From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:30:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.130135.23447@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:

>[line order changed: >> are my words]
>In article <1992Sep28.151151.2117@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>I thought we were talking about Yeltsin's political attitude.

>>Actually, we were talking about Japan's relations with her neighbors.

>No we "were"n't.  This thread started by my reply to your praising
>Yeltsin's maneuvers using words like "I really admire ..." seen
>three or four times [sorry, I can't recall the exact words:
>I don't have the posts anymore].  This should have been a distinct topic

No problem: here it is for the 4th or 5th time. I really admire the way 
Yeltsin has handled the situation. Each time he has been denied aid by the
Japanese, he has been able to make money on the islands, and this has cost
Japan even MORE money to keep other parties from using those islands.

Clearer now?

>(Ah! I should have changed the Subject: line), which for some unknown
>reason you have inflated into the whole issue of northern islands
>and now "Japan's relations with her neighbors."

Actually, the specific comment to which you responded was my "Japan seems to 
be able to make trouble with her neighbors all by herself". I have NOT inflated
the issue. I state directly that I do not believe that this will drive any
sort of wedge between Japan and her neighbors. I state directly that Japan
can do this all by herself, islands notwithstanding.

>Thus:
>>>Surely, Mike, you're dodging the issue...
>and then:
>>??Hardly. Unless you mean that in your opinion, Japan has some sort of
>>moral claim to the islands, in which case I have made it quite clear that they
>>have none.

>No you didn't.
>As a matter of fact, you failed.
>And I suggest you refrain from "moral" issues because the sad truth is
>that it's not the decisive factor in territorial issues (need I bring up
>Hawaii, or native American rights?  and what moral claim does Russia
>have anyway?)

If it's NOT a moral issue, then what is it? And Russia has a REAL claim to it;
they are there on the islands. They don't need a moral claim. What claim do
the Japanese have to it? That it once belonged to them and doesn't now? Well,
that's a risk you run when you start wars; you can lose some territory. Happens
all the time. Now, if Japan were to take a public stance like "We think Poland
should give back land to Germany, Russia should give back land to Finland and
Poland, Israel should give back land to Jordan, Syria, etc" I might believe
the Japanese position was due to some deep moral conviction that "war should
not be used as a means of gaining land". As it is, they seem to merely 
believe that JAPAN should not lose any territory.

>And what's this twist anyway?
>I've said (in the later lines, brought up above) that you're
>dodging from the topic of Yeltsin's attitude.

How in the world am I dodging it? I have stated BLUNTLY that I admire what he's
been able to do. Really, I can't be any more direct than that.

>Taking another example:

>>>>Investment almost anywhere is risky.

>>>Why this overgeneralization?
>>>Investment to RUSSIA is considered as relatively risky,
>>>be it with or without OED, compared with other locations on equal grounds.

>>Investment almost anywhere is risky, as indicated by the US and Japanese 
>>banking difficulties, though they were investing heavily in their own
>>economies.


>Again, you are slipping away.
>Can this in any sense be regarded as a response to my lines?
>If you don't agree, DENY AND REFUTE IT.
>If you concede or don't feel like replying, JUST KEEP IT OUT.
>But please don't try covering up or twisting things.  PLEASE!

Listen, I stated that investment anywhere is risky. You say it's over-
generalization. You then state that investment in Russia is risky, compared to 
other nations. I point out that Japan and the US banks lose money in (by your
terms) safer nations. It is a DIRECT response to your lines.

Here it is again; Investment anywhere is risky.

>I'm not sure anymore whether it is worthwhile to making replies, but then:

>>And giving them[=islands] back would not make any money for them[=Russians]

>Why not?

The Japanese have said "We will not consider aid until the island issue is
resolved" They have made no promises of aid, even IF they get the islands
back. They have made NO commitment to help put the former Soviet Union. They
have tried to get other nations to push their claim to Russia. How has the
Japanese position been anything other than "YOU give us the islands and we'll
THINK about maybe helping you"?

Really, this was all mentioned in previous posts.

>>If they Japanese want them[=islands] back, they are going to have
>>to be a lot more clever and a lot more flexible. That is, actually, rather 
>>simple.

>Now, THIS is interesting!  What in the world can be so simple,
>while Japan is not clever enough to recognize it?
>Provided, that is, that Russia could expect no money for the islands,
>and also Japan having no "moral claim" for them?

??? I really don't see what is confusing you. I have stated directly that if 
they want the islands back, they are going to have to pay for them. If they
take a stance that there will be no discussions UNTIL the island issue is
resolved (in their favor), Russia will go on getting money for the fishing
rights, mineral rights, etc, or whatever she wishes. This will cost Japan
money anyway, as they have to pay off the S Korean companies to give up the
negotiated rights, or whatever rights were granted. And I have never said
that "Russia could expect no money for the islands". I have stated, directly,
several times that they DO expect money, LOTS of it, for the islands. Rather
the opposite, actually.

Mike

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