From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:42:05 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <1992Oct6.150334.2137@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <4053@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:

>>   From your explanation, I can understand how the Japanese money could
>>stabilize the hands of farmers, factory workers and merchants. However,

>Which is, of course, rather the whole point, isn't it?

  Not really. That's their concern. Our concern is the islands as the
subject title says.

>>I still don't see how the money stabilizes the hands on the launching
>>button. My skepticism tells me that some military people might believe
>>that a military gov't is better anyway.

>They might indeed. And if the economic situation does not improve, then there
>might be a lot MORE people who believe a military government is better.

   A farmer cannot push the button if he thinks a military gov't is better.
One who has a hand on the button can do it if no one else think a military
gov't is better.

>>   As long as nuclear weapons are there, they are dangerous whether the hands
>>are shaky or not. Japan might be more interested in paying for the Russians'
>>getting rid of their nukes than just stabilizing the hands.

>I'm certain Yeltsin would be very happy to take whatever cash donations Japan
>wishes to make. 

   If he is that desparate, the most effective way to extract money from 
Japan is to say, "Give some cold cash to stop my shaking hands over the
lauching button. I'm so hungry that I don't know how long I can keep it 
high enough."

>>>??? So basically, how well-informed ARE the Japanese about the pre-1940
>>>skirmishes? HOw much did you learn about it in high school or college?

>>   How do the "pre-1940 skirmishes" affect the islands issue? 

>Japan claims she was attacked by Russia. She was. However, she in fact attacked
>the USSR first. She simply wasn't as good at it as the Russians were. Really,
>all this HAS been mentioned, several times in several posts.

   I don't see any logical explanation here to show the relationship between
the "pre-1940 skirmishes" and the islands issue... So, what can I say?

>>   Good. The US gave a significant credence to the Japan's claim.

>Uh, not really. Our most recent public announcements on the situation have been
>"we recognize there exists a dispute between Japan and the (then) USSR" at the
>1990 GATT and a recent promise to "request that Russia consider its territorial
>dispute" with Japan. Not exactly saying a lot.

  It seems like a big progress compared with the 1961 statement that mentioned
nothing about the "request" to Russia.

>>>She'll
>>>just have to pay for them (or wait a LONG time).

>>  Japan "could" pay for them even though she doesn't have to.

>??? Then she is unlikely to give them back.

   That's right. If someone requests money for something, we don't call it
"give." We call it "sell."

>>>>>"Thank you" for what?

>>>>     A cup of nice green tea, of course 8-).
>>>>     What was he gonna come to Japan for?

>>>Money.

>>  Then, he'd better be prepared to say, "Doumo arigatou" for that as well.

>Well, no doubt he will, if the Japanese give the Russians some cash.
.....

   Good.

>>>Actually, it hasn't been that big of a deal to THEM (Japan) until just recently.
>>>Not surprising, then, that no one else cared much about it. 

>>   The islands issue hasn't been a big deal for Japan? I wonder what made
>>you have such an incorrect impression.

>Oh, gosh, the rather little attention it has gotten in Japan for several 
>decades.             ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

   It seems that the incorrect impression is derived from another incorrect
impression.

>> Unless the islands are no man's land like Antarctica, they should belong to
>>either Japan or Russia. I don't think there is any other country who could
>>have a legitimate claim over the islands.
         ^^^^^^^^^^
>??? Anyone can claim anything. Right now, the islands are Russian.

   Then, which country could claim the possesion of the islands legitimately?
Right now, the islands are under Russian jurisdiction. Not necessarily
"Russian." If I have your watch in my pocket, it's still yours. Not mine. 

>> If the islands belong to Japan, we could justify a kidnapper's act by using 
>>Fester-san's rationale above.

>Hunh? If you are going to equate nations with personal crimes/criminals, what
>would you equate with Imperial Japan? Poor Imperial Japan, invaded, colonized,
>murdered, instigated wars, and now no one believes she's been mistreated.

   I've already equated Japan as a criminal when I posted a "burglar's
watch" example. Remember that?
   And once again, If the islands are something that should be under Japanese
jurisdiction, we can equate Russia as a kidnapper by using Fester-san's
statement cited below.

"They know they've always got something Japan wants. It can be used at any time
 do get some concession, or do generate other forms of income (leasing fishing
 rights, casino construction, etc). If they give the islands back, with nothing
 in return, they've lost a bargainning chip."

>> If they belong to Russia, they don't have to give them up. They have only to 
>>convince others that their logic is agreeable and can settle the 
>>problem. (Actually, the former USSR tried to settle the problem before,
>>but their assertion was not good enough to make others feel it reasonable.)

>They DO belong to Russia now. Absolutely. They USED to belong to Japan. They do
>not now. Before that, they were independent. So far as the Russians need be
>concerned, the problem is settled. THEIR problem is money.

   Sorry about another watch example, but let me try this way.   
"I have a watch in my pocket. It DOES belong to me now. Absolutely. It
USED to belong to Fester-san. It does not now. Before that, it was on market.
So far as I'm concerned, the problem is settled. I might consider giving it
back to Fester-san if he pays me money to feed my families."

   Seems like legitimacy of possession is really a point.

Michiaki Masuda