From: hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Keywords: four small islands,  public perception,
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.165229.3625@physics.ucla.edu> aoki@physics.ucla.edu (ken aoki) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.225704.27250@Csli.Stanford.EDU> yh=I wrote:
>yh>In article <1992Sep14.174726.2912@physics.ucla.edu> KO=Ken Aoki wrote:
>KO> Methinks the people are missing the point. (Or are people
>KO> just kidding without saying the obvious?)
>KO>
>KO> The four islands have not much to do with practicality, IMHO.
>KO> It is just a matter of principle. Also, the Japanese
>KO> politicians have used it as a political tool.
	[*** original lines of your post restored ***]
>  > (Having a common nasty enemy facilitates unity,  opportunity
>  > to make excuses for building up defense, offers distraction, etc.)
>  > Bringing up this topic so often, so that now the general
>  > public is somewhat emotional about this subject. 
>  > (or sentimental, or whatever.) Or it seems that way to me.
>  > So now, the japanese politicians cannot back down and will
>  > have to take a hard line.
>  >
>KO> On the practical side, I think it is the fishing rights
>KO> and also the possibility of oil fields(weren't there some around
>KO> there? perhaps I am mistaken). But I don't think that part is
>KO> as important.
>
>yh>Opposed to you, Ken, and as Dave McLane suggested, there do exist
>yh>substantial issues. 
>
>I don't intend to get into an argument, but are you saying
>that the majority of the people in JAPAN want the islands
>back for its materialistic or militaristic values?
>
>What I said was that while there are substantial materialistic
>issues, the majority of the people in Japan want the islands back
>as a matter of principle and its emotional/sentimental values.
	...[some lines deleted]
>There is a substantial materialstic side, but I did not
>think they were 'as important' in the general public's eye.

Your point understood.
As of its validity -- quite possible, though I'm not sure.

Your first posting is confusing (well, at least for me) because it was
not clear whether your "practical importance" was stated as your
opinion (reflecting some objective facts), or your opinion of what
may be in in the minds of the general public (cf. above quote).
Had you said "... as important in the general public's eye" in the
first place, there would have been no problem.

Another point is that being emotional/sentimental is not restricted
to a particular cause -- one can become emotional because of
matters of principle, material greed, military ambition, nostalgy,
or of unrational reasons stirred by political agitation.
There is no contradiction in being emotionally fixed by some
materialistic motivation (as well as other reasons).
And it's also not quite clear to me what you mean by "principle",
or whether the "general public" is aware of it.

>There has been quite a few good discussions about the materialistic
>aspects from both sides, in this group to which I have nothing to add to.               
Yes, thanks to Mark Crispin for a detailed review.  I was aware
there was something fishy (er..I mean, ambiguous) about the Yalta/Potsdam
agreements, though I wasn't sure it really was.
I'll also add that Soviet participation was a secret clause in the
Yalta agreement, so that while the Japanese government accepted
the Potsdam Proclamation, it should have had no idea of the clause,
let alone approve it.  I'd like to know when the secret was revealed.

-Yuzuru Hiraga