From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:03:34 GMT

In article <4053@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:

>>The money is needed to improve infrastructure, update factories, farming 
>>methods, pay off foreign debt, develop resources, etc, in short all the things
>>needed to establish a working (and most likely), stable economy. Lack of this,
>>and people may decide that a military gov't might be better. 
>
>   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?

>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.

>   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. 

>>??? 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.

>>>   Then, how does this sound?
>>>Accusing someone of not giving up a claim before examining its legitimacy
>>>would not be diplomatic, either.
>
>>Depends. Mexico can "claim" Texas if they like. We (and Texas) are unlikely to
>>give the claim much credence. 

>   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.

>>In any event, Japan can certainly get the islands back if she wants.

>   I'm glad to hear you say, "get the islands 'back'." However, I wonder
>why you can be so sure that Japan can get them back. 

I think this HAS been mentioned several times. Frequently. And in this post
as well.

>>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.

>>>>"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. Otherwise
his thanks will be in German, English, Korean, and Chinese, as they have been.

>>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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.