Maritime borders with Japan on the map. Cards vs. Myths

On February 2, 1946, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a Decree, paragraph 1 of which determined: “ Establish that since September 20, 1945, all land with its subsoil, forests and waters on the territory of the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands is the state property of the USSR, that is, the national property».

Of course, this was a sovereign decision of the USSR, but it was obviously taken not without taking into account the fact that the day before, namely on January 29, 1946, the territorial issue was resolved (not without our insistent demand) by the allied Directive No. 677, signed by the commander-in-chief of the occupation forces in Japan by the American General D. MacArthur, the appendix to which was a map indicating the new borders of defeated Japan.

The borders of Japan on the map appendix to Memorandum of General D. MacArthur No. 677.
Source: https://regnum.ru/

By the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of February 2, 1946, those erroneous, and sometimes even detrimental to the interests of the Russian state and its peoples, but proceeding from Russia’s noble desire to establish mutually beneficial, trusting relations with its Far Eastern neighbor, decisions on territorial demarcation with Japan were corrected .

In 1951, the borders of Japan specified in Directive No. 677 were secured by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, by signing which the Japanese government officially renounced South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. However, subsequently, citing the fact that the USSR did not participate in the signing of this treaty, and that the treaty did not indicate in whose favor the refusal occurred, allegations appeared in Japan about the alleged absence of a final decision on who was assigned these territories. At the same time, Japan “forgets” about the binding provisions for it of the Crimean (Yalta) agreement of the allies of February 11, 1945, which provided for the entry into the war in the Far East of the USSR and the transfer of Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands specifically to the Soviet Union, and, as follows from text of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan pledged to recognize all decisions and all treaties of the allies during the Second World War (hence the Yalta Agreement). The allegations about the alleged “illegality of annexation” of these territories are also unlawful, since the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations of the Allies in 1945, and then the San Francisco Treaty, confirm the principle of international law on the possibility of limiting the territorial sovereignty of the aggressor state as a measure of punishment for the carried out aggression.

John F. Dulles and the Japanese delegation at the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Source: https://regnum.ru/

Who needs negotiations on a peace treaty between Russia and Japan?

However, for more than 70 years, negotiations on a peace treaty between our countries, initiated at one time by Japan and essentially deadlocked, have been ongoing with varying degrees of intensity. The strangest thing about this, in my opinion, is that the peace treaty itself is not needed by either Japan or Russia: all issues related to the restoration of comprehensive interstate relations after the end of World War II, of which Japan was one of the main instigators The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 with its allies in the anti-Japanese coalition and the “Joint Declaration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan” of 1956, which declared the end of the state of war (clause 1 of the Declaration), the restoration of diplomatic and consular services (clause 2- th), as well as economic and other relations (by the way, it was Japan that then, under pressure from the United States, refused to conclude a peace treaty, since the Soviet side quite rightly did not want to make territorial concessions).

In principle, in conditions when there is no state of war between our powers, for Russia, in my opinion, there is no objective need to conclude, even in the name of further development of good neighborly relations with Japan, a peace treaty (we do not have the same treaty with another aggressor of the Second World War). World War - Germany, and this does not interfere with building full-fledged relations between Moscow and Berlin (formerly Bonn). The consent of Russia (and earlier the USSR) to meet Japanese initiatives halfway seems completely inexplicable, the main goal of which and at the same time the main obstacle to achieving agreement both in previous years and today are the unlawful territorial claims of the Japanese side, punished by the world community for crimes against peace and humanity with deprivation of of all territories previously acquired as a result of greedy policies, including South Sakhalin and all the Kuril Islands. To give a new powerful impetus to our relations, completely justified and sufficient to achieve this goal, would be the conclusion between Russia and Japan of a Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborliness and the Development of Business, Scientific and Cultural Relations, which does not imply a revision of a long-resolved territorial issue. However, Russia allows itself to be drawn into hopeless negotiations specifically about a peace treaty and continue them even after Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s unequivocal refusal to sign it without preconditions in response to a direct proposal to this effect from Russian President V.V. Putin in September 2018 ... in Singapore, which, obviously, Japan does not need, but only needs to satisfy its persistent territorial claims. It is obvious that the slightest relaxation of the Russian side in this matter (either four or two islands of the Kuril chain, and in the Japanese political establishment the concept of “northern territories” is interpreted much more frivolously, as will be discussed below) will mean a violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the inviolability of the territorial integrity of the state, infringement of the national, including economic, interests of Russia, damage to its security system, which is especially dangerous given the existence of the Japanese-American military alliance, in which Japan occupies a subordinate position, and permanent deployment on the Japanese Islands about 100 military bases and up to 50 thousand US military personnel.

Even the transfer of only four Kuril Islands to Japan will deprive Russia
strategically important economic zone (highlighted in yellow),
and the Sea of Okhotsk will lose its status as a Russian inland sea and will allow foreign warships
freely penetrate into its waters

Does Japan have grounds for any territorial claims against Russia?

Historical experience shows that the territorial problem has always been the handmaiden of unscrupulous politicians and a reason for military conflicts between countries. Japan has been particularly successful in this matter.

“At the beginning of the Meiji era (and before this period, even Hokkaido was considered a “foreign country” for Japan. - V.Z.), around 1867, there were many people in Japan who tried to strengthen national rights by expanding towards the Kuril Archipelago and Sakhalin in order to strengthen the defense of the north and colonize these lands. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between Russia and Japan regarding the delimitation of territory. Despite this, Japan wanted to possess Sakhalin both in the interests of national defense and the economy. As a result of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan received South Sakhalin from Russia,” this is part of the extensive “handwritten testimony” of the Japanese general who was in Soviet captivity, the commander-in-chief of the million-strong Kwantung group of troops that capitulated to the Soviet troops at the end of World War II, Otozo Yamada, dated April 8-9 1946

Territory of Japan before Emperor Meiji's reform, 1868
(Complete Atlas of Japan. Tokyo: Teikoku-Shoin Co., Ltd., 1982):
not only Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, but also Hokkaido were not Japanese territory

The frank discussions of the former ruler of Manchuria about the above-mentioned and other reasons for “Japan’s aggressive policy in the Far East,” as well as the very presence of Japanese troops in the vast territories of China, Korea, and the countries of Southeast Asia as a result of aggression, very convincingly indicate that when deciding On the issue of territorial expansion, official Tokyo never paid attention to such “trifles” as international law, originality and priority in the development of occupied lands.

As the maps of the “Complete Atlas of Japan” testify, not only the Kuril Islands, but also one of the largest islands of modern Japan, Hokkaido, were not officially part of this country.

The Kuril Islands, in accordance with the norms of international law of those years, originally belonged to the Russian Empire. Gestures of goodwill for the transfer of the southern Kuril Islands (and in fact Hokkaido, the principality of Matmai, independent from Japan and predominantly inhabited by Ainu, half of whose population paid yasak to the Russian treasury) to Japan in 1855 in the name of establishing good neighborly relations and developing trade, and then in 1875 city and all the Kuril Islands in exchange for the complete renunciation of the Japanese side's claims to Sakhalin, were not at all adequately perceived by Imperial Japan.

As a result of the Japanese-Russian War of 1904−1905. Japan annexed the southern part of Sakhalin, which belonged to Russia, and pursued an aggressive policy towards Soviet Russia during the years of foreign intervention.

Japan led the Entente troops during the years of foreign intervention, tried to dominate the Far East and Siberia, and captured and held the northern part of Sakhalin until 1925. Japan was an ally of Nazi Germany on the eve and during the Second World War (events near the border Lake Khasan and aggression in friendly Mongolia on the Khalkhin Gol River in order to create a springboard for aggression against the USSR towards Lake Baikal, provocative activity of the million-strong Kwantung group of troops in Manchuria during the war).

During the difficult period of the summer of 1945 for our allies, when they believed that it would take at least 1.5 years to defeat Japan (and in the opinion of General D. MacArthur, who had the sad experience of defeat from the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942 and escape from them, and 5-7 years), with the loss of a million American and half a million British soldiers, the Soviet Union, in response to numerous requests from the leaders of the Allied powers, entered the war against Japan. Given the decisive role of Soviet troops under the command of Marshal of the Soviet Union A.M. Vasilevsky, who defeated the million-strong Kwantung group of Japanese troops in Manchuria and North Korea, as well as the troops of the 5th Front in Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, Japan was forced to recognize unconditional surrender, the signing of which was named after the USSR was carried out by Lieutenant General K. N. Derevyanko.

Operations of the Soviet Armed Forces in the war against militaristic Japan

In this regard, it is difficult to explain Japan’s attempts, which began in the 1950s and intensified since the late 1980s, to substantiate its claims precisely from the point of view of international law on the so-called “northern territories”, by which it is generally accepted, but far from accurate, to understand four islands of the South Kuril ridge. This is how, for example, approaches to solving the problem of the “northern territories” were outlined in the “Interim Report on the Study of Foreign Policy and Comprehensive National Security” (Tokyo, May 1988, p. 13), prepared by order of the Japanese Cabinet of Ministers: “Japan must continue to demand the return of all northern territories... Conclude a Japanese-Soviet peace treaty after the return of the four northern islands. Japan should also try to conclude a Japanese-Soviet peace treaty, including the return of all the Kuril Islands...Declare clause c) of Article 2 of the Peace Treaty with Japan (San Francisco, 1951), which states that Japan renounces the Kuril Islands, invalid "

And in the official government document “White Paper on the Defense of Japan”, since the 1980s, the “northern territories” have been designated frivolously. The Japanese borders are designated in the “White Papers” in the area of the Kuril Islands north of Iturup Island (which is reflected in the special amendment to the law on territories adopted by the Japanese Parliament in 2009), and the “disputed territories” extend to the middle of Sakhalin Island and to the Kamchatka Peninsula.

An example of Japanese cartographic aggression
against Russia in the 1996 White Paper.

Purely civilian publications do not shy away from cartographic falsifications and showing Japan’s growing ambitions, as can be seen from the “Complete Atlas of Japan”, 1982.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize once again: it is obvious that no one needs a peace treaty at all, and negotiating it, regardless of the goals of the parties, has no prospects, and is harmful, because this implies a return to the problem of ownership of the islands, which does not exist for Russia. All issues of diplomatic relations have long been resolved by the perfectly valid Joint Declaration of 1956, taking into account the fact that both parties (in fact, each voluntarily) officially disavowed its Article in 1960. 9th, which indicated that if a peace treaty was signed in the future, the USSR would be ready, after its signing, to transfer Fr. Sikotan (Shikotan) and the Habomai group of islands. It must be assumed that in 1960 the Soviet government sent three Notes to Japan, each of which described Japan's corresponding violations of the terms of the 1956 Declaration. The statement that “the territorial issue between the USSR and Japan has been resolved and is secured by relevant international agreements” is contained in third, April Note. That is, as far as the territories are concerned, the directive of D. MacArthur and the San Francisco Peace Treaty, recognized by Japan, as well as internal Russian legislation, apply. It would be better if the authorities of the Russian Federation and Japan concentrated their attention on mutually beneficial filling of relations with tangible economic cooperation. Japan is bluffing, promising (but not rushing to fulfill promises) if its demands are met, the rapid development of economic ties between our countries, but more than 20 years of stagnation of its economy and the prospect of a projected loss of 26.5 million of its population in the next 25-30 years ( up to 100 million people) and without territorial concessions from Russia will force Tokyo to take a more realistic position in relations with it, which, of course, will correspond to the interests of both sides.

For Russia, all issues of post-war territorial demarcation with Japan have been resolved. They were resolved by agreements with the allies during the war against the Japanese aggressor, the blood of Soviet soldiers was shed for the return of islands previously seized by Japan.

It is Japan, under the pretext of the “necessity” of a peace treaty, that cherishes the only goal: what if Russia cannot withstand the pressure and gives up the islands. And there are no more issues that interfere with peaceful relations between Russia and Japan, except, however, that Japan, despite its growing military power contrary to the provisions of Article 9 of its own constitution, is not sovereign in its decisions due to its subordinate position in the military alliance with the United States and often acts under their dictation.

Aircraft carriers and missile ships of the Japanese Navy in combat formation

The Joint Declaration of 1956, in the version in which it now works, is what needs to be defended, and it is very important to stop reacting to the flamboyant stories of Japanese politicians and the media about the alleged incompleteness of the design of our borders, and therefore the Russian border. Japanese relations in general, and the need for this to sign a peace treaty. That is, Russia is revising its relations with one of the main aggressors of the Second World War to the detriment of its relations. The end of that war has been set. To develop good neighborly relations between our countries, there is everything except fairly honest goodwill on the part of Japan and, perhaps, someone’s personal interests in the Russian establishment and oligarchy in the hope that Japan, having received an island region rich in natural resources with an impressive sea economic zone, will not skimp on generous kickbacks.

From the Decrees of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated February 2, 1946 // Documents of the 20th century. Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated 16.II.1946 / http:doc20vek.ru/node/1322. 01/29/2019.

See: Great Patriotic War 1941 - 1945. Documents and materials. V. 18 t. T. 4. M.: “Voevoda”, 2015. P. 39.

See: ibid. P. 38.

See more about this: Koshkin A. In 1951, in a peace treaty, Japan renounced all the Kuril Islands // REGNUM news agency. 2019. January 24 https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2558585.html

Gazette of the Supreme Council of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Moscow, 1956. No. 24. P. 612.

Russian State Military Archive. F. 451/p. Op. 5. D. 72. L. 3-28.

Complete Atlas of Japan. Tokyo: Teikoku-Shoin Co., Ltd., 1982.

See: The Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945. In 12 volumes. T. 5. M.: Kuchkovo pole, 2013. P. 429.

See: ibid. P. 582.

Zimonin V.P.,
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor,
Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation,
academic advisor of RARAN, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

The Russian-Japanese border changed very often, the Kuril Islands, or part of them, found themselves either under the rule of Russia or under the rule of Japan. In - gg. Japan also included the southern part of Sakhalin Island (Karafuto), so in the period 1905-1945. part of the Russian-Japanese, and then the Soviet-Japanese border was land. The modern border was established after World War II.

Description

The Russian-Japanese border de facto, and also, from the Russian point of view, de jure, passes through the La Perouse, Kunashirsky, Izmena and Sovetsky straits, separating Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands from the Japanese island of Hokkaido. From the Japanese perspective, the de jure border runs through the La Perouse and Frieze straits.

Territorial disputes

Japan claims the southern group of the Kuril Islands - Iturup, Shikotan, Kunashir and Habomai, which came under the control of the USSR (and Russia as successor) as a spoil of war in 1945.

Checkpoints

There are no checkpoints on the Russian-Japanese border, since the border is sea along its entire length.

Write a review on the article "Russian-Japanese border"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing the Russian-Japanese border

The cell was empty and damp, without any lighting. And in the very corner of it, a man was sitting on the straw. Coming closer to him, I suddenly screamed - it was my old friend, Cardinal Morone... His proud face, this time, was red with bruises, and it was clear that the cardinal was suffering.
– Oh, I’m very glad that you are alive!.. Hello, monsignor! Have you tried to call me?
He stood up slightly, wincing in pain, and said very seriously:
- Yes, Madonna. I've been calling you for a long time, but for some reason you didn't hear. Although they were very close.
“I helped a good girl say goodbye to our cruel world...” I answered sadly. - Why do you need me, Your Eminence? Can I help you?..
- This is not about me, Madonna. Tell me, your daughter's name is Anna, isn't it?
The walls of the room began to shake... Anna!!! Lord, not Anna!.. I grabbed some protruding corner so as not to fall.
– Speak, monsignor... You are right, my daughter’s name is Anna.
My world was collapsing without even knowing the reasons for what happened... It was enough that Caraffa mentioned my poor girl. There was no hope of expecting anything good from this.
– When the Pope was “studying” me in the same basement last night, the man told him that your daughter had left the monastery... And for some reason Caraffa was very pleased with this. That's why I decided to somehow break this news to you. After all, his joy, as I understand it, brings only misfortune to everyone? Am I right, Madonna?..
- No... You are right, Your Eminence. Did he say anything else? Even some little thing that could help me?
Hoping to get at least the slightest “addition,” I asked. But Morone just shook his head negatively...
- I'm sorry, Madonna. He only said that you were very mistaken, and that love has never brought good to anyone. If that tells you anything, Isidora.
I just nodded, trying to collect my thoughts, which were scattered in panic. And trying not to show Morona how shocked I was by the news he said, she said as calmly as possible:
“Would you allow me to treat you, monseigneur?” It seems to me that you could use my “witch” help again. And thank you for the message... Even the bad one. It’s always better to know the enemy’s plans in advance, even the worst, isn’t it?..

To the 107th anniversary of the Act of delimitation of Sakhalin Island in 1908.

Preface.

On July 28, 2015 I posted on my amateur blog« Pervomaiskiy» article by A. Akhmametyev "Demarcation of Sakhalin Island" for 1908 , where in the preface I mentioned"Act of delimitation of the island of Sakhalin between Russia and Japan."

In this regard, without stopping at just mentioning the act, I decided to publish it on the pages of my amateur blog, timing the publication to coincide with a significant date - the 70th anniversary of the defeat and surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 in the Second World War, which also abolished the Japanese state border on the island Sakhalin.

As is known, the former Russian-Japanese border on the island of Sakhalin was established by the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905 in connection with the cession of the southern part of Sakhalin island and all adjacent islands in favor of Japan as a result of the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905. At the same time, the 50th parallel of northern latitude was taken as the limit of the territory ceded to Russia, along which, in accordance with the second additional article attached to the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905, joint efforts of two delimitation commissions, Russian and Japanese, were carried out during 1906 - 1907 line of the now former Russian-Japanese border on Sakhalin Island.

On March 28/April 10, 1908, the final act was signed in Vladivostok, which completed the delimitation of Sakhalin Island between Russia and Japan along the 50th parallel of northern latitude.

On the Russian side, the act was signed by Colonel Lileev, and on the Japanese side by the general - Major Oshima.

In quantitative terms, the act was drawn up in two copies on each side, in Russian and Japanese, one copy of which, after signing, was subject to exchange between the contracting parties.

The act of delimitation consisted of a preamble, eleven paragraphs and three subparagraphs, an ending and a list of documents, which, in turn, consisted of nine paragraphs and three subparagraphs.

Thus, in the preamble of the Russian act, two delimitation commissions, Russian and Japanese, were for the first time combined into one common commission called the “Russian-Japanese delimitation commission of Sakhalin Island.”

However, the Japanese, without rejecting the Russian version of the delimitation commission, signed their own version under the act in hieroglyphs, which dealt with the Japanese delimitation commission of the island... “Karafuto” (樺太 ). It is under this optionThe head of the Japanese delimitation commission, Major General Oshima, signed the act.Obviously, the Japanese general was not worried about the absence of a clause in the act regarding the interpretation of geographical names, since for him, apparently, there was no other name for the island of Sakhalin other than “Karafuto”.

Let me remind you that in the practice of Russia and Japan, such an interpretation with geographical names existed at the conclusion of the Shimoda Treaty of 1855, when next to the Japanese interpretation of the name of the island of Sakhalin - “Crafto”, the generally accepted name of the island - Sakhalin - was indicated in brackets. As for the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905, article nine of this treaty provided for only one name for the island - Sakhalin.

Russia did not react in any way to the interpretation of the Japanese general, since the goal of delimiting the island of Sakhalin was achieved and Japan was securely locked in the southern half of the island, the keys to which Russia handed over to the hands of the Conduct. And as a guarantee, along the 50th parallel of northern latitude, which was historically inaccessible to Japan since the conclusion of the Shimoda Treaty of 1855, the exact line of Japanese possessions on the island of Sakhalin, marked on the ground with “permanent signs,” passed.

Regarding the size of the mixed commission, it is known that by the time the final act was signed, each of the two delimitation commissions consisted of a chairman and sixteen members.

However, both commissions were not so numerous at the beginning of the delimitation of Sakhalin Island.

So in 1906, each commission consisted of five people - a chairman and four members. Moreover, a small compositioncommissions were probably due to the fact that the Russian commission arrived on Sakhalin Island much earlier than the Japanese commission and, thereby, won the right to parity. However, in the same year, the Japanese commission proposed increasing the number of members in each commission to sixteen people, and the Russian commission, observing for its part the principle of parity, agreed with this proposal.

On July 24/August 6, 1908, the act was approved by an exchange of notes, which from that moment acquired legal force and became binding on both states.

On the Russian side, ratification was formalized by the publication of a legislative act in the Collection of Legislation and Orders of the Russian Government dated August 28/September 10, 1908. Moreover, before the signature of the Japanese general, it was stated that the act was signed by “the chairman of the commission on the Japanese side, Major General Oshima” with the note “in Japanese.”

In 1911, legislative act No. 30859 “Approved with the Highest permission, through the exchange of notes, the Act of delimitation of the island of Sakhalin between Russia and Japan” was published in the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire.

The validity period of the former Russian-Japanese border on the island of Sakhalin was exactly thirty-seven years and twenty-seven days, starting from the moment of ratification of the delimitation act and ending with the end of the Second World War.

Anatoly Shestakov.

The act of delimiting the island of Sakhalin between Russia and Japan.

Russian-Japanese Delimitation Commission Sakhalin Island, composed of an equal number of Members, with the Chairman from the Russian side of the General Staff, Colonel Lileev, and from Japanese side General - Major Oshima, according to Article 9 of the Portsmouth Treaty of August 23, 1905, IIadditional articles to it and instructions received from their Governments, during 1906 and 1907, determined and marked on the ground with permanent signs the exact line between the Russian and Japanese possessions kimi on Sakhalin Island as follows:

I. Border between Russia and Japan on Sakha Island The line is drawn along the 50th parallel of northern latitude.

II. Fiftieth parallel north latitude determined by astronomical observations on the ground, from the Sea of Okhotsk to the Tatar Strait, at 4 points:

1) nand the eastern coast of Sakhalin Island, washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, in tract Narmind you

2) in the central part of Sakhalin Island, on on the right bank of the Poronaya River, in the Sakai tract,

3) in the central part of Sakhalin Island, south of the settlement of Khandasy 2nd, in the Kho tract Sino and

4) on the western coast of Sakhalin Island, washed by the Strait of Tartary, south of Pi Bay to the left, in the Abosi tract.

W. More stone pillars were installed at these four points , on concrete bases, numbered from the east of IbeforeIV pillars * ; they serve as the main basis for defining the boundary line.

IV. Between the indicated astronomical points The boundary line corresponding to the 50th parallel on the ground was determined by geodetic means; at 17 points of this line, deliver 1 to the 17th.

V. In some places between and boundary stone pillars are installed wooden poles for better guidance to the public borders*** .

VI. Millet has been cut along the entire boundary line eka, 10 meters wide; moreover, from IV astronomical boundary pillar to the western a ditch one and a half meters wide was dug along the banks **** .

VII. The surroundings of astronomical points, at a distance of one square kilometer, were filmed on a scale of 1:10,000; plans for the entire border strip were also taken, extending from the border 2 kilometers north to 2 kilometers to south 1:40,000.

VIII. A description of the border has been compiled with a general map of the 4-kilometer border strip 1:200,000 attached.

IX. A survey of the sea strips washing the island of Sakhalin south of the 50th parallel was carried out, which revealed that in addition to several stones, of which the most significant is the “Stone of Danger”, only two islands are adjacent to the southern part of Sakhalin: Moneron (Todomosiri) and Tyuleniy (Robin). A list has been compiled and description of the said islands, produced determination of their geographical location and transactions ana filming them at a scale of 1:40,000.

X. Names are given to some of the most important mountains and rivers located on the border and having no name ***** .

XI. The following documents and plans, drawn in the symbols of both states, were approved by signatures in Russian and Japanese, 2 copies in each.

Having completed the assigned work, the Chairmen of the Delimitation Commission: on the Russian side, Colonel Lileev, on the Japanese side, Major General Oshima, in the presence of the Members of the Commission, at a meeting on March 28/April 10, 1908 in the city of Vladivostok, drew up this Act in Russian in Japanese, two copies on each, and, having approved it with their signatures, exchanged one copy of this Act, together with one copy of the following documents, for the purpose of submitting them to their Governments in two texts, Russian and Japanese...

Chairman of the Commission from the Russian side, General Staff Colonel Lileev.

( in Japanese): Chairman of the Commission from the Japanese side Major General Oshima.

Notes.

* At these four points, more stone pillars were installed, on concrete bases, numbered from the east of I to IV and called astronomical boundaries pillars...
ByAccording to the definition of the Russian delimitation commission, the stone boundary pillars had the shape of a “tetrahedral truncated pyramid”, which in the orthogonal projection consists of six sides - the base, the upper section (plane) and four trapezoidal side faces. However, in reality, the upper part of the stone pillars was crowned by the Japanese with a tetrahedral peak, like a hipped (hip, but not hipped) roof, where two faces, southern and northern, also had a trapezoidal shape, and two faces, eastern and western, had a triangular shape or hip, with a steepness of each upper edge of approximately 40 - 50 degrees. In the orthogonal projection, each pillar on the former Russian-Japanese border had nine sides, that is, one base and eight visible faces, where four faces were lateral and four faces were top. It is possible that the uppermost edge of the tetrahedral top of the pillars among the Japanese symbolized the 50th parallel of northern latitude, as a line corresponding to the direction of the line of the real parallel. In this case, the length of the line of the upper edge on each pillar had its own length. For example, the length of the upper edge on the first astronomical boundary pillar was eighteen centimeters, although the length of the upper edge on the “small” intermediate boundary pillar was four centimeters longer...
On the southern, Japanese edgeastronomical pillars carvedchrysanthemum bas-relief,with a diameter of approximately 28 centimeters,on which each of the sixteen petals was adapted to the play of light and shadow on the new border between Russia and Japan on the island of Sakhalin. Above the chrysanthemum in a semicircle, reading the inscription, from right to left, five hieroglyphs are carved with words "Great Empire of Japan" (國帝本日大) . Moreover, each hieroglyph is carved exactly opposite the stone chrysanthemum petal with the hieroglyph本 (hon) "book" in the center. Under the chrysanthemum, from right to left, two hieroglyphs are carved with the word "border" ( 界境) , which, in turn, were located on pillars on both sides of the central petal of the chrysanthemum...

Currently, there is not a single astronomical boundary pillar with state symbols of Russia and Japan left on the former Russian-Japanese border.

Thus, the third and fourth astronomical boundary pillars disappeared without a trace from the former border, the fate of which has not yet been established.
As for the third astronomical boundary pillar, the Sakhalin Regional Museum of Local Lore houses a stone boundary pillar, which, however, has no historical relation to the original pillar.

In August 1988, on the eastern coast of Sakhalin Island, in the Narumi tract, I discovered the first astronomical boundary pillar knocked off a concrete base, which was urgently evacuated by me that same monthwith the help of a group of Soviet border guardsfrom the former border to a safe place.

The first astronomical boundary pillar that was installed by the Japanese

on the eastern coast of Sakhalin Island in the forest tract "Narumi" in 1907.

In 1995, on the right bank of the Poronai River, the second astronomical boundary pillar was knocked down from its concrete base by unknown persons, and then secretly taken to Japan and sold there to the Japanese authorities. Now this pillar is illegally kept in a museum on the island of Hokkaido.

NOTE: However, the first presentation of this pillar took place in June 1990 at the 15th regional show of amateur films and videos, which took place in the city of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk as part of the Third All-Union Festival of Folk Art of the RSFSR, during the showing of the amateur film “The Secret of the Northern Side.” I was one of the authors of this and other films about the former Russian-Japanese border on the island of Sakhalin, which were subsequently incorrectly used by my former co-author,amateur cinematographer, including in the Japanese media. And although this gave rise to a lot of speculation regarding the astronomical boundary pillars, however, they did not touch upon the most terrible secret of “Karafuto” on the island of Sakhalin - the Mystery of the Double-Headed Eagle...

Thus, of the four astronomical boundary pillars that were once located on the former Russian-Japanese border, only one stone pillar from the eastern coast of Sakhalin Island has been preserved in Russia, which is now stored in the Sakhalin Regional Museum of Local Lore...

** …at 17 points of this line lines on concrete bases small stonepillars called intermediate boundary pillarspillars and numbered from the east of 1 to 17th.

Phantom "Karafuto" No. 4.

*** « In some places between and boundary stone pillars are installed wooden poles for better guidance to the public borders."

The wooden posts were made from a single tree trunk, presumably from a local larch species. The total length of the pillars was three meters and fifty centimeters. Of these, two meters had a cylindrical shape, one meter and thirty-five centimeters had a square shape, and fifteen centimeters had the top of the pillars. Moreover, the tops had four-slope (tent) shapes, where each slope had a triangular shape, the tops of which, in turn, converged at one central point of all the pillars. Moreover, each of the four lateral sides of the slope had an inclination of approximately 50 degrees. The height of the wooden pillars above ground level was two meters, and the width of the sides was forty centimeters.

The pillars were dug into the ground to a depth of 1.5 meters and had four thin round timbers cut into the base of the pillars and protruding outwards, which kept the pillars from being squeezed out to the surface of the earth in the winter season. In order to protect the pillars from rotting, their cylindrical part protruded approximately fifty centimeters above the ground and had four steep slopes to drain water from the flat surface of each of the four sides of the pillars.

The wooden poles had state symbols of Russia and Japan and identical identification inscriptions in Russian and Japanese.

So on the northern, Russian side of the pillars was drawn in black ink Double headed eagle, the drawing of which was located at the very top of each pillar. Judging by the wingspan of the Double-Headed Eagle, the diameter of the pattern was at least twenty centimeters.

It should have long been said that the design of the Double-Headed Eagle, both on the wooden pillars and on the four stone astronomical pillars, which are described above,made in a conditional, emblematic form, which is not allowed in relation to state symbols in general and the Russian state emblem in particular.

Under the drawing of a Double-Headed Eagle, the word is written in large letters in a straightforward manner "ROSS II". However, in orthographic terms in the word "ROSS II"The uppercase and lowercase letters of the Russian alphabet are arranged incorrectly, which, in fact, is a direct spelling error. First of all, this concerns the pre-reform letter « I, i» (decimal) in word "ROSS II", which was written as a capital letter « I» ("AND"), but marked with a dot as a lowercase letter « i» ("And"). Therefore, correctly on the pillar the name of the Russian state should have been written with one uppercase and five lowercase letters, like the word "Ross iI". The key to the solution was a capital letter " R " against which the dot above the capital letter is especially striking « I" ("AND"). I note that above the capital letterI » there was no dot in the pre-reform alphabet.

Below, vertically, the word is also written rectilinearly in large Russian letters "BORDER". However, if you compare the height of the letters of the word "BORDER" In the photograph of a wooden pillar and in its drawing, it turns out that their heights are completely different. So in the photo of the pillar the height of the letters is the same as the height of the word "ROSS II", but in the drawing it is smaller. For example, in the drawing the word "BORDER" Although written in capital letters, the reduced height of the letters creates the appearance of a lowercase version of the letters for a given word. For example, like this the word would look like "border"consisting of only lowercase letters.
Not yet The following numbers indicate the year the pole was installed "1907", which is placed in the center of the pillar at the level of the third letter " A " and the fifth letter " And " in a word "BORDER". Moreover, the height of the numbers in the photograph and in the drawing also do not correspond to each other, since in the first case it is equal to the height of the word "ROSS II", and in the second case the height of the word "BORDER".

On the southern, Japanese side of the pillars, a round 16-petalled chrysanthemum was drawn in black ink, and under it, from top to bottom in the center of the pillar, the word was inscribed in hieroglyphs "Great Japanese State" (大日本帝 国 ) and the word "border"(境界 ). On the eastern side of the wooden pillars the year of installation was indicated in hieroglyphs - "40 Meiji Year" (明治四十年 ) , that is, 1907.

It should be noted that the issue of installing wooden poles on the former Russian-Japanese border was resolved only in July 1907, when, practically, at least two months remained until the end of the field season of demarcation work. At the same time, it was decided to install the pillars in river valleys and other convenient places at the discretion of each commission separately. Moreover, the question of the size and shape of the pillars was resolved in three words and consisted of their height above the ground (2 meters), geometric shape (“square”) and the width of the sides (40 cm). At the same time, the serial numbers of the wooden pillars were not specified in the commissions. As a result, in early October 1907, both commissions agreed that they would not indicate wooden poles on their plans.

**** Millet has been cut along the entire boundary line eka, 10 meters wide, in addition, from IV astronomical boundary pillar to the western a ditch one and a half meters wide was dug along the banks.

As for the clearing, then, judging by the act, it was “cut through” absolutely along the entire border line from the Sea of Okhotsk to the Tatar Strait. Consequently, the total length of the clearing, like the entire length of the former Russian-Japanese border on Sakhalin Island, established by the Russian-Japanese delimitation commission, was 131.7 kilometers. However, the presence of a ditch 1.5 meters wide and 345 meters long on the western coast of Sakhalin Island may indicate the absence of a clearing on this section of the former Russian-Japanese border. Perhaps the ditch was dug in a wasteland with sparse vegetation and single trees, such as are usually formed on Sakhalin Island as a result of repeated forest fires. In addition, by the end of the field season of delimitation work in 1907on the former border, passing in the Poronai Valley, areas with the presence of “burnt” forest were recorded and marked on maps...

In the first year of field demarcation work, 1906, a border clearing began to be laid to the west of the Poronai River by the forces of both commissions, as a result of which seven kilometers of clearing were cut in the Poronai Valley. However, later the Russian commission refused to further work with the Japanese, citing the fact that the Japanese coolies, against their will, were slowing down the entire progress of the work due to their inability to cut and fell wood. Perhaps this was one of the main reasons why the chairman of the Russian commission, Lieutenant Colonel of the General Staff V.I. Voskresensky, proposed that the Japanese commission split up and work in two directions at once, that is, east and west of the Poronai River. Moreover, despite the fact that the distance from the Poronai River to the eastern shore of Sakhalin Island was a little over twenty kilometers more than to the western shore of Sakhalin Island, the Russian commission moved to the east, and the Japanese commission to the west. As a result, by the end of the field season, the Russian commission laid thirty-six kilometers of clearing ten meters wide in the virgin Sakhalin taiga, and the Japanese, not counting the seven kilometers they traveled together, only seven kilometers...

NOTE: As for the work of the Japanese from the so-called “ninth mile”, announced on the pages of one Sakhalin publication, information about this, apparently, was taken by the author from an unverified source. However, I know the source of this information, which the author hid from readersin his small publication about the former Russian-Japanese border beyond 2008 . In addition, this also applies to my former co-author on amateur films, who in 2009 illegal used my research material in my festival work. In this regard, I plan to publish in the appendix to the article “The unknown border of “Karafuto” of Sakhalin Island” a short calendar of the work of the Russian delimitation commission on the island of Sakhalin for 1906, where I will use information from archival materials, including information from the same source of information dated March 17, 1907, hidden from readers and viewers by the above authors. Moreover, with a clear conscience II use this information without fear for my reputation, since all materials were acquired by me legally, confirmed by relevant documents and records...

«… If you trace this clearing, starting at least from the Sea of Okhotsk, then from the coast it immediately enters an extremely dissected mountainous country with a very complex topography, crosses numerous rivers heading east into the Sea of Okhotsk, climbs a high watershed and descends to the second largest after Tym River Poronaya... Further to the west from Poronaya the clearing follows at first through rather low-lying terrain. And then it again enters the labyrinth of mountain peaks, crosses the western watershed and steeply descends to the waters of the Tatar Strait. Throwing through wild ridges and gorges, this clearing, in its entirety, is completely unsuitable for movement either with pack horses or even on foot, although in some places, especially between the Okhotsk coast and the Poronai River, a good trail has been preserved along it, built by sappers, which served for delivery provisions for those who worked, however, not supported by anyone and serving only a few hunters, it quickly falls into decay... Nowadays, in the wild and deserted taiga, you come across all kinds of border posts and signs, and in this desert they alone remind the traveler that to the north Sakhalin goes, and Karafuto goes to the south.” Quote by: D.V. Sokolov. Russian Sakhalin. M. 1912. pp. 39-41.

***** Names are given to some of the most important mountains and rivers that were on the border and had no name.

On the former Russian-Japanese border there were more than twenty geographical names of mountains, tracts and rivers, which were given to them as a result of the delimitation of the island of Sakhalin between Russia and Japan in 1906-1907. Thus, the names of mountains and rivers on the section of the former Russian-Japanese border from the eastern coast of Sakhalin Island to the Poronai River, in addition to two Japanese names, were given by the Russian delimitation commission. The names of the mountains and tracts from the Poronai River to the western coast of Sakhalin Island were given by the Japanese delimitation commission. Only a few Russian names of such mountains and rivers as Mount Camel, Mount Brusnichnaya, and the river have survived to this day. South, r. Cascade and possibly the river. Muleika. As for Japanese names, the name of the Narumi tract, where the first astronomical point was located on the former Russian-Japanese border of Sakhalin Island, could well have survived to this day.

Anatoly Shestakov (" Pervomaiskiy").

ANNOUNCEMENT.

...Thus, without these basic concepts of the border, Russia, by the beginning of the twentieth century, would simply be open to the penetration of enemy armies on all more or less dangerous sea and land sections of the Russian border from the Northern Seas to the Great Ocean. Therefore, strengthening Russian borders, including sea borders, against enemy attacks has always been considered an important and paramount matter for Russia, right up to the present day. Russia has a wealth of experience in relation to the tactical, strategic, political and other properties of the line of state borders with neighboring countries, and this experience, accumulated by Russia over many centuries, is the invaluable gift that is the property of our Russian state.

I will not be mistaken if I confidently state that, probably, everyone, at least half an ear, has heard about this problem. The “Northern Territories” (for Russia, the southern ones) have long been a stumbling block in relations between the two neighboring countries, Russia and Japan. This long-standing dispute mixes up a lot: history, international law, foreign and domestic policy, military strategy, national feelings, etc. Basically, it is viewed from two sides: from the point of view of international law and from the point of view of history, that is, priority in discovery and research.

In this article I would like to highlight the relationship between the two countries regarding the territorial affiliation of the South Kuril Islands and Sakhalin and interest the reader in this problem, in forming their own views.

So, the problem of the “northern territories”. These territories include three relatively large ones (Shikotan, Iturup, Kunashir) and a number of small islands of the Kuril ridge, the so-called Habomai ridge (Polonsky, Zeleny, Tanfilyeva, Yuri, Anuchina, Demina, Signalny, Lissi, Shishki). The dispute about who owns this territory permeates the entire history of relations between the two neighboring states, either fading or intensifying again. For example, in Soviet times this problem simply “did not exist.” The Soviet government did not recognize its existence. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became its successor. Russia, which calls itself a democratic state. Russia, which strives to transfer its economy to “market tracks” with minimal losses. A Russia that wants to cooperate closely with other states and intends to become a full-fledged and full-fledged member of the modern international community, which is new to us both economically and in many other aspects. At such a moment, it is natural to remember the existence of this problem, since Japan is one of the attractive economic partners in the rather promising Asia-Pacific region. The situation is complicated by the fact that for many years of the Cold War, Japan was, figuratively speaking, “on the other side of the barricades” and at a time when many of us did not even suspect the existence of a problem, active anti-Soviet propaganda was carried out there. As a result, today we have a rather reactionary Japanese public opinion.

Development of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands and the formation of the Russian-Japanese border

The beginning of the formation of the Russian-Japanese maritime border in the area of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, as well as the beginning of the exploration of these territories in general, dates back to the 17th century. It is assumed that the first to know about Sakhalin were the Nivkhs, who visited the island in winter, when the narrow part of the strait froze. Sometimes in the summer they sailed across the Tatar Strait on their boats. The first relatively accurate information about Sakhalin in Russia came from members of the expedition under the leadership of the writer V.D. Poyarkov in 1643 - 1646 However, the existence of islands in the Sea of Okhotsk could have been suspected even before this. In the description of the expedition of Maxim Perfilyev in 1693 - 1641. on the Vitim and Amur rivers it is said that the mouth of the Amur is free, there is no peninsula here, and that Chinese merchant ships sail along the Tatar Strait (in order to pass from the coast of China, i.e. from the south, to the mouth of the Amur, you need to go through most of the Tatar Strait , including its narrowest section - the Nevelskoy Strait). It is likely that Perfilyev could have known from local peoples about the island lying opposite the mouth of the Amur.

Around the same period, the Russians learned about the Kuril Islands. According to some Russian sources, Fedot Alekseevich Popov, a participant in the Dezhnev expedition in 1648 - 1649, was the first to visit them. The Japanese historian T. Matsunaga wrote: “In 1643 (the 20th year of Kei-an) the Russians came to Kamchatka and discovered the Tisim Islands, the name of which they changed to the Kuril Islands,” and after Bering’s voyage “the Russians occupied the nearest 21 islands,” that is, all the Kuriles, because the 22nd island was called Hokkaido. He also writes about Sakhalin: “They say that the Russians arrived on the island of Karafuto for the first time in 1650 (3rd year of Kei-an’s reign), and from that time on, the northern part of the island became the possession of Russia. Our country, although it claims that Karafuto has long been our possession, there is no real occupation of its territories by us.” There are also sources that speak in favor of the first discovery of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin by the Japanese. For example, the German Japanese scholar F. Siebold reported in the mid-19th century that in 1613 the Japanese traveled to Sakhalin to describe and map it.

D. Garrison wrote that back in 1604, the military ruler of Japan, the shogun, granted Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to Prince Matsumae, and Ray Shiratori argued that the indigenous population of the Kuril Islands had been in vassal relations with the central authorities of Japan since 1615. About who The first to know about the existence of the islands can be debated for a long time, but it is probably worth paying a lot of attention not only to the dates, but also to the very methods of penetration into the islands and the goals that they pursued. The Japanese mainly established trade contacts, and trade was quite active and of an equal nature. Some Ainu left with the Japanese for Hokkaido, being the latter to be hired. For the Russian pioneers, the main task was not so much trade as the annexation of these lands to the Russian state and, in accordance with this, taxation of the local population with yasak, that is, a tax in favor of the treasury. Moreover, the Russians often encountered resistance from the local population and used force. An important role was also played by the fact that in 1638 - 1639. Shogun Iemitsu Tokugawa, outraged by the activities of the Jesuits in Japan, prohibits Christianity and “closes” the country from the outside world. From now on, for many years, any travel abroad is punishable by death. And although the northern borders were not clearly defined, research even on the island of Hokkaido at that time was carried out quietly, unsystematically, and almost no official data about them was preserved. One way or another, we can talk about the discovery and exploration of the islands at about the same time by the Russians from the north, and the Japanese from the south. And despite the fact that Russian researchers had official state support for their research, it is still impossible to talk about the peremptory right to ownership of all the islands of Russia, considering this issue from the point of view of priority in discovery and development. Nevertheless, until the 19th century, i.e., before the first treaty between Russia and Japan, Sakhalin and the Kuril ridge were considered the territory of the Russian Empire.

Russian-Japanese negotiations of the 19th and early 20th centuries

The beginning of Russian-Japanese diplomatic and trade relations was laid by the Shimoda Treaty on Trade and Borders, concluded on February 7, 1855. It was signed as a result of negotiations led by E. Putyatin. According to this treaty, diplomatic relations were established between Russia and Japan; the subjects of the two countries were to mutually enjoy patronage and protection; the ports of Nagasaki, Shimoda, and Hakodate were opened for Russian ships; the presence of a Russian consul in one of the Japanese cities was allowed since 1856, etc.

The border was established between the islands of Urup and Iturup - i.e. The islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai went to Japan. Sakhalin remained undivided. In the instructions for the negotiations, Nicholas I wrote that it should be done so that “from our side, the southern tip of this island [Urupa] was (as it essentially is now) the border with Japan.”

The next milestone in Russian-Japanese relations was the signing of the St. Petersburg Treaty in 1875, according to which, in exchange for renouncing its claims to the southern part of Sakhalin Island, Japan received the entire Kuril ridge. This was explained in Russian history again as forced actions, consequences of the difficult situation in Russia at that time, which was determined by the following factors:

The focus of Russian diplomacy in the Middle East, where at that time a crisis and war with Turkey were brewing;
Russia's position in the Pacific region at that time was not strong enough;

To refute the thesis that Russia was forced to sign the 1875 treaty, one can cite the idea, pursued in a number of studies, that the Russian authorities themselves intended to exchange the Kuril Islands remaining to them after 1855 for the more valuable Sakhalin, as well as evidence of dissatisfaction that flared up in Japan with the 1875 treaty as infringing on the interests of the Japanese state.

USSR - Japan

Young Soviet Russia recognized the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905 as valid. It was concluded after the Russo-Japanese War. Under this treaty, Japan not only retained all of the Kuril Islands, but also received Southern Sakhalin.

This was the situation with the disputed islands before the Second World War - even before 1945. I would like to once again draw general attention to the fact that until the 45th year Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai never belonged to Russia, and to say otherwise means going against facts. Everything that happened after 1945 is no longer so clear.

During almost the entire period of World War II (September 1939 - August 1945), Japan and the Soviet Union were not at war. For in April 1941, a Neutrality Pact was concluded between both countries with a validity period of 5 years. However, on August 9, 1945, three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and on the same day of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, the Soviet Union, in violation of the Neutrality Pact, entered the war against Japan, whose defeat was no longer in doubt. A week later, on August 14, Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and capitulated to the Allied powers.

After the end of the war, the entire territory of Japan was occupied by Allied forces. As a result of negotiations between the allies, the territory of Japan proper was subject to occupation by US troops, Taiwan by Chinese troops, and Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands by Soviet troops. The occupation of the Northern Territories was a military occupation, completely bloodless after hostilities, and therefore subject to termination as a result of a territorial settlement under a peace treaty.

During a war, the territory of another country may be occupied and the occupying country, under international law, has the rights to administer it on the basis of military necessity. However, on the other hand, the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and other international legal instruments impose certain obligations on this country, in particular, respect for the private rights of the population. Stalin ignored these international norms and, by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on February 2, 1946, included the areas under occupation into the territory of his country.

And here is the opinion of the Japanese side: “We welcome that recently the Russian government has stated that it is considering the territorial problem between Japan and Russia on the basis of legality and justice. It is from the point of view of legality and justice that we believe that the mentioned Decree of the Presidium is illegal and clarification of this is of paramount importance and the appropriation of the territory of another state through such a unilateral act is not legally allowed.”

A peace treaty between Japan and the United States, England and other allied countries was concluded in 1951 in San Francisco. The Soviet Union also took part in the peace conference, but did not sign the San Francisco Treaty. In the San Francisco Conference and the San Francisco Peace Treaty regarding the problem of the Northern Territories, the following two points are significant.

The first is that Japan renounces all rights to South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands under the treaty. However, Iturup, Shikotan, Kunashir and the Habomai ridge, which have always been Japanese territory, are not included in the Kuril Islands, which Japan abandoned. The US government, regarding the scope of the concept of the “Kuril Islands” in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, stated in an official document: “[They] are not included and there was no intention to include [in the Kuril Islands] the Habomai and Shikotan ridges, as well as Kunashir and Iturup, which have always been a part of Japan proper and must therefore rightly be recognized as being under Japanese sovereignty." The second point is related to the fact that the act of annexation by the Soviet Union of South Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands and the Northern Territories did not receive international recognition. First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A. Gromyko tried to achieve recognition of Soviet sovereignty over these areas, in particular, by proposing amendments to the treaty, but they were rejected by the conference and were not accepted into the contents of the treaty. For this and a number of other reasons, the USSR did not sign the treaty. The San Francisco Treaty makes clear that it does not grant any rights arising from the treaty to non-signatory countries.

Due to the fact that the USSR did not sign the San Francisco Treaty, negotiations were held between June 1955 and October 1956 between Japan and the Soviet Union with the goal of concluding a separate peace treaty between both countries. These negotiations did not lead to an agreement: the Japanese side stated that Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai ridge are the territory of Japan and demanded their return, and the Soviet side took the position that, having agreed to return only Shikotan and Habomai, it could not return Iturup and Kunashir.

As a result, Japan and the USSR, instead of a peace treaty, signed a Joint Declaration, that is, an agreement that provided for the end of the state of war and the restoration of diplomatic relations. Article 9 of this treaty states that after the establishment of diplomatic relations, the parties will continue negotiations to conclude a peace treaty; and the USSR also returns the Habomai ridge and the island of Shikotan after the conclusion of a peace treaty.

The Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration was ratified by the parliaments of both countries and is a treaty deposited with the UN.

In April 1991, the then President of the USSR M. Gorbachev visited Japan. The Japanese-Soviet Statement published at that time explicitly mentioned the Habomai ridge, the islands of Shikotan, Kunashir and Iturup. The parties agreed that “the peace treaty should become a document of the final post-war settlement, including the resolution of the territorial issue,” and an agreement was also reached to speed up the preparation of the peace treaty.

After the August Democratic Revolution, Russian President B. Yeltsin proposed a new approach to the territorial issue inherited by Russia from the USSR, which is naturally and positively assessed since the government of the Russian Federation, inheriting the international legal responsibilities of the USSR, declares compliance with the UN Declaration. This new approach, firstly, emphasizes the understanding that as a result of positive changes in today's world, a new international order is emerging, in which the division between winners and losers of the Second World War no longer exists. Secondly, it is emphasized that when resolving the territorial issue, legality and justice become important principles, including respect for international agreements concluded in the past. That's all. There was no further movement.

As for the policies of the current President Putin, Japanese politicians led by former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori proposed adhering to the updated Kawan plan for solving the problem, announced in April 1998 by Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto. The Kavan plan is that after the demarcation of the border and the legal assignment of the islands to Japan, the disputed territories will remain de facto Russian for some time. The Russian delegation rejected this proposal, saying that it could not be considered as a mutually acceptable compromise. Putin, in turn, proposed moving towards a peace treaty gradually, while simultaneously building up the entire range of relations. To this end, Vladimir Putin invited the Prime Minister to pay an official visit to Russia, and the two leaders agreed to hold official meetings at least once a year - analogous to what exists between Moscow and Beijing, our “strategic partner.”

Now about the population of the ill-fated islands. According to Rudakova, head of the social department of the Kurilsk administration, every year the Japanese ask Kuril residents whether they want the islands to go to Japan. On Shikotan, as a rule, 60 percent do not want this, and 40 percent are not against it. On other islands, 70 percent are completely against it. “In Shikotan after the 1994 earthquake, everything is Japanese, even the fruit. People are very used to freebies and don’t want to work. They think that the Japanese will always feed them this way,” states Rudakova. Indeed, this option is not included in the Japanese plans. Back in March 1999, the “Society for the Study of the Problem of Restoring Japanese Sovereignty over the Northern Territories” developed rules according to which the Russians would live on the islands after they were transferred to the Japanese. “Residents of Russian origin who have lived for more than 5 years after restoration on Japanese territory, if they wish, have the opportunity to obtain Japanese citizenship after conducting an appropriate individual check,” the document says.

Nevertheless, Japan, a mononational country in which even the descendants of foreigners who settled several generations ago cannot obtain citizenship, pretends that all the rights of the Russians remaining on the islands will be preserved. So that Kuril residents can see with their own eyes how wonderful their life will be under their new owners, the Japanese spare no expense on receptions. Iochi Nakano, head of the secretariat of the Hokkaido Commission for the Development of Relations with the Northern Islands, said that for just one Russian who came to Hokkaido, the island government spends $1,680, not counting contributions from various public organizations. Japanese authorities seem to see things differently. They are confident that their tactics bring positive results. Iochi Nakano says: “Personally, I think there are few Russians in the northern islands who would like to remain Russians. If such exist, it is all the more important to accustom them to the fact that the northern territories belong to Japan.” Kuril residents are very surprised by the ability of the Japanese to quickly believe in what they want and pass it off as reality. Rimma Rudakova recalls how in September 2000, when Putin was in Okinawa, the Japanese hosts of the group began to furiously argue that the decision had already been made to transfer Shikotan and Habomai, and even started talking about starting negotiations on the transfer of southern Sakhalin. “When we left ten days later, they expressed regret that this had not happened,” she said.

Conclusion

So, what did the Russian-Japanese territorial dispute come to? Statements about the Kuril Islands belonging to one of the disputing parties based on priorities in the first discovery, first description, first settlement, first development and first annexation in the legal sense do not outweigh each other. In international legal terms, the Kuril Islands were partially assigned to Japan under the Shimoda Treaty of 1855 and fully under the St. Petersburg Treaty of 1875. As for the Shimoda, St. Petersburg and Portsmouth treaties, their status as international legal acts requires taking into account, signed by representatives of both states and subject to strict compliance. References to the fact that Russia was forced to sign these treaties are untenable. An important point is the agreement of the USSR, recorded in the Beijing Treaty of 1925, that the Portsmouth Treaty remains in force. It is also difficult to agree with the current interpretation of the Beijing Treaty as temporary for the USSR. Did Japan abandon the “northern territories” at the end of World War II? To answer this question, it is important to decide whether or not the “disputed islands” belong to the concept of the “Kuril Islands”. An analysis of the Shimoda and St. Petersburg treaties does not confirm the correctness of either the Japanese side, which excludes the “northern territories” from the Kuril Islands, or the Soviet side, which takes the opposite position. As for the San Francisco Treaty, while it formalized Japan's renunciation of the Kuril Islands, it did not clarify the geographical limits of this concept. Under this treaty, Japan renounced the Kuril Islands, but not a single international legal document defines either the addressee of this refusal or the very concept of the Kuril Islands (that is, the possibility remains for statements that the “northern territories” do not belong to the Kuril Islands).

Below are two views on the problem.

“Why are the islands ours?” Russia's point of view

Complete and unconditional surrender (which Japan announced after defeat in the war) means not only the recognition of defeat in hostilities, but also the cessation of the existence of the state as a subject of international relations, the loss of its sovereignty and powers, which pass to the winners. Thus, post-war Japan (as well as post-war Germany and the GDR, and even the current united Germany) are not continuers of the subjectivity of pre-war states; these are new states created on the terms of allies within new borders, with new constitutions and authorities. Thus, being a new state, Japan cannot demand the “return” of the islands, which, moreover, it abandoned under the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

“Why are the islands ours?” Japan's point of view

Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai have always been Japanese territory and are not among the “areas captured by Japan through violence and greed” mentioned in the Cairo Declaration. The act of annexation of the Northern Territories contradicted the principle of non-expansion of territories, which was proclaimed by the same declaration.

As for the Yalta Agreement, Japan, which did not sign it and did not even know about it at the time of signing, does not consider itself bound by it. Moreover, the Yalta Agreement is merely a document outlining general goals and does not constitute a legal basis for the transfer of territory.

Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai are not part of the Kuril Islands, which Japan renounced under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, since they are traditional Japanese territory. Moreover, the treaty does not stipulate their transfer to the USSR anywhere.

Additional argument: the islands of Shikotan and Habomai do not belong to the Kuril Islands, but are part of the island system of Hokkaido. In turn, the concept of “Kuril Islands” does not cover the “special geographical unit” - the “Southern Kuril Islands”, i.e. Kunashir and Iturup.

NB: the last argument is very controversial in the part that relates to the islands of Kunashir and Iturup - the “Southern Kuriles” have never been identified as an independent group on geographical maps. The attribution of Shikotan to the Hokkaido island system is also controversial. On the other hand, the Habomai most likely do relate to her. But this question must be left to geologists.

And in conclusion of all this, let’s remember what N. Lomanovich wrote before M.S.’s visit. Gorbachev to Japan (1991): “... both sides provide numerous historical references, from which it is absolutely clear: the disputed islands have always been primordially Japanese (Russian) lands. These statements are perhaps immoral on both sides. Let's remember that the Kuril Islands are, first of all, the ancestral land of the Ainu."

Literature

Bondarenko O.“Unknown Kuriles” M. 1992.
Eremin V.“Russia - Japan. Territorial problem: searching for a solution.” M. 1992.
Markov A.P.“Russia - Japan. In search of agreement." M. 1996.
Rep. ed. Krushanov A.I. “History of the Far East of the USSR from ancient times to the 17th century.” M. 1989.
Rep. ed. Khazanov A.M. “Russia - CIS - Asia. Problems and prospects for cooperation.” M. 1993.
"Nezavisimaya Gazeta" from 1991
“Japan times” No. 2230
"Soviet Sakhalin" No. 142 from 04.08.01
Internet sites: http://www.lenta.ru; http://www.vld.ru/ppx/kurily; http://www.strana.ru; http://subscribe.ru/archive

Japan is a country with a unique culture and a special structure of society. The uniqueness of Japan lies in its history, life and borders of this state. The Land of the Rising Sun does not border on any other state on land, but on the sea its borders touch three countries at once.

Who does Japan border on?

Japan's maritime borders are adjacent to the following countries:

Russian Federation;
Republic of Korea;
And with China.

These states are not only neighbors of the Japanese, but also have territorial disputes with them that have not been resolved for several decades.

Japan is trying to divide the Kuril Islands with Russia. Claims to Korea and China are also related to island territories.

The Japanese borders run through the Pacific Ocean, as well as through the Sea of Japan and the Sea of Okhotsk. The borders also lie in the East China Sea, some of them cover Philippine waters.

« The Land of the Rising Sun is an island state. Japan contains more than three thousand different islands».

The length of the Russian-Japanese border is approximately 194 kilometers. From the Russian point of view, the border with Japan covers the La Perouse, Sovetsky, Kunashirsky and Izmena Straits. The Japanese, because of their claims to the Kuril Islands, draw the border through Frieza and La Perouse.

Since Japan, even today, is quite closed from the outside world, there are no customs or checkpoints at many of its borders. Entering the country is fraught with many difficulties, and the list of things that cannot be brought into Japanese territory is quite impressive. Despite the difficulties of obtaining a visa, Japanese lands are regularly visited by thousands of tourists, because the culture of this state is worthy of being known to all its foreign connoisseurs.

Did you like the article? Share it

Print this article