From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.095131.2999@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:

>That's true.
>
>>	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.

>>	In fact, the USSR entered the war before Japan accepted Potsdam so I
>>	don't see where the surprise comes from.

>Surprise of what?
>The fact is that USSR was not among the initial signers of the proclamation,
>and Japan accepted it as was presented.

After the USSR had entered the war, as Mr Goldman pointed out.

>>	On August 8, 1945
>>	Ambassador Sato met with Molotov who informed Sato that the
>>	Russo-Japanese non-aggression pact had been canceled years
>>	before by Japan's assistance of Germany.

>Agreeing this is subsidiary, doesn't this sound like a typical excuse
>one gives for self- (and only self) justification?  Just like the
>many excuses Japan gave for invading/occupying Korea and China.

It is, however, more warning than Japan gave the USSR before she attacked the
Manchurian positions.

>>	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.

>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?

>(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. 

>>	Possession is the reality.  Legalisms can be debated endlessly
>>	but if Japan wants the islands back, arguing on what was or
>>	wasn't included in treaties won't do it.

>Hmm... I hope you're not advocating for sheer power politics (or are you?).
>If possession is the reality, then weaker nations are completely at the
>mercy of stronger ones with no means for claiming their rights.

I believe he (Mr Goldman) is presenting the conditions that exist. Japan must
deal with those. 

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

>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.

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