The dispute over the southernmost Kuril Islands - Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Khabomai - has been a point of tension between Japan and Russia since they were taken over by the Soviet Union in 1945. More than 70 years later, Russian-Japanese relations are still not normal due to the ongoing territorial dispute. To a large extent, it was historical factors that prevented the solution of this issue. These include demographics, mentality, institutions, geography, and economics, all of which encourage tough policies rather than willingness to compromise. The first four factors contribute to the persistence of the stalemate, while the economy in the form of oil policy is associated with some hope of a resolution.

Russia's claims to the Kuriles date back to the 17th century, which occurred as a result of periodic contacts with Japan through Hokkaido. In 1821, the border was de facto established, according to which Iturup became Japanese territory, and Russian land began from Urup Island. Subsequently, according to the Shimodsky Treaty (1855) and the St. Petersburg Treaty (1875), all four islands were recognized as the territory of Japan. The last time the Kuriles changed their owner as a result of the Second World War - in 1945 in Yalta, the allies, in fact, agreed to transfer these islands to Russia.

The dispute over the islands became part of Cold War politics during the negotiations for the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Article 2c of which forced Japan to renounce all of its claims to the Kuril Islands. However, the refusal of the Soviet Union to sign this agreement left these islands in a state of limbo. In 1956, a joint Soviet-Japanese declaration was signed, which de facto meant the end of the state of war, but failed to resolve the territorial conflict. After the ratification of the US-Japan Security Treaty in 1960, further negotiations were stopped, and this continued until the 1990s.

However, after the end of the Cold War in 1991, there seemed to be a new opportunity to resolve this issue. Despite the tumultuous events in world affairs, the positions of Japan and Russia on the Kuriles have not changed much since 1956, and the reason for this situation was five historical factors that were outside the Cold War.

The first factor is demographic. Japan's population is already declining due to low birth rates and aging, while Russia's population has been declining since 1992 due to excessive drinking and other social ills. This shift, together with the weakening of international influence, has led to the emergence of retrospective tendencies, and both nations are now basically trying to resolve this issue by looking backwards rather than forwards. In the presence of such attitudes, it can be concluded that the aging populations of Japan and Russia are depriving Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Vladimir Putin of the opportunity to negotiate because of firmly entrenched views on the issue of the Kuriles.

Context

Is Russia ready to return two islands?

Sankei Shimbun 10/12/2016

Military construction in the Kuriles

The Guardian 06/11/2015

Is it possible to agree on the Kuril Islands?

BBC Russian service 05/21/2015
All this also plays into the hands of the mentality and perception of the outside world, which are formed on the basis of how history is taught, and more broadly on the basis of how it is presented by the media and public opinion. For Russia, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major psychological blow, accompanied by a loss of status and power as many former Soviet republics seceded. This has significantly altered Russia's borders and created significant uncertainty about the future of the Russian nation. It is well known that in times of crisis, citizens often display stronger patriotic feelings and feelings of defensive nationalism. The Kurile dispute fills a void in Russia and also provides an opportunity to speak out against the perceived emotionally historical injustice committed by Japan.

The perception of Japan in Russia was largely shaped by the issue of the Kuril Islands, and this continued until the end of the Cold War. Anti-Japanese propaganda became common after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, and it was reinforced by Japanese intervention during the Russian Civil War (1918-1922). This led many Russians to believe that as a result, all previously concluded treaties were annulled. However, Russia's victory over Japan in World War II ended the previous humiliation and reinforced the symbolic meaning of the Kuril Islands, which came to represent (1) the irreversibility of the results of World War II and (2) Russia's status as a great power. From this point of view, the transfer of territory is seen as a revision of the outcome of the war. Therefore, control over the Kuriles retains an important psychological significance for the Russians.

Japan is trying to define its place in the world as a "normal" state, located next to an increasingly powerful China. The question of the return of the Kuril Islands is directly linked to the national identity of Japan, and these territories themselves are perceived as the last symbol of defeat in World War II. The Russian offensive and the capture of Japan's "inalienable territory" helped reinforce the victim mentality that became the prevailing narrative after the end of the war.

This attitude is reinforced by the Japanese conservative media, which often supports the government's foreign policy. In addition, nationalists often use the media to viciously attack academics and politicians who hint at the possibility of reaching a compromise on this issue, leaving little room for manoeuvre.

This, in turn, has an impact on the political institutions of both Japan and Russia. In the 1990s, President Boris Yeltsin's position was so weak that he feared possible impeachment if the Kuril Islands were handed over to Japan. At the same time, the central Russian government was weakened as a result of the growing influence of regional politicians, including the two governors of the Sakhalin region - Valentin Fedorov (1990 - 1993) and Igor Fakhrutdinov (1995 - 2003), who actively opposed the possible sale of the Kuriles to Japan. They relied on nationalist sentiments, and this was enough to prevent the completion of the treaty and its implementation in the 1990s.

Since President Putin came to power, Moscow has brought regional governments under its influence, but other institutional factors have also contributed to the stalemate. One example is the idea that the situation should mature, and then some issue or problem can be solved. During the initial period of his rule, President Putin was able, but not willing, to negotiate with Japan over the Kuriles. Instead, he decided to devote his time and energy to resolving the Sino-Russian border conflict through the issue of the Kuril Islands.

Since returning to the presidency in 2013, Putin has become increasingly dependent on the support of nationalist forces, and it is unlikely that he will be ready to cede the Kuriles in any meaningful way. Recent events in Crimea and Ukraine clearly demonstrate how far Putin is willing to go to defend Russia's national status.

Japanese political institutions, while different from Russia's, also support a hard line of negotiation over the Kuriles. As a result of the reforms carried out after the end of World War II, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) dominates Japan. With the exception of the period from 1993 to 1995 and from 2009 to 2012, the LDP had and continues to have a majority in the national legislative assembly, and in fact its party platform regarding the return of the four southern islands of the Kuril chain since 1956 has been an integral part of national politics.

In addition, the real estate crash of 1990-1991 saw the Liberal Democratic Party nominate only two effective prime ministers, Junichiro Koizumi and Shinzo Abe, both of whom rely on nationalist support to maintain their positions. Finally, regional politics in Japan plays an important role, and elected politicians in Hokkaido are pushing the central government to take a assertive stance in this dispute. Taken together, all these factors do not contribute to a compromise that would include the return of all four islands.

Sakhalin and Hokkaido emphasize the importance of geography and regional interests in this dispute. Geography influences how people see the world and how they observe policy making and implementation. The most important Russian interests are in Europe, followed by the Middle East and Central Asia, and only after that Japan. To give one example, Russia devotes much of its time and effort to the issue of NATO expansion to the east, to the eastern part of Europe, as well as to the negative consequences associated with the events in Crimea and Ukraine. As far as Japan is concerned, the alliance with the United States, China, and the Korean Peninsula take precedence over relations with Moscow. The Japanese government must also consider public pressure to resolve issues with North Korea over kidnapping and nuclear weapons, which Abe has promised to do on several occasions. As a result, the issue of the Kuriles is often relegated to the background.

Probably the only factor contributing to a possible resolution of the Kuril issue is economic interests. After 1991, both Japan and Russia entered a period of prolonged economic crisis. The Russian economy reached its lowest point during the crisis of its national currency in 1997, and is currently facing serious difficulties due to the collapse in oil prices and economic sanctions. However, the development of oil and gas fields in Siberia, in the process of which Japanese capital and Russian natural resources are combined, contributes to cooperation and a possible resolution of the Kuriles issue. Despite the sanctions imposed, 8% of Japan's oil consumption in 2014 was imported from Russia, and the increase in oil and natural gas consumption is largely due to the consequences of the disaster at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima.

In their totality, historical factors largely determine the continued stagnation in resolving the issue of the Kuril Islands. The demographics, geography, political institutions, and attitudes of the citizens of Japan and Russia all contribute to a tough negotiating position. Oil policy provides some incentive for both nations to resolve disputes and normalize relations. However, so far this has not been enough to break the impasse. Despite the possible change of leaders around the world, the main factors that have driven this dispute to a standstill are likely to remain unchanged.

Michael Bacalu is a member of the Council on Asian Affairs. He received a master's degree in international relations from Seoul University, South Korea, and a bachelor's degree in history and political science from Arcadia University. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author as an individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization with which he has ties.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

History of the Kuril Islands

Background

Briefly, the history of the "belonging" of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Island is as follows.

1.In period 1639-1649. Russian Cossack detachments led by Moskovitinov, Kolobov, Popov explored and began to explore Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. At the same time, Russian pioneers repeatedly swim to the island of Hokkaido, where they are peacefully met by local natives of the Ainu people. The Japanese appeared on this island a century later, after which they exterminated and partially assimilated the Ainu.

2.B 1701 Cossack constable Vladimir Atlasov reported to Peter I about the "subordination" of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to the Russian crown, leading to the "wonderful Nipon kingdom."

3.B 1786. By order of Catherine II, a register of Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean was produced, bringing the register to the attention of all European states as a declaration of Russia's rights to these possessions, including Sakhalin and the Kuriles.

4.B 1792. By decree of Catherine II, the entire ridge of the Kuril Islands (both Northern and Southern), as well as Sakhalin Island officially incorporated into the Russian Empire.

5. As a result of the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War 1854-1855 gg. under pressure England and France Russia forced was concluded with Japan on February 7, 1855. Treaty of Shimoda, through which four southern islands of the Kuril chain were transferred to Japan: Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashir and Iturup. Sakhalin remained undivided between Russia and Japan. At the same time, however, the right of Russian ships to enter Japanese ports was recognized, and "permanent peace and sincere friendship between Japan and Russia" was proclaimed.

6.May 7, 1875 under the Petersburg Treaty, the tsarist government as a very strange act of "good will" makes incomprehensible further territorial concessions to Japan and transfers to it 18 more small islands of the archipelago. In return, Japan finally recognized Russia's right to the whole of Sakhalin. It is for this agreement referred most of all by the Japanese today, slyly silent that the first article of this treaty reads: "... and henceforth eternal peace and friendship will be established between Russia and Japan" ( the Japanese themselves violated this treaty in the 20th century repeatedly). Many Russian statesmen of those years sharply condemned this “exchange” treaty as short-sighted and harmful to the future of Russia, comparing it with the same short-sightedness as the sale of Alaska to the United States of America in 1867 for next to nothing (7 billion 200 million dollars). ), saying "now we're biting our own elbows".

7. After the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 gg. followed another stage of humiliation of Russia. By Portsmouth peace treaty concluded on September 5, 1905, Japan received the southern part of Sakhalin, all the Kuril Islands, and also took away from Russia the right to lease the naval bases of Port Arthur and Dalniy. When Russian diplomats reminded the Japanese that all these provisions are contrary to the 1875 treaty g., those arrogantly and arrogantly answered : « War cancels all treaties. You have failed and let's proceed from the current situation ". Reader, remember this boastful declaration of the invader!

8. Next comes the time of punishment of the aggressor for his eternal greed and territorial expansion. Signed by Stalin and Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference February 10, 1945 G. " Agreement on the Far East"It was envisaged:" ... 2-3 months after the surrender of Germany, the Soviet Union will enter the war against Japan subject to the return to the Soviet Union of the southern part of Sakhalin, all the Kuril Islands, as well as the restoration of the lease of Port Arthur and Dalny(these built and equipped hands of Russian workers, soldiers and sailors in the late XIX-early XX centuries. geographically very convenient naval bases were donated to "fraternal" China. But these bases were so necessary for our fleet in the 60-80s of the rampant "cold war" and intense combat service of the fleet in remote areas of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. I had to equip the forward base Cam Ranh in Vietnam for the fleet from scratch).

9.B July 1945 g. in accordance with Potsdam Declaration heads of the victorious countries the following verdict was passed regarding the future of Japan: "The sovereignty of Japan shall be limited to four islands: Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu, and such as WE SPECIFY". August 14, 1945 the Japanese government has publicly confirmed the acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, and on September 2 Japan unconditionally surrendered. Article 6 of the Instrument of Surrender reads: "... the Japanese government and its successors will faithfully fulfill the terms of the Potsdam Declaration to give such orders and take such actions as the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Powers shall require in order to carry out this declaration...”. January 29, 1946 Commander-in-Chief General MacArthur DEMANDED by Directive No. 677: "The Kuril Islands, including Habomai and Shikotan, are excluded from the jurisdiction of Japan." AND only after that of legal action, a Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of February 2, 1946 was issued, which stated: "All lands, bowels and waters of Sakhalin and the Kul Islands are the property of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Thus, the Kuril Islands (both Northern and Southern), as well as about. Sakhalin, legally And were returned to Russia in accordance with international law . This could put an end to the "problem" of the Southern Kuriles and stop all further verbiage. But the story of the Kuriles continues.

10. After the end of World War II US occupied Japan and turned it into their military foothold in the Far East. In September 1951 USA, UK and a number of other states (total 49) signed San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, prepared in violation of the Potsdam agreements without the participation of the Soviet Union . Therefore, our government did not join the treaty. However, Art. 2, chapter II of this treaty, it is fixed in black and white: “ Japan renounces all legal grounds and claims ... to the Kuril Islands and that part of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty under the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905. However, even after this, the story with the Kuriles does not end.

October 11.19 1956 d. the government of the Soviet Union, following the principles of friendship with neighboring states, signed with the Japanese government joint declaration, according to which the state of war between the USSR and Japan ended and peace, good neighborliness and friendly relations were restored between them. When signing the Declaration as a gesture of good will and no more promised to give Japan the two southernmost islands of Shikotan and Habomai, but only after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the countries.

12. However The United States after 1956 imposed a number of military agreements on Japan, replaced in 1960 by a single "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security", according to which US troops remained on its territory, and thereby the Japanese islands turned into a base of aggression against the Soviet Union. In connection with this situation, the Soviet government announced to Japan that it was impossible to transfer the promised two islands to it.. And in the same statement it was emphasized that according to the declaration of October 19, 1956, "peace, good neighborliness and friendly relations" between the countries were established. Therefore, an additional peace treaty may not be required.
Thus, the problem of the Southern Kuriles does not exist. It's been decided a long time ago. AND de jure and de facto the islands belong to Russia . In this regard, it might be to remind the Japanese of their arrogant statement in 1905 g., and also indicate that Japan was defeated in World War II and therefore has no rights to any territory, even to her ancestral lands, except for those granted to her by the victors.
AND our foreign ministry just as harshly, or in a milder diplomatic form it would be necessary to declare this to the Japanese and put an end to this, FOREVER stopping all negotiations and even conversations on this non-existent and humiliating problem of the dignity and authority of Russia.
And again the "territorial question"

However, starting from 1991 , repeatedly held meetings of the President Yeltsin and members of the Russian government, diplomats with government circles in Japan, during which the Japanese side every time importunately raises the question of the "Northern Japanese Territories".
Thus, in the Tokyo Declaration 1993 signed by the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan, was again acknowledged the "existence of the territorial issue", and both sides promised to "make efforts" to resolve it. The question arises - could our diplomats really know that such declarations should not be signed, because the recognition of the existence of a "territorial issue" is contrary to the national interests of Russia (Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Treason") ??

As for the peace treaty with Japan, it is de facto and de jure in accordance with the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of October 19, 1956. not really needed. The Japanese do not want to conclude an additional official peace treaty, and there is no need. He Japan needs more, as the side that was defeated in the Second World War, rather than Russia.

A citizens of Russia should know the “problem” of the South Kuriles, sucked from the finger , her exaggeration, periodic media hype around her and the litigation of the Japanese - there is consequence illegal Japan's claims in violation of the obligations it has assumed, to strictly comply with the international obligations recognized and signed by it. And such a constant desire of Japan to reconsider the ownership of many territories in the Asia-Pacific region pervades Japanese politics throughout the 20th century.

Why the Japanese, one might say, have seized the South Kuriles with their teeth and are trying to seize them again illegally? But because the economic and military-strategic importance of this region is extremely great for Japan, and even more so for Russia. This an area of ​​colossal seafood riches(fish, living creatures, marine animals, vegetation, etc.), deposits of minerals, and rare earth minerals, energy sources, mineral raw materials.

For example, January 29 of this year. short information slipped through the Vesti (RTR) program: a a large deposit of the rare earth metal Rhenium(75th element in the periodic table, and the only one in the world ).
Scientists allegedly calculated that it would be enough to invest only 35 thousand dollars, but the profit from the extraction of this metal will allow to bring the whole of Russia out of the crisis in 3-4 years. Apparently, the Japanese know about this and that is why they are so persistently attacking the Russian government with a demand to give them the islands.

It must be said that for 50 years of ownership of the islands, the Japanese have not built or created anything capital on them, except for light temporary buildings. Our border guards had to rebuild barracks and other buildings at the outposts. The entire economic "development" of the islands, which the Japanese are shouting to the whole world today, consisted in the predatory robbery of the riches of the islands . During the Japanese "development" from the islands rookeries of fur seals, habitats of sea otters disappeared . Part of the population of these animals our Kuril residents have already restored .

Today, the economic situation of this entire island zone, like the whole of Russia, is difficult. Of course, significant measures are needed to support this region and take care of the Kuril people. According to the calculations of a group of deputies of the State Duma, it is possible to extract on the islands, as reported in the program "Parliamentary Hour" (RTR) on January 31 of this year, only fish products up to 2000 tons per year, with a net profit of about 3 billion dollars.
In military terms, the ridge of the Northern and Southern Kuriles with Sakhalin constitutes a complete closed infrastructure of the strategic defense of the Far East and the Pacific Fleet. They enclose the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and turn it into an inland one. This is the area deployment and combat positions of our strategic submarines.

Without the South Kuriles, we will get a "hole" in this defense. Control over the Kuriles ensures free access of the fleet to the ocean - after all, until 1945, our Pacific Fleet, starting from 1905, was practically locked in its bases in Primorye. The means of detection on the islands provide long-range detection of air and surface enemy, the organization of anti-submarine defense of the approaches to the passages between the islands.

In conclusion, one should note such a feature in the relationship of the Russia-Japan-US triangle. It is the United States that confirms the "legitimacy" of the ownership of the islands of Japan in spite of all international treaties they have signed .
If so, then our Foreign Ministry has every right, in response to the claims of the Japanese, to offer them to demand the return of Japan of its "southern territories" - the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands.
These archipelagos former colonies of Germany, captured by Japan in 1914. Japan's dominion over these islands was sanctioned by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. After the defeat of Japan, all these archipelagos came under US control.. So Why shouldn't Japan demand that the United States return the islands to her? Or lack of spirit?
As you can see, there is explicit double standard in Japanese foreign policy.

And one more fact that clarifies the general picture of the return of our Far Eastern territories in September 1945 and the military significance of this region. The Kuril operation of the 2nd Far Eastern Front and the Pacific Fleet (August 18 - September 1, 1945) provided for the liberation of all the Kuril Islands and the capture of the island of Hokkaido.

The accession of this island to Russia would be of great operational and strategic importance, since it would ensure the complete isolation of the "fencing" of the Sea of ​​​​Okhotsk by our island territories: the Kuriles - Hokkaido - Sakhalin. But Stalin canceled this part of the operation, saying that with the liberation of the Kuriles and Sakhalin, we had resolved all our territorial issues in the Far East. A we don't need foreign land . In addition, the capture of Hokkaido will cost us a lot of blood, unnecessary losses of sailors and paratroopers in the very last days of the war.

Stalin here showed himself to be a real statesman, taking care of the country, its soldiers, and not an invader, who coveted foreign territories that were very accessible in that situation for the capture.
Source

In 2012 visa-free exchange between the South Kuriles and Japanwill start April 24th.

On February 2, 1946, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Kuril Islands Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Khabomai were included in the USSR.

On September 8, 1951, at an international conference in San Francisco, a peace treaty was concluded between Japan and 48 countries participating in the anti-fascist coalition, according to which Japan renounced all rights, titles and claims to the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin. The Soviet delegation did not sign this treaty, referring to the fact that it regards it as a separate agreement between the US and Japanese governments. From the point of view of treaty law, the question of the ownership of the South Kuriles remained uncertain. The Kuriles ceased to be Japanese, but did not become Soviet. Using this circumstance, Japan in 1955 presented the USSR with claims to all the Kuril Islands and the southern part of Sakhalin. As a result of two years of negotiations between the USSR and Japan, the positions of the parties drew closer: Japan limited its claims to the islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashir and Iturup.

On October 19, 1956, the Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan on the termination of the state of war between the two states and the restoration of diplomatic and consular relations was signed in Moscow. In it, in particular, the Soviet government agreed to the transfer of Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty of the islands of Habomai and Shikotan.

After the conclusion of the Japanese-American security treaty in 1960, the USSR canceled the obligations assumed by the 1956 declaration. During the Cold War, Moscow did not recognize the existence of a territorial problem between the two countries. The presence of this problem was first recorded in the Joint Statement of 1991, signed following the visit of the President of the USSR to Tokyo.

In 1993, in Tokyo, the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan signed the Tokyo Declaration on Russian-Japanese Relations, which recorded the agreement of the parties to continue negotiations with the aim of concluding a peace treaty as soon as possible by resolving the issue of ownership of the islands mentioned above.

In recent years, in order to create at the talks an atmosphere conducive to the search for mutually acceptable solutions, the parties have been paying great attention to establishing practical Russian-Japanese interaction and cooperation in the area of ​​the islands.

In 1992, on the basis of an intergovernmental agreement between the inhabitants of the Russian South Kuriles and Japan. Trips are carried out on a national passport with a special insert, without visas.

In September 1999, the implementation of an agreement on the most facilitated procedure for visiting the islands by their former residents from among Japanese citizens and members of their families began.

Cooperation is being carried out in the fishery sector on the basis of the current Russian-Japanese Agreement on fishing near the southern Kuriles dated February 21, 1998.

The material was prepared on the basis of information from RIA Novosti and open sources

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus
educational institution
“Vitebsk State University named after P.M. Masherova"
History department
Department of General History and World Culture
Course work
The problem of belonging to the southern
Kuril Islands
Student 24 gr.
K.N. Lebedev
Scientific adviser:
Senior Lecturer
E.V. Gapionok

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE TERRITORIAL DISPUTES 5
CHAPTER 2 THE PROBLEM OF TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION DURING ser. 1950s - 2000s. 10
CHAPTER 3 THE QUESTION OF DISPUTED TERRITORIES IN THE XXI CENTURY BASIC POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. 15
CHAPTER 4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND MILITARY-STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN KURIL ISLANDS. DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION WITH JAPAN
ISLANDS. 20
CONCLUSION 23
LIST OF USED SOURCES 25

INTRODUCTION

The global crisis at the beginning of the 21st century exacerbated unresolved problems in international relations, one of which is the issue of "disputed territories" between Russia and Japan. This problem has existed for more than a dozen years and specifically concerns the ownership of the southern Kuril Islands. The unresolved issue of territorial delimitation hinders the development of bilateral relations across the entire spectrum of cooperation, from the economy to issues of cultural ties, which is also manifested in relations within the G8, one of the most authoritative organizations of our time, in which both states are members. Until recently, the diplomatic conflict risked moving into a more acute phase and thus attracted the attention of the entire world community, since the Russian Federation and Japan are key states not only in Asia, but also in the world. The tragic events of March 2011, associated with the strongest earthquake and tsunami in the history of Japan, as well as the subsequent accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant, stopped the growth of tension between the states, however, made the urgency of the "territorial issue" more than ever.
During the period of its existence, this problem has gone through the following stages: 1) first discovery, first development, first ownership of free territories (from the end of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th century); 2) search for mutually acceptable solutions through the negotiation process with the conclusion of agreements without the direct use of military force (1855 - early twentieth century); 3) settlement of territorial disputes with the help of military force (1904-1945); 4) search for a compromise on the issue of territorial delimitation.
Kuril Islands - islands in the Pacific Ocean from the south of Kamchatka to about. Hokkaido (Japan). The Great Kuril Ridge is about
30 islands, including the largest Paramushir, Onekotan, Simushir, Urup, Iturup, Kunashir. The Lesser Kuril Ridge lies southeast of about. Kunashir. In its composition, Fr. Shikotan and a group of small islands - Shards, Mayachny, Polonsky, Zeleny, Antsiferova and others - called by the Japanese by the common word Habomai. Administratively, the Kuril Islands are part of the Sakhalin Region. RF. Before the arrival of the Russians and the Japanese, the islands were inhabited by the Ainu. It is believed that the name of the archipelago came from their self-name "kuru" ("man"). According to another version, the name goes back to the Russian “to smoke”, that is, to smoke - there are about 160 volcanoes on the islands, including 39 active ones. To date, four southern islands are “disputed”: Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai group of islands. In Japanese interpretation - "northern territories".
The aim of the work is to consider the history of the problem of belonging to the southern Kuril Islands, based on these sources and views on their significance in the studies of historians.
To achieve the set goal, the following tasks were set before the work:

Consider the history of the territorial dispute. This includes the period from the XVII - p.p. XX centuries, including the history of the development and subsequent division of the islands between Japan and Russia (in the XX century - the USSR).
To study the dynamics of the problem of territorial delimitation in the period ser. 1950s - 2000s; trace changes in the positions of the parties and the factors that influenced these changes.
To study the state of the issue of disputed territories that has developed in the 21st century. Show the basic positions of the parties on this issue.
Consider the socio-economic and military-strategic development of the southern Kuril Islands. Show the problems of cooperation with Japan in the development and use of the economic potential of the islands.

When writing the work, mainly documentary sources were used. In addition, the materials of information resources of the state bodies of the Russian Federation and Japan were widely used: the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the website of the Embassy of Japan in Russia, the website of the President of the Russian Federation, and the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Also, materials of periodicals and monographic studies of Russian and Japanese authors were taken to describe the issue.

CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES

A description of the history of the conflict should begin with the first mention of the islands. The Japanese, during an expedition to Hokkaido in 1635, received information about the Kuriles inhabited by the Ainu, but they did not reach the islands themselves. In 1643, the Kuril Islands were surveyed by the Dutch expedition of Maarten Gerritsen de Vries, who compiled the first detailed map of the Small Ridge. Not finding the "Golden Lands" here, Fries sold the map of the Empire of Japan. Based on the data of Dutch researchers, a map was compiled, where the islands were designated under the collective name "Thousand Islands". In 1644, a map was published in the Empire of Japan with the toponyms "Kunashiri", "Etorofu", confirming that the Japanese set foot on the land of the Kuril Islands in this very year, the map is stored in the National Museum of Japanese History.

Map of Japan of the Shoho era in 1644. The Kuril Islands are not shown as a ridge, but are interconnected into one whole.
The first information about the islands was brought to Russia by Ivan Yuryevich Moskvitin, a explorer, the first European to reach the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the ataman of foot Cossacks. In his notes, he mentioned the "bearded" Ainu who inhabited these territories. Moskvitin's campaigns opened the way to the Far East for subsequent Russian explorers. One of the outstanding pioneers is Atlasov Vladimir Vladimirovich (c. 1652 - 1711). In his "Tales" you can also find information about the Kuriles. He explored the islands up to Simushir in the south. Further expeditions (I. Kozyrevsky in 1711, I. Evreinov and F. Luzhin in 1719, M. Spanberg in 1738–39) contributed to the systematic development of the territory.
By 1779, a significant part of the indigenous population of the Kurils, as well as Fr. Matsumai (now Hokkaido) took Russian citizenship and were exempted from all taxes by decree of Catherine II. In the "Extensive land description of the Russian state ..." in 1787, the Kuril Islands were included in the list of territories belonging to Russia, up to about. Hokkaido, whose status has not been determined, since Japan had a city in its southern part. However, the Russian government did not have real control over these territories, the Japanese were actively developing their presence on the islands.
From the instructions of the Admiralty Board to the head of the first Russian round-the-world expedition, Captain 1st Rank G.I. Mulovsky about its tasks. (April 1787)
"12. When separating the captain himself, according to the above, to describe the Kuril Islands, instructing him to prescribe the following:
1) Go around by swimming and describe all the small and large Kuril Islands from Japan to Kamchatskaya Lopatka, put them most likely on the map and formally classify everything from Matmay to that Lopatka as the possession of the Russian state, placing or strengthening coats of arms and burying medals in decent places with an inscription on Russian and Latin, meaning his journey or acquisition ... ".
In 1799, four islands (Shikotan, Habomai, Iturup and Kunashir) came under the protectorate of Japan. “... Then the principality of Nambu founded outposts in Nemuro, on Kunashir and on Iturup, and the principality of Tsugaru - in Savara and Furuibetsu on Iturup, and both of them guarded the mentioned territories. In April of the 1st year of the Bunka era (1804), two principalities were ordered to carry guards in these places constantly ... ". Thus, the status of these lands as part of the Japanese Empire was secured by military method. .
On January 26 (February 7), 1855, Japan and Russia signed the first Russian-Japanese treaty - the Shimoda Treaty on Trade and Borders. He established the border of the countries between the Iturup and Urup islands: all the Southern Kuriles (Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai) retreated to Japan. “As for the island of Crafto [Sakhalin],” the document said, “it remains undivided between Russia and Japan, as it has been until now.” The treaty was of particular importance for the Russian Empire, given the difficult situation in international relations associated with the outbreak of the Crimean War, as well as the aggressive policy of the United States, England, France and Holland in relations with Japan.
On May 7, 1875, the Treaty of St. Petersburg was signed, according to which Russia transferred to Japan the rights to 18 Kuril Islands in exchange for the refusal of the Japanese side from Sakhalin. In 1895, the Petersburg Treaty was confirmed, but since. both treaties (1855 and 1875) obligated countries to develop peaceful, good-neighbourly relations, they became invalid after Japan attacked Russia in 1904.
The history of relations between Russia and Japan in the twentieth century. It is, first of all, a history of conflicts. The first half of the last century was the years of political enmity: the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905), Japanese intervention in Siberia to the Far East (1918-1922), armed clashes, military conflicts and local wars in the area of ​​Lake Khasan ( 1938), the Khalkhin Gol River (1939), many border conflicts and finally the Soviet-Japanese War (1945).
In 1905, as a result of the Russo-Japanese War, the Treaty of Portsmouth was signed. From the Peace Treaty between Russia and Japan of August 23 (September 5), 1905:
"Article IX
The Russian Imperial Government cedes to the Imperial Japanese Government the southern part of Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as all public buildings and imuments located there, in perpetual and complete possession. The fiftieth parallel of northern latitude is taken as the limit of the ceded territory.
That is, a new border was established, along which the southern part of about. Sakhalin, as well as all the Kuril Islands, were recognized as territories of Japan.

Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands on a 1912 map.
On January 20, 1925, the Beijing Treaty was signed by the governments of the USSR and Japan. Diplomatic relations were established between the countries. "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agrees that the treaty concluded at Portsmouth on September 5, 1905 remains in full force", but refuses to acknowledge "political responsibility" for this treaty.
On April 13, 1941, the Neutrality Pact was signed between the USSR and Japan. On June 22, 1945, Germany attacked the Soviet Union, however, despite the allied relations between the Reich and the Japanese Empire, the latter did not renounce the Neutrality Pact and did not declare war on the USSR.
On February 11, 1945, at the Yalta Conference, the leaders of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain came to an agreement that after the surrender of Germany and the end of the war in Europe, the USSR would enter the war against Japan on the side of the allies, including under such conditions as:
"2. Restoration of the rights belonging to Russia, violated by the perfidious attack of Japan, in 1904, namely: a) the return of the southern part of the island to the Soviet Union. Sakhalin and all adjacent islands ... 3. Transfer of the Kuril Islands to the Soviet Union. On April 5, 1945, the Government of the USSR issued a Statement on the denunciation of the Neutrality Pact, concluded on April 13, 1941. The reason for the denunciation was the following: “Germany attacked the USSR, and Japan, an ally of Germany, is helping the latter in its war against the USSR. In addition, Japan is at war with the United States and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union. .
On July 26, 1945, as part of the Potsdam Conference, the leaders of the United States, Great Britain and China adopted the Potsdam Declaration, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan and determined that “Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and those smaller islands that the Allies indicate ". On August 8, the USSR joined the Declaration and declared war on Japan.
The southern Kuriles were occupied by Soviet troops in August-September during the Kuril landing operation, which was finally completed on September 5, 1945, after the signing of the Japanese Surrender Act on September 2. This fact today gives the Japanese the opportunity to talk about the "illegal occupation" of territories by Soviet troops, but only at an unofficial level.
On January 29, 1946, Memorandum No. 677 of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Powers was issued to the Japanese Imperial Government, which proposed to wrest from Japan, among other things, the Kuril (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Khabomadze) Islands Group, including the Sushio, Yuri , Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku), as well as the island of Shikotan.
In accordance with the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of February 2, 1946, it was decided "to form the South Sakhalin Region on the territory of South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with the center in the city of Toyohara with its inclusion in the Khabarovsk Territory of the RSFSR" . However, the main thing was not done - officially (at the international level) territorial relations with Japan were not formalized.
In September 1951, the San Francisco Conference was held, at which the United States and Great Britain proposed a draft peace treaty with Japan. Speaking at a conference on September 5, the head of the Soviet delegation, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A. Gromyko, stated that the USSR considers the draft peace treaty unfair in relation to the Soviet Union, since it is limited to mentioning Japan's renunciation of rights, titles and claims in the territory of southern Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, "silent about the historical belonging of these territories and the indisputable obligation of Japan to recognize the sovereignty of the Soviet Union in these territories of the USSR." Thus, Gromyko pointed out that the United States and Great Britain actually refused to fulfill the obligations assumed under the Yalta Agreement.
Since Soviet counter-proposals were blocked by the votes of numerous American allies, the USSR refused to sign a peace treaty with Japan on September 8 on the terms offered. Japan, having accepted these conditions, with its signature officially recorded the rejection of the Kuril Islands.
Thus, one can notice a number of facts that made the conflict possible and which today can be interpreted by the disputing parties in different ways. Particular attention should be paid to the agreement of 1855 (the Shimoda Treaty), on the provisions of which Japan's basic position in the dispute is based. On the other hand, the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 occupies an important place. In their views on these documents, the parties drastically diverge, putting one of them at the forefront and at the same time recognizing the second as inferior.

CHAPTER 2
THE PROBLEM OF TERRITORIAL DIVISION IN THE PERIOD OF ser. 1950s - 2000s.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty recorded Japan's renunciation of sovereignty over the Kuril Islands, but did not define a new nationality over them. In addition, it did not provide a list of islands torn away from Japan. These factors, as well as the fact that the Soviet Union did not sign the treaty, created the ground for the emergence of a territorial dispute between Japan and the USSR.
Formally, both states continued to be at war. In an effort to resolve the situation, the USSR and Japan held separate negotiations, which took place with difficulties, interrupted and resumed, and took about a year and a half - from June 1955 to October 1956 - but did not lead to the conclusion of a peace treaty. The parties settled on an intermediate option - the Joint Declaration, which partly solved the problem of the fate of the two islands. From the Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan of October 19
1956:
"9. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan agreed to continue negotiations on the conclusion of a peace treaty after the restoration of normal diplomatic relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan.
At the same time, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state, agrees to the transfer of the Habomai Islands and the Shikotan Islands to Japan, however, that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan will be made after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan ." .
At the same time, S. Matsumoto from the Japanese side and Deputy Foreign Minister A. Gromyko from the USSR exchanged letters expressing the consent of the parties after the restoration of diplomatic relations to continue negotiations on the conclusion of a peace treaty, including the territorial issue.
However, soon Washington intervened in relations between Moscow and Tokyo, not interested in normalizing them. US Secretary of State A. Dulles told his Japanese counterpart that if Japan renounces its claims to Kunashir and Iturup, the US will not liberate Okinawa and the entire Ryukyu archipelago, occupied as a result of World War II. This led to the fact that Japan began to openly demand the transfer of all four islands to it: Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai Islands.
On January 19, 1960, Japan signed the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Guarantees" with the United States, which regulated the presence of US troops in Japan. In response, the Soviet government stated that “... it cannot help the transfer of these islands to Japan to expand the territory used by foreign troops.<…>(And) only on the condition of the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory of Japan and the signing of a peace treaty between the USSR and Japan, the islands of Habomai and Shikotan will be transferred to Japan. The Japanese side responded to this statement that the Japanese-American treaty could not affect the agreements between the USSR and Japan established in 1956, since at that time foreign troops were already on the territory of Japan.
Despite the tough positions, the parties did not stop looking for ways to resolve the problem, which was reflected in the joint Japanese-Soviet statement of 1973, which expressed intentions to "continue negotiations on a peace treaty" .
Early 80s It was marked by a sharp deterioration in relations between the USSR and Japan, a close ally of the United States, which was associated with a new round of the Cold War and the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. At the same time, the campaign "for the return of the northern territories" was intensified, within the framework of which the "Northern Territories Day - February 7" was established in 1981 (the day the Shimoda Treaty of 1855 was signed). Trips to inspect the "northern territories" by members of the cabinet of ministers and even by the Prime Minister of Japan became more frequent. On February 16, 1981, in a statement by the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the attention of the Japanese government was drawn to the fact that the campaign of territorial claims against the Soviet Union "has recently acquired a character bordering on hostility" and that such steps by the Japanese government "can only be qualified as deliberately aimed at worsening the Soviet-Japanese relations".
The position of the USSR at that time was that there was no "unresolved territorial problem" in Soviet-Japanese relations. Tokyo's minimum task was to induce the Soviet leadership to recognize the existence of the territorial issue and go to discuss it. To this end, Japan declared the principle of "inseparability of politics and economics", according to which the development of Japanese-Soviet economic relations was made directly dependent on the resolution of the territorial issue. This led to a stagnation in economic cooperation between states.
To reduce the level of tension in the Far East, Moscow decided to resume direct dialogue with Japan. In 1986, the new Foreign Minister E. Shevardnadze paid an official visit to Tokyo. However, at that time, the Japanese direction in M. Gorbachev's policy had not yet departed from the principles of previous years. Thus, receiving the Japanese delegation, Shevardnadze stated: “As for the so-called “territorial issue”, the Soviet side considers this issue resolved on the appropriate historical and international legal basis.” .
But already in 1989-1990, when the economic situation in the USSR deteriorated sharply, the idea of ​​receiving material compensation from Japan for the transfer of the islands spread in government circles. However, she immediately met with stiff resistance among the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Gorbachev "disowned" the idea of ​​selling the islands, but at the same time expressed his readiness to discuss the whole range of issues, including the peace treaty and, in its context, the issue of the border.

Disputed Islands with Russian and Japanese Names.
M. Gorbachev was the first in post-war history to recognize the existence of a "territorial issue" with Japan and expressed his readiness to discuss it at official negotiations. The joint statement following his visit to Japan included a clause stating that the parties “carried out thorough and in-depth negotiations on the entire range of issues related to the development and conclusion of a peace treaty between the USSR and Japan, including the problem of territorial delimitation, taking into account the positions of the parties on ownership Habomai Islands, Shikotan Islands, Kunashir Islands and Iturup Islands. As an achievement, the promise of the President of the USSR to establish a visa-free regime for visiting the four South Kuril Islands by Japanese citizens was perceived in Tokyo, as well as to reduce the number of Soviet military contingents stationed on these islands.
One of the reasons why Gorbachev could not make the deal "Kurils for loans" was the position of B. Yeltsin. The latter sought to seize the initiative in negotiations with the Japanese government. In general, the plans of Yeltsin and his team and the plans of Gorbachev's team boiled down to one thing - to turn the South Kuriles into an object of bargaining with Japan. The only difference was that Gorbachev sought to receive Japanese assistance as soon as possible to save "perestroika", while Yeltsin persuaded the Japanese, providing financial support to Russia, to wait with obtaining the islands. This was precisely what the so-called "Yeltsin's five-stage plan" was aimed at, according to which the territorial dispute was to be resolved in favor of Japan after 15-20 years.
The meaning of Yeltsin's plan boiled down to the following. At the first stage, it was supposed to move away from the position taken by the USSR and recognize the existence of a dispute between countries. This was supposed to contribute to the establishment of the corresponding public opinion in the USSR. Then - in 3-5 years (the second stage) it was supposed to declare the islands free for Japanese business. The third stage is the demilitarization of the islands in 5-7 years. At the fourth stage, the parties must sign a peace treaty. At the same time, the following options for resolving the territorial dispute were proposed: 1. The islands will be under the common protectorate of the two countries; 2. Islands are given the status of free territories; 3. Transfer of the islands to Japan.
After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian government began to lean towards the early conclusion of a peace treaty in order to receive material assistance. However, the protest movement unfolding at that time in Russia against the transfer of the islands forced Yeltsin to change his plan of action. Therefore, his visit to Japan in the fall of 1993 did not bring radical decisions on the issue of the South Kuriles. The "Tokyo Declaration" spoke only of the recognition by the Russian government of the existence of the "territorial problem" and declared the intention of the parties to seek ways to solve it. Despite the insistence of the Japanese side, the text of the document did not include confirmation of the validity of the clause of the Soviet-Japanese joint declaration, which spoke of the possibility of transferring the two islands to Japan after the signing of the peace treaty. Thus, the position of the Russian government in the Japanese direction was inconsistent.
In November 1997, a high-level meeting was held in Krasnoyarsk between the Prime Minister of Japan R. Hashimoto and the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin. An agreement was reached that, "based on the Tokyo Declaration, make every effort to conclude a peace treaty before the year 2000" (Krasnoyarsk agreement). At a summit meeting in Kavanagh (April 1998), Japanese Prime Minister R. Hashimoto put forward the so-called "Kavana proposal" aimed at resolving the issue of ownership of the four islands, the answer to which was the "Moscow proposal" put forward by the Russian side during a visit to Russia by Prime Minister K. Obuchi (November 1998). However, the positions of the parties did not coincide, which did not allow the implementation of the Krasnoyarsk agreement on the conclusion of a peace treaty until 2000.
In September 1999, the earlier decision on the maximum ease of visiting the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai by Japanese citizens from among their former residents and members of their families came into force.
Thus, having considered the dynamics of Soviet-Japanese (later - Russian-Japanese) relations in the second half of the twentieth century, we can conclude the following. The lack of clear, consistent and coordinated positions of the parties on the issue of territorial demarcation, the dependence of government policy on public sentiment on such a sensitive issue, as well as interference in bilateral relations by third countries, led to a delay in resolving the problem and deepening contradictions between the parties. However, despite numerous problems, positive developments in the issue of conflict settlement can be noted. Such as the official recognition by the Russian leadership of the existence of a “territorial dispute”, the adoption of joint declarations stipulating the intentions of the parties to negotiate to resolve the issue, the establishment of a visa-free regime for visiting the islands by former residents, as well as members of their families.

CHAPTER 3
THE QUESTION OF DISPUTED TERRITORIES IN THE XXI CENTURY
BASIC POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES.

New hopes for a quick solution to the "territorial issue" appeared in Japan after the arrival of the new Russian President V. Putin. Following a working meeting between Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Japan Y. Mori in Irkutsk on March 25, 2001, the Irkutsk Statement of the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Japan was signed on the further continuation of negotiations on the problem of a peace treaty, which expressed mutual intention to intensify the negotiation process based on the documents adopted so far, including the Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan in 1956 .
A new version of the "compromise" was proposed by Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori in Irkutsk. He also divided the entire process of transferring the islands into two periods, but according to a slightly different principle than in the “Yeltsin plan”. First - the conclusion of an agreement on the transfer of Shikotan and Habomai and the signing of a peace treaty between Japan and Russia, and then - negotiations on the other two islands. This would mean the actual recognition by Russia of Japanese sovereignty over all the islands, which immediately caused controversy in the media. In Japan, this option also did not suit many, since it did not involve the simultaneous transfer of all four islands. In addition, it was not clear whether the Russian side accepted the offer. But soon the situation was clarified by the harsh statement of the new Prime Minister of Japan, Junichiro Koizumi, who demanded that Russia transfer all four "disputed islands", and even before the conclusion of a peace treaty.
On November 14, 2004, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on the eve of the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Japan, stated that Russia, as the successor state of the USSR, recognizes the 1956 Declaration as existing and is ready to conduct territorial negotiations with Japan on its basis. This formulation of the question caused a lively discussion among Russian politicians. Vladimir Putin supported the Foreign Ministry's position, stipulating that Russia "will fulfill all its obligations" only "to the extent that our partners are ready to fulfill these agreements." Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said in response that Japan was not satisfied with the transfer of only two islands: "If the ownership of all the islands is not determined, the peace treaty will not be signed." At the same time, the Japanese prime minister promised to show flexibility in determining the timing of the transfer of the islands.
In 2009-2010, the Japanese government repeatedly made harsh statements about the issue of the "northern territories", which subsequently led to an aggravation of relations between states. So on May 21, 2009, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, during a meeting of the upper house of parliament, called the southern Kuriles "illegally occupied territories" and said that he was waiting for proposals from Russia on approaches to solving this problem. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko commented on this statement as "illegal" and "politically incorrect." June 11, 2009. The lower house of the Japanese parliament approved amendments to the law "On special measures to assist in resolving the issue of the Northern Territories and similar ones", which contain a provision on the ownership of four islands of the South Kuril ridge by Japan. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling such actions by the Japanese side inappropriate and unacceptable. June 24, 2009 was published
etc.................

Statement Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about the intention to resolve the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands and again drew the attention of the general public to the so-called "problem of the South Kuriles" or "northern territories".

Shinzo Abe's loud statement, however, does not contain the main thing - an original solution that could suit both sides.

Land of the Ainu

The dispute over the South Kuriles has its roots in the 17th century, when there were no Russians or Japanese on the Kuril Islands yet.

The Ainu can be considered the indigenous population of the islands - a nation whose origin scientists argue to this day. The Ainu, who once inhabited not only the Kuriles, but also all the Japanese islands, as well as the lower reaches of the Amur, Sakhalin and the south of Kamchatka, today have become a small nation. In Japan, according to official figures, there are about 25 thousand Ainu, and in Russia there are just over a hundred of them left.

The first mention of the islands in Japanese sources dates back to 1635, in Russian - 1644.

In 1711, a detachment of Kamchatka Cossacks led by Danila Antsiferova And Ivan Kozyrevsky first landed on the northernmost island of Shumshu, defeating a detachment of local Ainu here.

The Japanese also showed more and more activity in the Kuriles, but there was no line of demarcation and no agreements between the countries.

Kuriles - to you, Sakhalin— us

In 1855, the Shimoda Treaty on Trade and Borders between Russia and Japan was signed. This document for the first time defined the border of the possessions of the two countries in the Kuriles - it passed between the islands of Iturup and Urup.

Thus, the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai group of islands, that is, the very territories around which there is a dispute today, were under the rule of the Japanese emperor.

It was the day of the conclusion of the Shimoda Treaty, February 7, that was declared in Japan as the so-called "Day of the Northern Territories".

Relations between the two countries were quite good, but they were spoiled by the “Sakhalin issue”. The fact is that the Japanese claimed the southern part of this island.

In 1875, a new treaty was signed in St. Petersburg, according to which Japan renounced all claims to Sakhalin in exchange for the Kuril Islands - both Southern and Northern.

Perhaps, it was after the conclusion of the 1875 treaty that relations between the two countries developed most harmoniously.

Exorbitant appetites of the Land of the Rising Sun

Harmony in international affairs, however, is a fragile thing. Japan, emerging from centuries of self-isolation, developed rapidly, and at the same time, ambitions grew. The Land of the Rising Sun has territorial claims against almost all of its neighbors, including Russia.

This resulted in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which ended in a humiliating defeat for Russia. And although Russian diplomacy managed to mitigate the consequences of military failure, but, nevertheless, in accordance with the Portsmouth Treaty, Russia lost control not only over the Kuriles, but also over South Sakhalin.

This state of affairs did not suit not only tsarist Russia, but also the Soviet Union. However, it was impossible to change the situation in the mid-1920s, which resulted in the signing of the Beijing Treaty between the USSR and Japan in 1925, according to which the Soviet Union recognized the current state of affairs, but refused to recognize “political responsibility” for the Portsmouth Treaty.

In subsequent years, relations between the Soviet Union and Japan teetered on the brink of war. Japan's appetites grew and began to spread to the continental territories of the USSR. True, the Japanese defeats at Lake Khasan in 1938 and at Khalkhin Gol in 1939 forced official Tokyo to slow down somewhat.

However, the "Japanese threat" hung like a sword of Damocles over the USSR during the Great Patriotic War.

Revenge for old grievances

By 1945, the tone of Japanese politicians towards the USSR had changed. There was no talk of new territorial acquisitions - the Japanese side would be quite satisfied with the preservation of the existing order of things.

But the USSR gave an obligation to Great Britain and the United States that it would enter the war with Japan no later than three months after the end of the war in Europe.

The Soviet leadership had no reason to feel sorry for Japan - Tokyo behaved too aggressively and defiantly towards the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. And the insults of the beginning of the century were not forgotten at all.

On August 8, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. It was a real blitzkrieg - the millionth Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria was utterly defeated in a matter of days.

On August 18, Soviet troops launched the Kuril landing operation, the purpose of which was to capture the Kuril Islands. Fierce battles unfolded for the island of Shumshu - this was the only battle of a fleeting war in which the losses of the Soviet troops were higher than those of the enemy. However, on August 23, the commander of the Japanese troops in the Northern Kuriles, Lieutenant General Fusaki Tsutsumi, capitulated.

The fall of Shumshu was a key event in the Kuril operation - in the future, the occupation of the islands on which the Japanese garrisons were located turned into acceptance of their surrender.

Kurile Islands. Photo: www.russianlook.com

They took the Kuriles, they could have taken Hokkaido

On August 22, Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Forces in the Far East, Marshal Alexander Vasilevsky, without waiting for the fall of Shumshu, gives the order to the troops to occupy the Southern Kuriles. The Soviet command is acting according to plan - the war continues, the enemy has not capitulated completely, which means that we should move on.

The original military plans of the USSR were much broader - Soviet units were ready to land on the island of Hokkaido, which was supposed to become a Soviet zone of occupation. How the further history of Japan would develop in this case, one can only guess. But in the end, Vasilevsky received an order from Moscow to cancel the landing operation in Hokkaido.

The bad weather somewhat delayed the actions of the Soviet troops in the South Kuriles, but by September 1, Iturup, Kunashir and Shikotan came under their control. The Habomai group of islands was completely taken under control on September 2-4, 1945, that is, after the surrender of Japan. There were no battles during this period - Japanese soldiers meekly surrendered.

So, at the end of the Second World War, Japan was completely occupied by the allied powers, and the main territories of the country fell under the control of the United States.

Kurile Islands. Photo: Shutterstock.com

On January 29, 1946, by Memorandum No. 677 of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Powers, General Douglas MacArthur, the Kuril Islands (Chishima Islands), the Habomai (Khabomadze) island group and Sikotan Island were excluded from the territory of Japan.

On February 2, 1946, in accordance with the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Yuzhno-Sakhalin Region was formed in these territories as part of the Khabarovsk Territory of the RSFSR, which on January 2, 1947 became part of the newly formed Sakhalin Region as part of the RSFSR.

Thus, de facto South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands passed to Russia.

Why the USSR did not sign a peace treaty with Japan

However, these territorial changes were not formalized by a treaty between the two countries. But the political situation in the world has changed, and yesterday's ally of the USSR, the United States, has become Japan's closest friend and ally, and therefore was not interested in either resolving Soviet-Japanese relations or resolving the territorial issue between the two countries.

In 1951, a peace treaty was concluded in San Francisco between Japan and the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, which the USSR did not sign.

The reason for this was the revision by the United States of previous agreements with the USSR reached in the Yalta Agreement of 1945 - now official Washington believed that the Soviet Union had no rights not only to the Kuriles, but also to South Sakhalin. In any case, it was precisely such a resolution that was adopted by the US Senate during the discussion of the treaty.

However, in the final version of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan renounces the rights to South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. But here, too, there is a hitch - the official Tokyo both then and now declares that it does not consider that Habomai, Kunashir, Iturup and Shikotan are part of the Kuriles.

That is, the Japanese are sure that they really renounced South Sakhalin, but they never abandoned the “northern territories”.

The Soviet Union refused to sign a peace treaty not only because of the unsettledness of its territorial disputes with Japan, but also because it did not resolve similar disputes between Japan and China, then an ally of the USSR, in any way.

Compromise ruined Washington

Only five years later, in 1956, was the Soviet-Japanese declaration on ending the state of war signed, which was supposed to be the prologue to the conclusion of a peace treaty.

A compromise solution was also announced - the islands of Habomai and Shikotan would be returned to Japan in exchange for the unconditional recognition of the sovereignty of the USSR over all other disputed territories. But this could happen only after the conclusion of a peace treaty.

In fact, these conditions suited Japan quite well, but here a “third force” intervened. The United States was not at all pleased with the prospect of establishing relations between the USSR and Japan. The territorial problem acted as an excellent wedge driven between Moscow and Tokyo, and Washington considered its resolution highly undesirable.

It was announced to the Japanese authorities that if a compromise was reached with the USSR on the "Kuril problem" on the terms of the division of the islands, the United States would leave the island of Okinawa and the entire Ryukyu archipelago under its sovereignty.

The threat was truly terrible for the Japanese - it was a territory with more than a million people, which is of great historical importance for Japan.

As a result, a possible compromise on the issue of the South Kuriles vanished like smoke, and with it the prospect of concluding a full-fledged peace treaty.

By the way, control of Okinawa finally passed to Japan only in 1972. At the same time, 18 percent of the island's territory is still occupied by American military bases.

Complete stalemate

In fact, no progress has been made in the territorial dispute since 1956. In the Soviet period, without reaching a compromise, the USSR came to the tactic of completely denying any dispute in principle.

In the post-Soviet period, Japan began to hope that Russian President Boris Yeltsin, generous with gifts, would give away the "northern territories." Moreover, such a decision was considered fair by very prominent figures in Russia - for example, Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Perhaps at this point, the Japanese side made a mistake, instead of compromise options like the one discussed in 1956, insisting on the transfer of all disputed islands.

But in Russia, the pendulum has already swung the other way, and those who consider it impossible to transfer even one island are much louder today.

For both Japan and Russia, the "Kuril issue" over the past decades has become a matter of principle. For both Russian and Japanese politicians, the slightest concessions threaten, if not the collapse of their careers, then serious electoral losses.

Therefore, the declared desire of Shinzo Abe to solve the problem is undoubtedly commendable, but completely unrealistic.