Japan presses claim to S Korea-held islets at annual event

A petty local politician causing a pointless irritation with a country that should be an ally to no benefit to Japan.

He an others like him should be told to grow up stop grandstanding and concentrate on the real issues in his own back yard.

It's not pointless, it's simply ineffective. Shimane prefecture and Japam have every right to pursue this territorial dispute because it is in their back yard. It's ineffective because unless South Korea agrees to settle at the ICJ, which they have refused 3 times, the issue is going nowhere.

Every year at this time the same old same keeps coming up.

Shimane's interest in this is purely political grandstanding, spurred on by die hard right wingers in the ldp.

SImply South Korea possesses the islands and is not giving them up. It would be political suicide for any SK govt to even consider such. So it's not going to happen. Learn to live with that fact.

Instead of spending/wasting money on this non-event every year, why not use the funds for something more constructive for the citizens of Shimane.

And watching this on nhk last night, there was an embarrassment of empty seats in the hall. I think more and more folk realize there are far more urgent and pressing demands on society than fulfilling some rightists pureland dreams.

Undoubtedly Takeshima was an ancient island of jp

IF 10,000 yen is in your pocket would you just give it up to give it up? More than likely not. First you know the yen is yours, second depending on the circumstances you might give part with it, aside that it's yours to do as you please. So if these islands are truly Japan's there is nothing in the constitution that stipulates Japan cannot just go and get them since they are belong to Japan under the 1959 San Francisco Treaty that SK signed and thus relinquished any claims to them.

 they are belong to Japan under the 1959 San Francisco Treaty that SK signed

What treaty was that? There was a 1951 San Francisco treaty, but South Korea did not participate or sign it.

It's not pointless.

As per Ossan's ineffective.

Japan must carry on protesting if the want their RIGHT alive; that's how territorial claims work at International Law.

Portugal has refused to acknowledge "de Jure" cessation of territory (Olivenza) to Spain since the Treaty of Vienna.

China lost the RIGHT to proceed in the Senkakus for not having protested for over 50 years.

They're trying now; unlucky for them Japan is not the Philippines or Vietnam.

Ah here we go again. Just when things were about to be forgotten, Japan instigates first like they’ve always done throughout history.

Countries claim islands but do nothing to cement the claim like building a simple old fashioned maned lighthouse on them for the safety of shipping. Islands can be more easily disputed if they have no constructions or people on them.

Takeshima/Dokdo Has lighthouses and people living there and they are South Korean's.

Senkaku Islands Have no maned lighthouses or permanent residents and that needs to be corrected to strengthen Japan's claims on them.

As for South Korea, Possession is nine tenths of the law as the saying goes and they are in possession of Dokdo Islands.

My great-grandfathe lived in Takeshima but was killed by the Korean army

But it doesn't make sense to grudge someone.

Peter14Today  07:49 pm JST

Takeshima/Dokdo Has lighthouses and people living there and they are South Korean's.

There is only one permanent resident an 83 year old woman. Others are assigned there by the government and the lighthouse was built after South Korea unilaterally took control.

As for South Korea, Possession is nine tenths of the law as the saying goes and they are in possession of Dokdo Islands.

"The saying “possession is nine points of the law” is an old common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property. Even if a person is the rightful owner of the property but has no possession over it, the person who is in possession will be in a better position should the property ever be subject to challenge. This is especially true with adverse possession. However mere posession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. This adage “possession is nine tenths of the law” is not a law but a logical rule of force that has been recognized across ages.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-is-nine-points-of-the-law/

Still many not noting that the matter-the-fact-of-the-situation is S Korea posseses and administers the islands and nothing is going to change.

This is not a whimsical notion.

You can agree or disagree with the rights of ownership ( I personally don't give a hoot), but reality dictates they are SK territory.

And as I mentioned before - no agency of any political persuasion in SK -extreme right or extreme left - would dare to give up sovereignty. There'd be blood on the streets.

So - again this every year "act" for the believers is just that - an act.

Spend the money on developing 21stC tech industries for the young citizens of Shimane so that they may have a future and contribute to Japan.

Some lousy rocks in the sea will get them nought. That's Real.

South Korean control of the Liancourt Rocks is not guaranteed to be permanent. All it would take is if circumstances force South Korea into a position to settle the dispute before the ICJ. That may or may not happen, but it behooves Japan to maintain it's position which they have done since South Korea drew the unilateral Syngman Rhee line. Hence there is nothing "pointless" about this act. If it were indeed "pointless" South Korea would ignore it completely instead of protesting it or attending it.

Just what Moon needed to distract his ineptitude in handling the coronavirus issue, he is ecstatic!

Coming soon, the "boycott Japan," "Dokdo is ours," and other displays of childish nonsense by South Koreans.

OssanAmerica: "t's ineffective because unless South Korea agrees to settle at the ICJ, which they have refused 3 times, the issue is going nowhere."

The same court that is not only non-binding, but that Japan refuses to go to over the Senkakus? Oh wait... I forgot "that's different".

Sorry, bud, but the island belong to South Korea. The US simply had no right to mark them as Japanese territory (simply to face the "red menace" of Russia, by expanding their territory), and they are lived on and administered year-round by SK. Sorry, Japan!

Ossan - you're right - nothing ever is guaranteed to be permanent - nothing.

But I would strongly hedge my bets that SK is not going to the ICJ over this.

They see no cause to do so as they see no justification to do so. Much as Japan sees no need to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus. From their point, there's no justifiable reason.

So it's pretty easy to get a realistic grasp of all of this.

And yes - Japan can continue to put in it's protest statement by all means - states do all the time - but going through this annual tough talk stage op is just a waste of time, money and energy that could be better spent helping the young, instead of trying to gratify the wishful memories of a bygone era.

However mere posession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner

That is something that all Koreans are taught and carved into their brain from their earliest age. The whole country can be taken away if you let your guard down even if you owned it for 5000 years. Koreans have Japan to thank for that valuable lesson. And Japanese wonder why Koreans do not forget the "inconvenient" history. Koreans are simply keeping the lesson. Thankfully Japan helps Korea keep the lesson going every year.

While Moon was out wining and dining the cast members of the movie "Parasite" after they returned back to South Korea, those in South Korea infected by the coronavirus were ignored as was the rapidly escalating infection rates. The supreme irony, considering "Parasite" made it a point throughout the movie to highlight the vast divide between the rich/elite and the lower class peons.

This Takeshima/Dokdo issue couldn't have come fast enough for Moon and company to distract from the coming public demonstrations at his absolute ineptitude in handling the coronavirus issue.

Mark my words, Moon and company will use this opportunity wisely.

"The same court that is not only non-binding"

That's incorrect; alternatively you're LYING, and you KNOW IT.

If you don't know (which I doubt) Google is your best friend.

" but that Japan refuses to go to over the Senkakus? "

Exactly when did China take Japan to the ICJ?

Keep on pretending you don;t know it's China's job to take Japan to Court!!!

"Oh wait... I forgot "that's different".

Correct.

The only right thing you've managed to say out of all that.

@OssanJapan

South Korean control of the Liancourt Rocks is not guaranteed to be permanent.

It IS permanent.

All it would take is if circumstances force South Korea into a position to settle the dispute before the ICJ.

What circumstances are you imagining?

This is truly political by Japanese politician, even when we are having this virus crisis, do they really need to have this event? isn't it time to cooperate between two countries to fight this virus outbreak, instead of stirring up old bad feelings when people are dying from this virus in both countries.

@Hillclimber

If China had a case 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration#Terms_of_the_Declaration

that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine", as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943;[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Cairo_Declaration

It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

browny1Feb. 23  10:59 pm JST

Ossan - you're right - nothing ever is guaranteed to be permanent - nothing.

But I would strongly hedge my bets that SK is not going to the ICJ over this.

Yes, of course they will continue to resist. They've already refused three times. As I stated, unless some circumstance causes SK to settle at the ICJ, I don't think there will ever be a change.

Japan is a signatory to an agreement that subjects it to ICJ jurisdiction and recognition of it's rulings. South Korea has yet to sign this agreement. A nation which is as confident in it's claim, as SK has stated continuously for over 60 years, should have little difficulty in proving it's case before an impartial international forum. Yet, SK has continued to avoid putting the issue to rest for good.

browny1Feb. 23  10:59 pm JST

They see no cause to do so as they see no justification to do so. Much as Japan sees no need to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus. From their point, there's no justifiable reason.

Japan already has adnministrative rights over the Senkakus. It is up to China to bring a claim at the ICJ. If they did, Japan being a signatory to te agreement that recognizes ICJ jursdiction, would have absolutely no choice but to settle at the ICJ. But China refuses to bring any action at the ICJ because (1) China itself has declared that it does not recognize foreign jursdiction over matters concerning it's own sovereignty, and (2) it would open up multiple claims by other nations in disputes with China.

China has to date never suggested ICJ settlement over the Sennkakus.

In contrast, South Korea has unilaterally occupied the Liancourt Rocks and Japan has requested settlement at the ICJ three times, with SKorea refusing each time.

Ossan - thank you for your reply.

Yes I agree with you re China and Senkakus and I know a little of that history.

I was just trying to put up a hypothetical that IF China challenged in court, Japan wouldn't see a need to go to court to defend themselves as from Japan's stance there is nothing to defend - their position is the islands are lock, stock & barrel Japanese, case closed.

I'm just stating that's obviously how SK feel about Takeshima. No need to discuss or do anything at all.

Which is why, as an observer, I believe nothing is going to change so the time, effort & money spent every year on this "show", should go to something constructive like helping the kids of today for their futures.

OssanAmerica

There is only one permanent resident an 83 year old woman. Others are assigned there by the government and the lighthouse was built after South Korea unilaterally took control.

As of February 2017, there were two civilian residents, two government officials, six lighthouse managers, and 40 members of the coast guard living on the islets.[1] Since the South Korean coast guard was sent to the islets, civilian travel has been subject to South Korean government approval; they have stated that the reason for this is that the islet group is designated as a nature reserve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks

South Korea has people living on the Island and manages them. They clearly at present control what they assert is theirs. Japan does not have people on the Island and does not manage them in any way. Short of physical conflict to wrest control from South Korea, there is no rational way that Japan can gain control over them.

Japan needs to do the same on Senkaku to cement "Japans" claim on it.

Peter14Today  03:10 pm JST

OssanAmerica

There is only one permanent resident an 83 year old woman. Others are assigned there by the government and the lighthouse was built after South Korea unilaterally took control.

As of February 2017, there were two civilian residents, two government officials, six lighthouse managers, and 40 members of the coast guard living on the islets.[1] Since the South Korean coast guard was sent to the islets, civilian travel has been subject to Sou

"In October 2018, Kim Sung-do died, thus Kim Shin-yeol is the last civilian resident still living on the islands. The South Korean government gave its approval to allow 1,597 visitors to visit the islets in 2004. Since March 2005, more tourists have received approval to visit."

One civilian resident on Liamcort Rocks, others are visiting tourists, and government assigned personnel.

However agree that Japan should build on the Senkakus for sure.

browny1Today  02:52 pm JST

Ossan - thank you for your reply.

Yes I agree with you re China and Senkakus and I know a little of that history.

I was just trying to put up a hypothetical that IF China challenged in court, Japan wouldn't see a need to go to court to defend themselves as from Japan's stance there is nothing to defend - their position is the islands are lock, stock & barrel Japanese, case closed.

Well you are wrong there because Japan is a signatory to an agreement that requires Japan to accept any challenge put before the ICJ and accept it's ruling. So IF China took Japan to the ICJ over the Senkakus, Japan would have no choice but to settle at the ICJ.

I'm just stating that's obviously how SK feel about Takeshima. No need to discuss or do anything at all.

Not the same thing at all. SKorea has refused to settle before the ICJ three times because it is not confident of winning a case in it's favor. SKorea has not signed the agreement to accept ICJ jurisdiction.

Which is why, as an observer, I believe nothing is going to change so the time, effort & money spent every year on this "show", should go to something constructive like helping the kids of today for their futures.

Nothing may change. or something may change. The point is that Japan must continue to maintain it's position from a legal standpoint. It may be ineffective but it is not pointless.

Ossan - thank you for pointing that out. Which I guess is why they accepted the challenge and ruling of the ICJ re Scientific whaling.

So the key point re this is if SK never accepts Japan's challenge - which it has no obligation to do as it is a non-signatory as you stated - then nothing can happen.

Which then seems to confirm that SK is giving up nothing.

And as I stated earlier, Japan should continue to protest SKs position on the current status, just that the Annual Shimane Pantomine serves no valuable purpose and is a waste of valuable resources. It was the declaration of Takeshima Day by Shimane - with the feverish support from right wing ldp governor & assoc - that stirred up the pot needlessly 10+ years ago, even though this is an international issue that falls upon the national govt.

Sorry but imho this is just malarkey designed to divert attention away from more important issues in Shimane like the questionable existance of a nuclear power plant 5 kms from Matsue city's downtown.

Well you are wrong there because Japan is a signatory to an agreement that requires Japan to accept any challenge put before the ICJ and accept it's ruling. So IF China took Japan to the ICJ over the Senkakus, Japan would have no choice but to settle at the ICJ.

Logic failure. Japan could simply refuse to acknowledge the ruling, which it did with the IWC rulings, or just withdraw from the ICJ, like it did with the IWC. Your blind love for Japan affects your ability to critically reason. Then again, you could have been educated in Japan where critical reasoning is not taught, which would explain a lot about your posts.

browny1Feb. 24  09:18 pm JST

Ossan - thank you for pointing that out. Which I guess is why they accepted the challenge and ruling of the ICJ re Scientific whaling.

So the key point re this is if SK never accepts Japan's challenge - which it has no obligation to do as it is a non-signatory as you stated - then nothing can happen.

Which then seems to confirm that SK is giving up nothing.

Exactly, unless, as stated earlier, SKorea decides to change it's position and accepts settlement at the ICJ. Which of course may or may not happen depending on circumstances, from geopoltical,economic or even induced by some massive infectious disease. No one can speculate.

And as I stated earlier, Japan should continue to protest SKs position on the current status,

Then we are in agreement there.

just that the Annual Shimane Pantomine serves no valuable purpose and is a waste of valuable resources. It was the declaration of Takeshima Day by Shimane - with the feverish support from right wing ldp governor & assoc - that stirred up the pot needlessly 10+ years ago, even though this is an international issue that falls upon the national govt. Sorry but imho this is just malarkey designed to divert attention away from more important issues in Shimane like the questionable existance of a nuclear power plant 5 kms from Matsue city's downtown.

In my cynical view at least 80% of anything a goverment does is a waste of valuable resources. And this is really not a matter of rightwing or leftwing. It's not like Japan's position on the Liancourt Rocks is cleanly split along that line. Yes there are probably more pressing issues but short of participating in the local government don't see any effective way to turn attention towards them.

Logic failure. Japan could simply refuse to acknowledge the ruling, which it did with the IWC rulings, or just withdraw from the ICJ, like it did with the IWC. Your blind love for Japan affects your ability to critically reason. Then again, you could have been educated in Japan where critical reasoning is not taught, which would explain a lot about your posts.

Failure in critical thinking and reading comprehension. Japan never refused to acknowledge the IWC rulings. They modified the process for their scientific purposes since the method done before was ruled to be not enough to qualify under the Court's review. Thus, if Japan kept proceeding with the catch based on THE SAME method and procedure (to wit: JARPA-II), they will have willfully violated the ruling. Please show me a link where Japan did just that: continued on with the method of catching whales after the ruling in the same EXACT WAY as before.

The Government of Japan decided to develop the New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP-A) following guidelines offered in the ICJ Judgment for granting special permit whaling under Article VIII, paragraph 1. The research plan for NEWREP-A was submitted to the IWC in November 2014, and reviewed by a panel of international experts in February 2015 (NEWREP-A review workshop), and by the whole IWC SC in May 2015.

https://www.icrwhale.org/NEWREP-AProtocol.html

>

Some uneducated persons seem to think that Japan did not abide by the ICJ ruling which ended the Scientific Research Program known as JARPA II. Japan did in fact abide by it.

"As a result of the Judgement, the Government of Japan ended the JARPA II programme. "

https://iwc.int/permits

One civilian resident on Liamcort Rocks, others are visiting tourists, and government assigned personnel.

There may only be one permanent resident but there are always between 50 to 60 people living on the island at any given time. That makes the islands permanently settled/occupied. This means the islands can not be colonized by another nation as any attempt to do so would be classed as an invasion. If the islands were without a permanent year round population then on a foggy night they could be colonized and occupied and could argue it is not an invasion. This makes a huge difference when making a claim on islands.

Argentina claims the Falkland Islands and as it was being ignored it "invaded" while the Islands are populated with citizens of the UK. History shows the UK wrested control back, and a local referendum was held to determine the wishes of the local population, who naturally want to remain part of the UK rather than the alternative of being part of Argentina.

The strength of having a local population on claimed territory can not be understated. The failure to do so, aka Senkaku, leave it much more vulnerable to counter claims and occupation by the other claimer's. South Korea is in a stronger position in regards to Dokdo islands because of its local population living there.

Who is right or wrong, I am in no position to argue either way, Just saying having people living there makes their claim strong and demanding they leave will always be ineffectual.

Some extremely uneducated people buy into the Japanese habit of renaming something and calling it new. These morons further believe that Japan making cosmetic changes to its “scientific” whaling program and reinstating it was keeping with the spirit of the ICJ ruling. Of course, these imbeciles only think this because it was Japan doing it.

Peter14Today  03:50 pm JST

The strength of having a local population on claimed territory can not be understated. The failure to do so, aka Senkaku, leave it much more vulnerable to counter claims and occupation by the other claimer's. South Korea is in a stronger position in regards to Dokdo islands because of its local population living there.

@Peter

I already stated the same, that South Korea is in a stronger position to defend a dispute, and this is prticularl;y so in terms of preventing efforts by other nations to take the islands by force. However I question whether that would hold the same in a judicial forum. But of course SKorea has continued to avoid going before a forum where that dispute could be argued and heard.

Out of curiosity, taking into account your views on the existence of residents, what is your position on the 4 islands of the Southern Kuriles? The USSR invaded them after Japan declared surrender, rounded up 17,000 civilians and forcibly deported them from islands that were Japanese by treaty with Russia since 1855.

Some extremely uneducated people buy into the Japanese habit of renaming something and calling it new. These morons further believe that Japan making cosmetic changes to its “scientific” whaling program and reinstating it was keeping with the spirit of the ICJ ruling. Of course, these imbeciles only think this because it was Japan doing it.

Lol, once you can't disprove your false statement, you resort to name calling. Talk about uneducated and pathetic. Someone pointing out the flaws in your argument doesn't automatically make them "morons." You are free to back up your statements with facts, rather than childish name calling. Otherwise, the only moron would be you who was called out on your mistake.

You either admit that your previous statement was a mistake or you prove it with facts rather than name calling. Cosmetic changes are still changes to the method of whaling. You just admitted it yourself. But, but, but it's Japan! You, you, you imbecile!!!

Out of curiosity, taking into account your views on the existence of residents, what is your position on the 4 islands of the Southern Kuriles? The USSR invaded them after Japan declared surrender, rounded up 17,000 civilians and forcibly deported them from islands that were Japanese by treaty with Russia since 1855.

Russia had promised the US that it would enter the war in the Pacific when it felt the time was right, on the side of the allies. That it took control of the kuril's after Japans surrender to the US and its allies is not in dispute.

Was it legal? It was agreed at the Yalta Conference between UK, USA and Russia that Russia would get the kurils for joining the war against Japan. The allies did nothing to stop the deportation of its Japanese inhabitants. It was an agreement made during a war of aggression that Japan itself started. Germany lost territory in Europe and colonies in the pacific as well as suffering a splitting up of the country into two halves for what was left. Germany is now rejoined but it has not recovered the territories it lost as a result of its part in starting the European conflict.

Should Japan get the Kurils back from Russia? It will not get back the larger Islands but may get the smaller two with negotiations. Is the current situation right? Well the idea that a nation can be responsible for as much death and destruction as was committed by Japan and suffer no price of compensation is hard to accept. Russia joined the war late but took what it had been entitled to under an allied conference held during the war.

Japan would not accept it today but it surrendered with the only condition of surrender being that the emperor would not face any charges for the war. That single concession was granted. That the taking of the Kurils happened physically after the surrender is not the real issue but did the Russians take what they should not have. According to the victors the answer at the time was, no they didn't.

@Peter

Thank you for your explanation.

"That the taking of the Kurils happened physically after the surrender is not the real issue but did the Russians take what they should not have. According to the victors the answer at the time was, no they didn't."

If your statement above is correct, why then does both the United States and the United Kingdom consider these islands to be Japanese territory under Russian adminstration?

"“The United States recognizes Japanese sovereignty over these islands,” Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters, reiterating the U.S. position on the territorial dispute between Tokyo and Moscow."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/08/14/national/u-s-recognizes-japans-sovereignty-over-russian-held-isles-official/#.XlUAYGgza00

If your statement above is correct, why then does both the United States and the United Kingdom consider these islands to be Japanese territory under Russian adminstration?

There was a contention that Russia did not join the conflict until the very end and as such they did not deserve to take any territory at all. But the Yalta agreement was made and the allies had to stand by it or risk conflict with Russia, which nobody wanted as a long conflict had only just ended.

What happened 70 years ago and was agreed by other leaders does not mean current administrations need to like or agree with it and the current stance as you stated changes nothing of the past or present. Russia has the islands and the population on them is Russian. Short of conflict Russia will not give up the two main Islands but have previously offered to settle the issue by returning the smaller two islands. Once possession is cemented with populations it is generally only via war that territories change hands. As happened with Russia gaining possession at the end of WWII. If Japan can get two back via treaty negotiations then that is the best current option on the table.

@Peter

So..you explanation for why the other WWII Allied victors reject Russia's ownership of the four islands is that.....they changed their minds?

From what I have been able to determine, in 1951 Japan surrendered control of these islands to the 49 signatory nations of the San Franciso Peace Treaty which enabled a "Peace Treaty" to come into effect with those 49 nations. The USSR boycotted this treaty and never signed it, hence there exists no peace treaty between Japan and Russia today. Since 1951 the United States and UK have refused to accept Soviet/Russian ownership of these four islands. So this position is hardly "current" by any means.

So..you explanation for why the other WWII Allied victors reject Russia's ownership of the four islands is that.....they changed their minds?

In 1945 Japan was the enemy and Russia was an Allie. An agreement was in place and it was honored even though Russia did not strictly honor the intent of the agreement, (to assist the allies defeat Japan).

By the 1950's Japan was no longer the enemy but Russia was the cold war foe. Clearly with the change in the political landscape the allies yes, changed their position. Russia, which has possession, has not changed anything and as far as it is concerned the islands belong to Russia, which is still their stated position today.

What is right and what is wrong? Both sides have differing opinions and in such cases they either drag on indefinatley, get resolved via negotiations, ie take the two smaller islands for a peace deal, or go to war to retrieve the territory you claim. The last is not on the table as it goes against article 9 of Japans, US drafted constitution. Russia gave the Crimea back to Ukraine who originally owned it and now have taken it back again. Tussia does not like to give up any territory it once owned. China is similar.

Tussia. I meant Russia.

@Peter

Thank you for your response. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that the US and other allied powers had no objection to the USSR invading and occupying the 4 islands at the end of WWII in 1945, but changed their view in the 1950s.

I am afraid that is an extremely simplfied, and essentially incorrect view. The US and USSR were at odds over the Southern Kuriles starting from Yalta. And it was not until 1945 that Stalin unilaterally added the words "All of" before making reference to the Kuriles to justify his land grab.

"Based on declassified US government documents from the W. Averell Harriman Collection at the Library of Congress and the John Foster Dulles Collection at Princeton University, this article will conclude that the United States never condoned the permanent cessation of all of the Kuril Isands to the Soviet Union. Rather, Washington's policy from the Yalta Conference onward merely agreed the Moscow could negotiate directly with Tokyo to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. In an attempt to assist Japan in these negotiations. John Foster Dulles even suggested in 1956 that Jaoan link America;s planned return of Okinawa to the Soviet return of the disputed Kuril Islands. According to the American viewpoint, in the absence of a Russo-Japanese Peace Treaty, the four disputed islands in the Kurils occupied by Russia remain Japanese territory.”

Bruce A. Elleman, et al. “A Historical Reevaluation of America's Role in the Kuril Islands Dispute.” Pacific Affairs, vol. 71, no. 4, 1998, pp. 489–504. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2761081. Accessed 26 Feb. 2020.

I suggest you read this full article:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2761081?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=macarthur&searchText=kuriles&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dmacarthur%2Bkuriles%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-4946%2Fcontrol&refreqid=search%3A9bee346f30593dcc19a10d8edc93bbcd&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

In anycase, where I do agree with you entirely that Russia, as well as China are nations that grab territories, and they do not give them back.

the United States never condoned the permanent cessation of all of the Kuril Isands to the Soviet Union. Rather, Washington's policy from the Yalta Conference onward merely agreed the Moscow could negotiate directly with Tokyo to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.

The Allies did nothing to alter or persuade Russia against the actions it took other than perhaps a statement that they did not agree.

The Allies were not happy with Russia pledging to assist in defeating Japan but not actually doing much, then swooping in and occupying the Kurils. The UK and US were happy to say that Japan must work it out with Russia. But the fact remains that Yalta is the linchpin Russia used to justify its taking of the Kurils as a "spoil of war".

Indeed Stalin used Yalta as the lynchpin to execute the takeover of islands that were never intended by the Allied Powers to become Russian. The US appears to have "done nothing" because at the time they placed a priority on keeping the Soviets from entering Hokkaido.

" Stalin obtained control of the four islands by carefully playing his diplomatic hand both at Yalta and in his corespondence with Truman over the wording of General Order No.1, and then by trying to use Soviet de facto military occupation to obtain de jure international recognition of Soviet sovereignty over over all of the Kurils."

It was a typical Russian land grab, nothing more nothing less.