politics

Japan's foreign minister airs concerns over Russian military activity

29 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

So the Russian/Chinese manoeuvre has worked. Japan is rushing to placate them.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

englisc aspyrgendToday  08:20 am JST

So the Russian/Chinese manoeuvre has worked. Japan is rushing to placate them.

By increasing their defense spending.

Really about time Japan asked the US to place an airbase in Hokkaido.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Ossian, I was thinking more of the precipitate seeming rush to start negotiations on the peace treaty talks which are more beneficial to Russia than Japan, who would be better served by delay.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Really about time Japan asked the US to place an airbase in Hokkaido.

Former Ryukyu now Okinawa loved it, former Ainu nation now Hokkaido will love it too.

To avoid disputes, put it in central Tokyo in Nagatacho, conveniently in the middle of the middle island, instead. Oh yeah, and while at it, let's bury the radioactive water from Fukushima under Nagatacho as well. Aso said it can be drunk, so no problem recycling it in the running tap and water dispenser in parliament then.

More seriously, unsure why the JSDF has no presence on the Senkakus? Occupation of claimed land is half the battle won, look at Takeshima/Dodko.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Want an end to Russian and Chinese military probes? Kick out the occupying force and it's assured, you will see a much friendlier Russia and China. They aren't aggressive vis-a-vis Japan. They know Japan is a victim of the occupiers.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

The islands are Russian, plain and simple. Japan had a chance to get two back, and not only scoffed, but made fun of the idea. Look what it got them. None. Now they cry and cry about them being "taken illegally" despite the war not fully being over. Seems like the biggest hurdle to peace between the nations is not the island issue, but Japan's ignorance on it.

-9 ( +11 / -20 )

Want an end to Russian and Chinese military probes? Kick out the occupying force and it's assured,

Japan having no occupation forces, as Japan is a sovereign independent state, your comment is misplaced. Japan hosts friendly allied forces, perhaps that is your concern. That is Japans option plain and simple.

you will see a much friendlier Russia and China.

Yes once Russia and China establish military bases in Japan they will be much friendlier to Japan.

They aren't aggressive vis-a-vis Japan.

Well except for the Senkaku's Japan wont cough up to China and for continuing to bother the Russians with wanting their Northern Territories back.

They know Japan is a victim of the occupiers.

Not currently occupied. You mean a victim of their allies? Laughable.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Really about time Japan asked the US to place an airbase in Hokkaido

Misawa is practically in Hokkaido. Close enough at the kinds of speeds combat jets use.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Really about time Japan asked the US to place an airbase in Hokkaido

In any event, if there was a no fooling attack on Japan there would be nothing stopping the USAF, USN, US Army or Marines from deploying aircraft to any suitable Japanese airport on Hokkaido or elsewhere in Japan. The bases are just for peace time operations. In a war we would disperse forces.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The islands are Russian, plain and simple. 

Wrong. They are illegally occupied by totalitarian Russia. As Russia decays economically further, they will have to return the islands before long anyway.

Really about time Japan asked the US to place an airbase in Hokkaido.

Well said. Another US air base on Hokkaido to complement the US base in Northern Tohoku would be a great deterrent to Russia and China, along with around 10,000 US personnel up there.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I just want to remind you guys that Japan and Russia never sign a peace treaty! That means we are still at war with Russia. However, it's easy for China to reunite with Taiwan and for Russians to take Hokkaido as Japan has no military troops.

The government should change the constitution quickly and start arming otherwise we won't be ready and by February next year, Russian troops will be ready to take over Ukraine, and then they might focus on Japan.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Putin, like Xi, is a dictator who is anxious to go out and conquer other countries.

Best for all of us to stay on our toes and watch both of them very carefully. Like hungry lions circling the herd looking for the weakest and easiest ones.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Russia does not have an economy to support a strong military. Their GDP is about the same as South Korea's. That is not enough to be a world power.

China, on the other hand, needs to be taken seriously, and is the reason why Japan needs to up their game with their military. China has the economy, the population, and the education levels to support a military capable of threatening all the other nations in the world.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Desert TortoiseToday  12:28 pm JST

Really about time Japan asked the US to place an airbase in Hokkaido

Misawa is practically in Hokkaido. Close enough at the kinds of speeds combat jets use.

Yes just 164 miles. But you missed the point, it would send a powerful political message that could very well deter any further Russian militarization of the Southern Kuriles. Not to mention putting a damper on Russia/Chinese vessel transits.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

In the 1951 San Francisco Treaty Japan renounced all rights to Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands. Period, full stop. End of story.

Chapter II, Territory

Article 2

(a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title

and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to

that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired

sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905. 1

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League

of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security

1 De Martens : Nouveau Recueil général de Traités, deuxi me s rie, tome XXXIII, p. 3.

No. 1832

50 United Nations — Treaty Series 1952

Council of April 2, 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands

formerly under mandate to Japan. 1

(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection

with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese

nationals or otherwise.

(/) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to

the Paracel Islands.

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations

to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole ad

ministering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 north latitude (including the

Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including

the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and

Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action

thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of

administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of

these islands, including their territorial waters.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes just 164 miles. But you missed the point, it would send a powerful political message that could very well deter any further Russian militarization of the Southern Kuriles. Not to mention putting a damper on Russia/Chinese vessel transits.

Yep, build another little America for service members and their families in a possible combat zone. Makes sense to me. The Tsugaru Straits are international waters. The presence of a US military base in Hokkaido doesn't change that fact. In wartime the Russian or Chinese navies would not be transiting them. They would be easily sunk. In any event the JMSDF has a big base at Ominato on a deep bay immediately adjacent to the Tsugaru Straits. There is a Japanese air base at the same location.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the 1951 San Francisco Treaty Japan renounced all rights to Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands. Period, full stop. End of story.

Chapter II, Territory

Article 2

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to

that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired

sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905. 1

Let me correct your understanding. Those 4 islands are Japan's inherent territories which had never been owned by any nations but Japan, and not included in Kuril islands stipulated in 1951 SF treaty.

It is too obvious from 1875 Treaty of Saint Petersburg where Japan and Russia swapped Sakhalin for so called Kurile islands as defined 18 islands from and including Urup island to the north-east up to and including Shumshu island.

This is confirmed by the memorandum issued by US Dept of State in 1956 Sep 7 and reconfirmed by the letter from US to Soviet Union in 1957 May 23

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Forget that 1951 San Francisco paper, when it is about the Japanese Northern Territory. The Russians, to be correct the Soviet Union, haven’t even signed it. Why do you come out with that again and again? An unsigned paper isn’t a valid treaty, nowhere , except in your phantasy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Forget that 1951 San Francisco paper, when it is about the Japanese Northern Territory. The Russians, to be correct the Soviet Union, haven’t even signed it. Why do you come out with that again and again? An unsigned paper isn’t a valid treaty, nowhere , except in your phantasy.

Japan signed the treaty and in doing so surrendered any claim to any of the Kurile Islands. Period. Full stop. It makes no difference if Russia signed the treaty or not.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Let me correct your understanding. Those 4 islands are Japan's inherent territories which had never been owned by any nations but Japan, and not included in Kuril islands stipulated in 1951 SF treaty.

Regardless they are part of the Kurile Islands and Japan surrendered any claim to them when it signed the 1951 San Francisco Treaty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Regardless they are part of the Kurile Islands and Japan surrendered any claim to them when it signed the 1951 San Francisco Treaty.

Incorrect. The wording Kuril islands in 1951 SF treaty did not include and was not even intended to include those 4 islands, which was confirmed in the official correspondence by the US government to Soviet Union dated 1957 May 23.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Incorrect. The wording Kuril islands in 1951 SF treaty did not include and was not even intended to include those 4 islands, which was confirmed in the official correspondence by the US government to Soviet Union dated 1957 May 23.

From the US position the only two islands in dispute are Habomai and Shikotan. Itorofu and the other islands are unequivocally part of the Kuriles and ceded to the Russians by the San Francisco Treaty. There was a tentative agreement that the USSR would cede Habomai and Shikotan to Japan upon signing a peace treaty but that never occurred.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Btw, Etorofu and Kunashiri are always called Minami (southern) Chishima in Japanese. And since the Japanese version of the San Francisco treaty says Japan renounced all rights to Chishima Retto, it stands to reason that it had also renounced Minami Chishima. The Japan Foreign ministry tried to have the wording of the treaty changed circa 1955 so Japan could press a claim that they were not part of the Kuriles but the British and French who are also signatories to the treaty objected, pointing out that was not the intention of the treaty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

From the US position the only two islands in dispute are Habomai and Shikotan. Itorofu and the other islands are unequivocally part of the Kuriles and ceded to the Russians by the San Francisco Treaty. There was a tentative agreement that the USSR would cede Habomai and Shikotan to Japan upon signing a peace treaty but that never occurred.

Wrong again. Japan did not cede but renounced Kuril islands( again, which do not include Japan's Northern territory) as Japan was not in the position able to unilaterally cede any of its territory to any other. Besides SF treaty was not the place referring to " where to transfer" such renounced titles.

US position is as clear as the following

“The United States has reached the conclusion after careful examination of the historical facts that the islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri (along with the Habomai Islands and Shikotan which are a part of Hokkaido) have always been part of Japan proper and should in justice be aknowledged as under Japanese sovereignty. The United States would regard Soviet agreement to this effect as a positive contribution to the reduction of tension in the Far East.”

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d101

but the British and French who are also signatories to the treaty objected, pointing out that was not the intention of the treaty.

The British are now fully supporting Japan's stance.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

 The wording Kuril islands in 1951 SF treaty did not include and was not even intended to include those 4 islands, which was confirmed in the official correspondence by the US government to Soviet Union dated 1957 May 23.

The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 941 (July 8, 1957), p. 72. The “documents” referred to are the Yalta Agreement and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The wording Kuril islands in 1951 SF treaty did not include and was not even intended to include those 4 islands,

The Japanese text did as I pointed out above. John Foster Dulles changed the US position regarding the treaty as relations with the USSR soured attempting, successfully, to prevent Japan from signing a peace treaty with the Soviets, but the original treaty was pretty clear in the Japanese text that Japan was ceding forever "Minami Chishima". That is the wording of the Japanese translation that Japan signed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Japanese text did as I pointed out above. John Foster Dulles changed the US position regarding the treaty as relations with the USSR soured attempting, successfully, to prevent Japan from signing a peace treaty with the Soviets, but the original treaty was pretty clear in the Japanese text that Japan was ceding forever "Minami Chishima". That is the wording of the Japanese translation that Japan signed.

The Japanese text is a mere translation of English original paper. It was not that Japan ceded (to Soviet Union) but that Japan renounced (see the difference?)  all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands which, under the definition intended of the original drafter, USA, do not include those Japan's northern territory Period. Full stop. Those 4 islands had been always Japan's inherent territory.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Japanese text is a mere translation of English original paper.

The Japanese specifically relinquished Minami Chishima in the treaty they signed. Nothing John Foster Dulles may have done five or six years after the fact changes that. He cannot change the treaty after the fact nor can the Japanese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese specifically relinquished Minami Chishima in the treaty they signed. Nothing John Foster Dulles may have done five or six years after the fact changes that. He cannot change the treaty after the fact nor can the Japanese.

Nowhere in the treaty, neither English original nor Japanese translation, it stated Minami Chishima. It just stated Kurile islands (千島列島)which the drafter, USA meant to be 18 islands, what had been once owned by Russia Empire until 1875. He did not change the treaty but clarified it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites