviet–Japanese Declaration signed and ratified in 1956, according to which the state of war between the two states was terminated and all the provisions that usually constitute the content of peace treaties were taken into account, including provisions on the restoration of diplomatic and other relations, on the conditions of territorial demarcation of the two countries, it can be conditionally equated to a peace treaty. As for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan, after 80 years since the end of the war, it can already be considered a pure anachronism. There is no “state of war“ or “unresolved issues“ between the two states. Since the Joint Soviet–Japanese Declaration signed and ratified in 1956, according to which the state of war between the two states was terminated and all the provisions that usually constitute the content of peace treaties were taken into account, including provisions on the restoration of diplomatic and other relations, on the conditions of territorial demarcation of the two countries, it can be conditionally equated to a peace treaty.
For example, we also did not have a peace treaty with Nazi Germany and still do not have one. The state of war with the German Reich, an ally of Japan, was ended by unilateral acts of the victorious powers: the US Congress and the British Parliament, as well as by a decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR a year after the Americans and the British did so. This fact does not prevent us from maintaining and developing relations with Germany.
Despite the fact that Moscow continues to use the term “peace treaty”, in reality it is about the need to sign a document that reflects the realities of the current development of bilateral relations, such as, for example, the “treaty on good-neighborliness and cooperation.” At the same time, Tokyo must first officially recognize the results of the Second World War in full. However, in the policy of the Japanese leadership, the “peace treaty” is seen only as an excuse to review these results and resolve the “territorial issue,” which makes any discussions about the “peace treaty” meaningless and without prospects. It is from this angle that the recent statement by Japanese Foreign Minister T. Motegi on the immutability of Japan’s course towards resolving the issue of the ownership of the “four northern islands” and concluding a “peace treaty” should be considered.
Comments