Life is not a fairy tale. Give the islands, and we will think about the peace treaty!
Why, strictly speaking, do we need a peace treaty that Japan actually doesn’t really need? Do not you think that there is a certain "asymmetry"? That is, in August 1945 of the year, for example, Japan, a peace treaty was required simply to desperately, in any form, to cease hostilities. There was a kind of asymmetry in martial law, so a contract was required. At any cost already, but the contract.
I understand that today the situation in the Russian-Japanese relations is not as dramatic as that of Japan in relation to the allies in August 1945. Yes, of course, Russia would like to normalize Russian-Japanese relations. This is so, and it is difficult to deny. But, as I understand it, Japan itself should want no less than this. Otherwise, simply the world will not be durable and reliable.
That is, that very position of Japan, and de facto this “peace in exchange for territories”, is absolutely incomprehensible and raises questions. As a matter of fact, military actions as such are not conducted (and for a long time). Japanese bombers do not bomb the Far Eastern cities, there are no Japanese garrisons there. What is the “world”? What are you talking about?
In the summer of 1945, Japan’s martial law was critical and hopeless. There, a humanitarian catastrophe unfolded, of enormous proportions. Then yes then мир the Japanese were needed just desperately. By the way, in 1905, RI’s situation was long away not so critical. And so, in August 1945, Japan surrendered ... In the course of world war, in which it, in fact, remained the last participant on the part of the losers.
Today for Russia the situation is far from being so dramatic. And the offer of peace at the cost of certain concessions (the logic itself) looks rather strange. That is, if you follow the Japanese logic, they themselves get the world as if not really needed? And if they need it too, then why Russia should pay for it and only, it is absolutely incomprehensible.
For some reason, I recall the phenomenon of the German "negotiators" in the camp of the allies in November 1918 year.
- What are your suggestions for peace?
“But we have no proposals for peace, we like to fight!”
And then the Germans were already forced ask for that same world. That is what I am talking about, the contract, as a rule, to some extent reflects the current situation and the current balance of power. What islands? Why islands? Where does such drama and atmosphere pressure come from? I do not mean that the current position of Russia is absolutely brilliant. Just incomprehensible. Yes, the world is needed, perhaps even more than the Japanese, perhaps less, not the essence. There is simply no reason for any serious concessions.
There is no such "on the negotiating table." All the talk about Japan’s being “at a low start” with readiness to invest trillions of yen in Siberia and the Far East ... well, you know, this is simply not serious. Just some kind of unhealthy walking around these same islands. Muddy there somehow everything. And for some years now, 30 has been told to us by some kind of “magic stories»About the upcoming economic" breakthrough ". I declare responsibly (on the basis of the Japanese English-language press): all that the Japanese are ready to do is to “take” the islands “backwards”. And this does not mean “automatic” the signing of the very desired “peace treaty”.
How so? That's how. It is always recommended to “listen to the other side”. We do not understand that people are discussing the last 30 years on the subject of these islands. There is a wide access to the Japanese English-language press. There are comments to her. So, the position of the Japanese is approximately the following: there will be no peace treaty without returning the islands. But the return of the islands alone does not mean a peace treaty.
How so? That's how. Oil Painting: Ukraine and Euro-Association. What, you forgive, all the documents proposed to you, podmahivaet, not reading (based on the retelling of the one who slips it to you)? The position of the Japanese is very clear: there will be no peace treaty without the return of the South Kuriles. But why the opposite is true (return of the islands = peace treaty) is extremely difficult to say. In the Japanese press, I did not see such an assertion. never. No, the probability of this, of course, is small, but such a situation is possible that, having transferred the islands, we will not be able to sign a peace treaty. Lawyers like to talk about such things after a sauna.
In general, a very large “gap” is observed between how the situation with the islands in Japan is understood and how it is understood in Russia. In short, we would like to argue a little about different things. The fact is that at the end of 80-x / early 90-x, this very idea of “returning” was presented to the Russians very beautifully: we were all very lucky! Why? There are some naive samurai, who simply dream to roll off a whole mountain of money for almost nothing ... well, so little change, nothing, some islands there ...
And the whole fun has risen around this, they say, if that “trillion” they dream of paying us, to divide them into everyone, then it turns out ... it turns out ... a donut hole turns out. The Japanese were not going to pay us any "trillions". He himself would have thought this idea rather strange. And in Russia, she was voiced in order to create a positive image of the problem: yes, not which islands to give - you live for us well (and the fools are always happy!) Want to roll off a whole bunch of money. And everyone started to have fun and walk on their ears.
So I want to upset: the very "heap" wore only virtual character. Once again, the position of the Japanese is as simple as mooing: return the islands, and just then we will talk further ... And even about those Russian citizens who live on the islands now, for some reason everyone in Russia by default means that the Japanese all they will be paid, and with a "slide". Well, how else, then?
I do not know. The Japanese somehow their fate is of little interest at all. After all, it is not their citizens. That is, no official / semi-official statements that they would be given "a bag of money in one hand," I somehow did not meet ... No, how then? I do not know. Not my question. But the Japanese are only interested in, precisely and exclusively, the islands. The fate of their population, they do not bother much.
All those “trailers” that we cling to the issue of “return” (peace, friendship, huge compensations and huge investments) are entirely far-fetched (by ourselves). Japanese nothing straight and unequivocal They do not promise and are not going to promise. That is, they say this: there will be no return, there will be no peace treaty, there will be no business and investment. The key word "will not be".
Once again: this whole muddy tale very much resembles the history of European integration of a great Ukrainian proud nation. They were promised anything, but in words and it is not clear who. Remember official statements by the Japanese side. Once again - the official. It’s just that “the return of the islands is the way to a peace treaty”. No more and no less. There are still a variety of home-grown propagandists begin to play out about billions in investments that will happen right after that ... So, these same promisees should be caught and beaten with candlesticks. Brass.
Because the Japanese themselves did not even try to officially promise anything of the kind. Difficult perceived, right? That is, purely “mathematically”, the Japanese do not offer straight in exchange for the islands. nothing at all. Life is not always like a fairy tale, sorry.
In general, the 1956 Declaration of the Year, oddly enough, was quite reasonable (although it could have been better done). Return 2-x islands (in words: two) after the conclusion of a peace treaty. Why not? Once again - the 1956 Declaration, in principle, is quite a logical step on the part of the USSR: the state of war ceased, relations were established ... The trouble is that no reasonable steps from Japan did not follow.
They refused to sign a peace treaty. That is, “the classics of the genre, the channel“ Melody ””: Russia really does something, the opposite side does not do a damn thing at all, and all further dances are conducted around what Russia has done. Boring gentlemen Very boring. And the Japanese constantly refer to the joint 1956 Declaration of the Year. That, like, promised to return something. Well, yes, they promised, in 1956 year. Two islands. After the conclusion of a peace treaty.
That is, in principle, it is still relevant today. Why not? The logic of Comrade Khrushchev was simple: since the Japanese need these islands so much, then let them sign a peace treaty. On our terms. The Japanese, however (not without US influence), did not sign anything. At that everything stopped, and for a very long time. In fact, the very joint Declaration is the maximum that Soviet diplomacy has achieved in all these post-war decades. Diplomacy is not an easy thing.
In general, it is absolutely incomprehensible why the Japanese refer to this very Declaration. We just can refer to it endlessly. First the money, then the chairs. First a peace treaty, but then ... What is the difference? And principled! The peace treaty is not two A4 format papers with signatures. The peace treaty is very, very serious. He, so to speak, defines all further relations of the two contracting powers. That is the very peace treaty (its content!) Is much more important than the fate of the two islands. So it goes.
Therefore, the position of Russia, when it refers to the Declaration of the 1956 year, is quite reasonable. Want an island? Well, let's sign a contract! But ... samurai rest, bawl. The fact of the matter is (among other things) that since 1956, Japanese diplomacy has not stood still and has already managed to sign a bunch of other treaties. With other powers. A kind of "system of international relations of Japan" has developed. Already formed. Without taking into account the interests of Russia, with which there is no agreement as not. And if in 1956 for new Japan, which is not the heir of the Japanese empire even once, everything was over and over again, today the signing of that “peace treaty” is never a child’s task.
I would even say, the task is puzzling and, perhaps, unresolved. Here in our country, just in the country, legal “nihilism” is popular: people respect neither laws nor treaties (according to the old Soviet memory). In vain, very vain. Without understanding the tremendous diplomatic significance of the Russian-Japanese peace treaty, it is impossible to understand the situation in principle. Without in any way pretending to be an expert in international law, I can doubt that such signing is possible today in principle. Purely technically. This war had been too long and too far from that war, Russia and Japan diverged in every sense of the word.
Such a contract is not easy: put up, put up and no more fight ... This is a very serious, very voluminous document, defining many aspects of future bilateral relations. It is doubtful just the ability of Japan today to do something like “typeset and sign”. Their independence is very, very surrogate. Unlike Russia. And imagine, the bilateral negotiations will begin and the show will begin ... Almost like with Poroshenko and his calls to the USA.
That is, the option is not excluded that even after the transfer of the islands we will very long and unsuccessfully negotiate something with the Japanese. Infinitely long. Once again: for them, the receipt of islands does not mean an automatic signing of something there, but only means the elimination of obstacles to negotiations.
And what we will get as a result of negotiations is a separate question. And whether we get it at all. This is the most Japanese obsession about the problem of the islands. In any case, the very question of Russian-Japanese relations is much “bigger” and more serious (that’s). Just for some reason it is not customary to talk about it, at least from the Japanese side. And how can we generally trust people for whom the question of relations with Russia is repeatedly outweighed by some local territorial problem?
On the part of Russia, the reluctance of something to decide and sign precisely on the basis of the total turbidity of future prospects is fully justified. The Japanese, of course, may, dropping their eyes, say that solving the “island problem” is the way to happiness in mutual relations, but this is not clear where and why this follows. Jumping forward with your feet into the dark is not the smartest decision. "Run over" already.
Summing up, we can say that we are discussing a little bit the wrong problem on a massive scale. First of all, the Declaration of the 1956 year (if we evaluate it completely) is quite a valid, sensible document. That is why the Japanese (at the suggestion of the Americans) did not fully want to carry it out. Secondly, the two islands, in exchange for a peace treaty (drawn up taking into account our interests) - this is just very, very good (if it were possible). Thirdly, it’s rather strange to discuss the material point, especially considering that the Japanese are not in a position to “pay”, and it’s foolish to sell the territories at any prices. Fourth, the position of the Japanese after the resolution of the “island problem” is completely unclear. And fifth, whatever we want (and whatever the Japanese want), the problem of mutual relations will not go anywhere from us.
- Oleg Egorov
- depositphotos.com
Information