PREFACEThe Slavic Research Center (SRC) of Hokkaido University held anInternational Symposium, entitled “Siberia and the Russian Far East in
the 21st Century: Partners in the ‘Community of Asia’,” at Sapporo,
Japan, on July 14-16, 2004. The Symposium was mainly funded by aspecial scientific research grant from the Japanese Ministry ofEducation’s 21st Century “Center of Excellence” program (Making aDiscipline of Slavic Eurasian Studies: 2003-2008, Project Leader IedaOsamu) and partly assisted by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Researchfrom the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Russo-ChineseCooperation and Its Implication for Eurasian Security in the Post-Cold
War Period: 2003-2006, Project Leader Iwashita Akihiro).
The SRC invited some of the leading Russian experts from Siberia
and the Far East and provided a discussion forum between them andother top specialists from Korea, China, the US and Japan. Twenty
presenters participated, including seven from Russia, two from Korea,
two from China and three from the US. The Symposium was alsoorganized to consider the diversities within the countries of theparticipants. The Russian delegation consisted of participants fromNovosibirsk, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok and Sakhalin. The two Chinesepresenters from Harbin and Beijing, and a discussant from Shanghai
also participated. The SRC invited Korean specialists from the UK andSingapore as well.

-v-The Symposium started with its opening speeches: Valerii
Kuleshov’s “Economic Transformations of Siberia and the Russian Far
East in the Coming Decades of the 21st Century” and GilbertRozman’s “Sino-Japanese Competition over the Russian Far East: Is
the Oil Pipeline Only a Starting Point?” The sessions of theSymposium covered discussions on regional economic integration,international relations, energy cooperation, fisheries, literature, history
and others. The Symposium aimed to verify the possibility of Siberia
and the Far East becoming members of an emerging “AsianCommunity” and to debate its challenges and perspectives.
Considering the variety and diversity of topics, the SRC decided topublish these proceedings separately according to their specific field.
This first volume, entitled “Crossroads in Northeast Asia,” focuses oninternational affairs on the northeastern edge of the “AsianCommunity,” mainly consisting of participants’ papers in the session
on the Russian Far East and US-China-Japan-Korean relations.
Why should we now discuss Siberia and the Far East in theunfamiliar framework of the “Asian Community”? An explanation
could be given by briefly looking at the unsuccessful debates over the
Far East in Northeast Asia conducted in the late 1980s and the early
1990s. Many specialists on the region were then enthusiastic about thecreation of a “common house” in Northeast Asia, considering how theFar East, as well as Northeast China, the two Koreas and Japan, could
be cooperative, interactive, or (at best) integrated and discussing theprobability of a new community or regional order conceived from thecountries, regions, nationalities, ethnicities and social sectors. This waspartly a reflection of the rapid mutual economic dependence between
the concerned countries within Northeast Asia itself and of the politicalreconstruction following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Chinese
departure from traditional socialism and the provisional detente on theKorean Peninsula.
The unrealistic hope for a “common house” in Northeast Asia
soon faded away, however. The regime of North Korea has changed
little, while the current nuclear crisis looms over the Korean Peninsula
like a dark cloud. Chinese migration was seriously viewed by many as
a “threat” to the political stability of the Far East. And theJapan-Russia territorial deadlock still remains touchy and unresolved.

- vi -One reason for the cooling down of the notion of a sort of“common house” in Northeast Asia most likely derives from our
mistaken conception of the Far East within Northeast Asia itself. It is
probably not appropriate to discuss the Far East separately from Russia
as a whole. Northeast Asian communities might as well seek tocooperate by finding ways to integrate the Russian Far East with anunderstanding that the Far East is a different but undivided territory
and community of Russia. From this vantage point, we naturally andkeenly look upon Siberia as being “distinct” from the Far East and as aregion connecting European Russia with the rest of the Far East. In thissense, the term “Northeast Asia” sounds a little awkward. The Siberianpeople may have some sympathy with Northeast Asia but are probably
more familiar with Central Asia, including Xinjiang Uygur China andWest Mongolia. Therefore, despite our being conscious of its
vagueness and boldness, the term “Asian Community” seemed more
fitting for the Symposium discussion.
The current discussion was most likely influenced by the new
dynamics and interaction surrounding Russia and the rest of Asia.
Traditionally, we are accustomed to discussing issues individuallythrough the regional framework of Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia,
Central Asia and so on. But recent developments on the Eurasiancontinent make it almost impossible to have any meaningful
discussions about the current developments of Northeast Asia througha purely regional framework. These areas are rapidly overlapping
owing to regional transformation and the preeminence of US power.
Examples are easily introduced: the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, originating from Russia, China and three Central Asian
countries for their border cooperation, has reached a stage of maturity
where it is now analyzed even by South Asian specialists.1 Countries
like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran should be studied by Korean
and other East Asian regional experts in part because of the Bushadministration’s current endeavors against “international terrorism.”
1See Iwashita Akihiro, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Its
Implications for Eurasian Security: A New Dimension of ‘Partnership’ after thePost-Cold War Period” in Tabata Shinichiro and Iwashita Akihiro, eds., Slavic
Eurasia’s Integration into the World Economy and Community (Sapporo: Slavic
Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2004), pp. 259-281.

- vii -This volume, with a special emphasis on the international affairs ofNortheast Asia, follows from the “spirit” of the Symposium. Mostpapers, on the surface, may focus solely on political, economic andsocial issues of the various and distinct sub-regions and countries
within the narrow confines of Northeast Asia, but they are undoubtedly
conscious of the new dynamics appearing on the Eurasian continent
whose countries often share borders with Russia and Asian countries.
On the other hand, this volume, while not neglecting the newenvironment as mentioned above, exclusively focuses on the Russian
Far East in Northeast Asia. Before entering into the next stage ofdiscussions, we are apt to reconsider the past misleading debates on theregion during the early 1990s. Not only should the one-sided “gloomythreat” perception or the “rosy development” expectations in theRussian Far East be considered but also the mono-tone contrast of“conflict” vs. “cooperation” in the region in the twenty-first century
should be separate from the overall discussion. The truth is always
more complicated than originally imagined.
We selected the four papers on international relations during lastsummer’s Symposium for the first volume. Gilbert Rozman’s chapter
gives us, as a guide map of the volume, a way to approach and tackle
issues deriving from the “complicated nature” of the Russian Far East
in Northeast Asia. His argument on “Sino-Japanese competition overthe Russian Far East” may sound similar to those in the late 1980s andearly 1990s. The chapter, however, with its attention to the US and thetwo Koreas’ interests fully reviewed, may betray the reader’sexpectations. His persuasive logic and conclusion avoids some of theusual pitfalls of the past. In the second chapter, Sergei Sevast’ianov
successfully categorizes and analyzes security and military issues inthe Russian Far East. Especially, he puts them in the wider context of a
Eurasian continent under the strain of globalization, while keeping the“spirit” of the Symposium never far from his mind. In the third andfourth chapters, Nakano Junzo and Ni Xiaoquan prepare inspired
overviews of Japan’s and China’s interests in the Russian Far East.
Nakano’s contribution on Japan’s military policies towards the regionis unique because Japanese academics in the area of international
affairs tend not to provide thorough military analysis. Ni’s wellbalanced explanation of China’s policy towards the Russian Far East,- viii -covering the latest Sino-Russian Summit held in mid-October inBeijing, also gives us a better understanding of the region.
Two more chapters are incorporated into the volume. One iswritten by Jeanyoung Lee, an expert on Korean-Chinese minorities in
the Russian Far East. The other is by Iwashita Akihiro, a specialist on
the Sino-Russian territorial issue. The former was partly presented at
the International Conference: A Future for Multi-Nation, Multi-Cultureand Co-Habitation in Northeast Asia, held in November 2004, inVladivostok. 2 The latter was also reported at the International
Symposium organized by Hopporyodo Taisaku Kyokai [NorthernTerritories Issue Association], at Toyama in October 2004. Withmigration and border disputes being key topics in the Russian Far East,
the presence of both chapter five and six in this volume seems quite
natural. First, Lee’s excellent contribution covers the Korean presence
within Chinese migration in the Russian Far East. It not only sheds
light on some previously unknown facts and details but provides
insights for resolving the issues over minority groups in the RussianFar East. Readers may receive from the chapter a strong message overthe possibility of a new “house” in Northeast Asia. Second, Iwashita’schapter is timely following the finalization of Sino-Russian territorial
disputes near the end of 2004. He draws some lessons from pastSino-Russian negotiations and how Russia and China finally resolved
them successfully. The chapter also provides some possible hints forresolving another territorial deadlock, e.g., the long-frozen territorial
dispute over the sovereignty of the “Northern Territories.”
The fruits of the contributing authors’ intellectual endeavors arewell appreciated. It is our goal that these small but important academic
contributions by some of the leaders of our field of study prove to be
an impetus for further academic inquiry. If this goal is achieved, itwould be a great pleasure of ours.
This volume greatly benefited from the contribution of Jaeho
Chung, Professor of Seoul National University, a special commentator
during last summer’s Symposium. I would like to express my gratitude
to Seth Cervantes, Lecturer of Tomakomai Komazawa University, for
his special contributions during the editing phase of this volume. I owe2

DV Uchenyi, December 1, 2004, p. 5.

- ix -much to Ito Kaoru for kindly agreeing to take on the laborious
challenge of designing the volume’s cover and maps included inchapter six. I would also like to thank Ito Eri, Hosono Mitsue andMark Hudson for their tireless efforts on the completion of thisvolume.
Iwashita Akihiro
Editor
Sapporo, 2005-x-