From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.122719.6267@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.211121.8796@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>	...
>>>>	The allies could have divided Japan up anyway they wanted.

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

The correct declaration (as posted elsewhere) allowed Japan to keep her 4 main
islands, and other islands as decided (by the allies, NOT Japan)

>>>>	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.

You mean like the "modern law-ruled systems" that saw Japan annex and attempt
to annilhilate one of its mother cultures, invade and slaughter the inhabitants
of another, and basically show no inclination to work and play well with others?
You know, it really seems like the "tribal rules" you decry were liberally
applied by Japan.

>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.

So what exactly is illegal now?

>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.

?? Japan didn't bargain on this point; the US had indicated clearly that the
removal of the Emporer was not part of the surrender requirements.

>>>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.

Of course; it doesn't involve Japan.

>>>(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.

The bigger question would be, what could we DO about it.

>>>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.

It IS rather the WHOLE point of the thread, now isn't it? If the Russians did
NOT have the islands, then Japan would either have them or be complaining to
someone else.

>>Legitimacy has nothing to do with it in Japan's eyes;
>
>??? you keep confusing me.  What then, is Japan arguing about?

They want the territory, plain and simple.

>>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.

Why do make such trivial analogies here; the issue is NOT a mother scolding a
child; it is a nation demanding territory she lost as a result of an unprovoked,
war of conquest and now demanding the return of something she lost to a 
conquorer.

>>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.

??? Then you haven't been paying attention. Japan has an historical claim
on the islands. So does Russia. So do the Ainu. Little of this is relevant.
The relvant points are a) Russia has the islands. b) Japan wants them c)
Japan has stated there will be no aid to Russia until the island issue is
"resolved" d) The Russians get money out of the islands anyway.

I've given plenty of reasons

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Lines: 19