From: hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211121.8796@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.095131.2999@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
>>>	As I see it, the Potsdam declaration was on the order of
>>>	"Japan gives up, and the allies will run the country as they wish."
>>	...
>>>	The allies could have divided Japan up anyway they wanted.
>>
>>I don't see what you're suggesting by this, but it shouldn't mean that
>>the allies had absolute freehand on doing anything.  The proclamation
>>itself presents conditions of surrender(?: is this the proper wording?),
>>which obviously presents a point of restraint to the allies themselves.
>>On territorial issues, this reads the enforcement of the Cairo Declaration
>>(to give up all the Pacific islands obtained since 1914, all territories
>>in China including Manchuria and Taiwan to be returned to China,
>>and to achieve independence of Korea), and that the sovereignty of Japan
>>is to be restricted to the four main islands and peripheral islands that
>>the allies designate.  Had the allies gone beyond this, then regardless
>>of whether or not Japan fights back (she won't), they would be biting their
>>own hands.  Japanese surrender is an act of diplomatic agreement,
>>no matter how one-sided it may be.
>
>So was Germany's and she lost a great deal of territory. I don't recall that
>there were any solid territorial guarantees in the Potsdam declaration, though.

Excuse me?
What I wrote above was in the Potsdam declaration (proclamation?) --
though not the exact words -- drawn from a secondary source.

>>>	Perhaps Japan can consider the Kuriles as a permanent
>>>	memorial of the errors of their leaders prior to 1945.
>
>>No.  There's no denying that Japan has commited many errors and criminal acts,
>>and that they are yet to be compensated for, both economically and from
>>humanitarian aspects.  But that doesn't mean that any act against Japan
>>is permissible or could go unopposed.  Drawing on a hypothetical (and
>
>Actually, a defeated nation cannot beg any favors from its conquorers, 
>particularly one which treated its conquored so shabbily.

The way you put it is more akin to ancient tribal rules where unrestricted
retaliation is approved, as opposed to modern law-ruled systems.
The allies are restricted by their own framework of justice and order,
if they are to claim any consistency and justice on their side.
Any illegal conduct on their side is open to prosecution.

And it is not clear whether by "cannot" you mean impossibility in reality
or a moral restriction.  As a matter of reality, Japan did bargain and
succeed on one point -- the continuation of the Tennou system.
# actually, this seems to have been the only concern of the rulers --
# nothing on the well-being of its people -- a point surely to be despised of.

>>highly provocative) example, had China or Korea occupied some islands as
>>a means of compensation or retaliation, I would consider it quite differently.
>>This is not the case with USSR/Russia and the northern islands.
>
>It is if the USSR wants it that way, as is the loss of territory by Germany in
>both world wars. Or do you think France and Poland should give back territory
>to Germany?

The short answer is no, the situation is different.

>>(And further drawing a provocative analogy, you don't sound much different
>>from saying that the US should give up Hawaii to Japan or any other nation
>>because of its misdeeds to its natives, as well as to the mainland native
>>Americans.)
>
>If someone came along strong enough to take them away from us, they could 
>provide whatever excuse they wished, or none at all. 

??? The problem is not whether one can take them away or not,
but supposing that should happen, whether US (in this example)
should or would approve of the reason given above.

>>What I can say is that we are seeing things from a completely different angle.
>>Debating on legitimacy is only the bottom line.
>>If one has abandoned appealing to military means, or is in no position of
>>doing so, then what other way is there but negotiation (including offers
>>of alternatives in return)?  And if one can't establish its legitimacy,
>>how can one even ground such a claim as a right?
>>If there is no legitimacy in the claim, then I see absolutely no reason
>>that Russia should give the islands back.
>
>The Russians have the islands and they can do whatever they want with them.
>They can sell them to Japan, they can develop them, they can ignore them, or
>whatever they like.

??? What's the relevance of this?
There is no connection between this and the quote above it.

>Legitimacy has nothing to do with it in Japan's eyes;

??? you keep confusing me.  What then, is Japan arguing about?

>they simply lost some land and want it back.
>I do not see them telling Russia
>to give back land to Finalnd in the name of "justice".

Why should that be necessary?
If a mother is scolding her child, she doesn't need to go around
scolding all kids to justify herself.
Anyway, as said in the previous post, Finland is currently not
making claims against Russia.

>>And, may I ask, are you, in your opinion, granting any legitimacy to
>>Japan's claim? (I would think so, or otherwise you wouldn't have
>>mentioned the slightest possibility of Japan getting the islands back).
>
>Not speaking for Mr Goldman, but in my opinion, legitimacy is not the issue
>here. But, do the Japanese have a "legitimate" claim? Yes. Do the RUSSIANS
>have a "legitimate" claim? Certainly. This has NOTHING to do with whether
>Japan has the slightest possibility of getting the islands back or not.

The question was not whether Japan has the possibility or not,
but on the reason why Mr.Goldman had mentioned it.

Returning to your first sentence "legitimacy is not the issue here",
I presume that "here" designates the northern islands issue itself.
You have been insistent on denying that Japan has no moral claims,
while simply dismissing that legitimacy claims are irrelevant,
without giving any reason.  You are yet to convince us on that.

>Mike

-Yuzuru Hiraga