From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Northern Islands (revisited)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:25:01 GMT

In article <4026@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.153444.596@island.COM> fester@etorofu.island.COM writes:
>
>>In any event, most Japanese are unaware that they in fact attacked the Soviet 
>>Union in the late 30's, and because of this, feel some sort of emotional/moral
>>superiority to the "sneaky" Russians (ignoring at the same time their attacks).
>>When confronted with this information, the Japanese usually refuse to believe
>>it, and then when confirmed, they seem to lose confidence in their moral 
>>superiority on the issue.
>
>   I don't recall that there was any discussion or dispute on the Japanese
>"moral inferiority of the Pearl Harbor 'sneaky' attack" when Okinawa was 
>returned.

That's because Japan had the great good fortune to have that part of their
archipelago taken over by the US, and not the USSR.

>   The fact that Japan attacked Soviet in an immoral way in 1930s does not 
>affect my belief that the Northern Four Islands belong to Japan. As far as
>I know, even the Russian side has never used the attck by Japanese
>as a reason or justification for their occupation of the islands probably 
>because they know that it has nothing to do with the islands issue.
>It might be true that many Japanese who were enlightened by Fester-san

Minor point, but most of the time, Japanese refer to me by my FIRST name. 
Easier to pronounce.

>lost confidence (although they might be pretending to lose it in order not
>to disappoint Fester-san 8-)). However, on the diplomatic stage, trying to
>discourage the Japanese side by mentioning the 30s' "sneaky" attack would
>be a cheap shot.

WELL, that would certainly be a first in diplomatic circles, now wouldn't it?
Imagine that, a cheap shot in politics/diplomacy. What bastion of fairness and
good will will fall next, I wonder.

>   Although it might be already discussed in this thread, one of the reasons
>that the former USSR used to justify their occupation of the isladns is the
>Yalta agreement between USSR, UK and USA. However, the US government made
>a statement on September 13, 1961 which effectively said, "After a detailed

Uh, isn't that a BIT after Yalta?

>examination of the historical facts, the US has come to a conclusion 
>that Kunashiri and Etorofu (as well as Habomai and Shikotan which are regarded
>as a part of Hokkaido) have been a part of Japanese territory and should be 
>under the jurisdiction of Japan." This statement is one of the grounds that 
>Japan stands on. It is interesting that the documents of a single country
>are used by two opposing parties.

And of course, our recent pronouncements (now that the Cold War is over, for 
good I hope) are much more equivocal.

>P.S. It might be a politically incorrect question, but, Fester-san, is
>     "etorofu.island.COM" located in Russia?

Uh, I DID point out to you in email exactly where my company is located. And 
I have, over the net, pointed out where I post from. In short, no.

Mike

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