Abstract
The disputed territories between Japan and Russia, the “Northern Territories” for the Japanese (“Southern Kuriles” for the Russians), are part of the former Japanese territories occupied by the USSR at the end of World War II. Even to this day, more than a decade after Japan’s negotiating counterpart transformed itself from the USSR to Russia, the issue remains the biggest obstacle preventing the two nations from signing a postwar peace treaty. This “Northern Territories” case provides an interesting example in considering norm-related questions in Japan’s foreign policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For detailed studies on the “Northern Territories” problem, see, for example, Kimie Hara, Japanese-Soviet/Russian Relations since 1945: A Difficult Peace (London and New York: Routledge, 1998);
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, The Northern Territories Dispute and Russo-Japanese Relations, Vol. I, Between War and Peace, 1697–1985; Vol. II, Neither War nor Peace, 1985–1998 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998);
Hiroshi Kimura, Nichiro Kokkyo Kosho-shi: Ryodo Mondai ni Ikani Torikumuka [A History of Japanese-Russian Border Negotiations] (Tokyo: Chuokoron-sha, 1993);
Takahiko Tanaka, Nisso Kokko Kaifuku no Shiteki Kenkyu [A Historical Study of the Japanese-Soviet Diplomatic Restoration] (Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 1993);
Haruki Wada, Hoppo Ryodo Mondai o Kangaeru [Considering the Northern Territories Problem] (Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten, 1990); Hoppo Ryodo Mondai—Rekishi to Mirai [Northern Territories—History and Future] (Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun-sha, 1999).
Peter J. Katzenstein and Nobuo Okawara, “Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism,” International Security 26, 3 (2002): 153.
Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan: The Story of a Nation, Fourth Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1990), 213.
For details of the San Francisco Peace Treaty preparations, see Kimie Hara, Sanfuranshisuko Heiwa Joyaku no Moten: Ajiataiheiyo Chiiki no Reisen to “Sengo Mikaiketsu no Shomondai” [Blind Spots of the San Francisco Peace Treaty: The Cold War in the Asia-Pacific Region and the “Unresolved Problems”] (Hiroshima: Keisui-sha 2005);
Kimie Hara, Cold War Frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: Divided Territories in the San Francisco Sytem (Oxford/New York: Routledge, 2007).
Shunichi Matsumoto, Mosukuwa ni Kakeru Niji—Nisso Kokko Kaifuku Hiroku [The Rainbow over Moscow: Secret Records of Japan-Soviet Diplomatic Rapproachment] (Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun-sha, 1966), 114–117;
Masaaki Kubota, Kuremurin eno Shisetsu—Hoppo Ryodo Kosho 1955–1983 [Diplomatic Missions to Kremlin—the Negotiations over the Northern Territories, 1955–1983] (Tokyo: Bungeishunju-sha, 1983), 133–137;
United States Department of State, The Foreign Relations of the United States (ERUS hereafter): 1955–1957, Vol. xxiii, 1991, 202–203; Hara, Sanfuranshisuko Heiwa Joyaku no Moten, 42–46.
For details, see Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), 144–184.
Hatoyama’s letter to Bulganin of September 11, 1956 stated, “Taking into consideration the particulars of the negotiations between the two nations to date, on this occasion making it a condition to continue negotiations regarding the territorial issue at a later date, I, the Prime Minister, notify that the government of Japan is ready to enter negotiations to effect the normalization of our diplomatic relations, if the Soviet Union agrees beforehand on the following point (1) ending of the state of war between the two nations, (2) mutual establishment of embassies, (3) instant repatriation of the Japanese detainees, (4) effectuation of the fishery treaty, and (5) support of the Soviet Union for Japan’s joining the United Nations.” Hiroshi Shigeta and Shoji Suezawa, eds., Nisso Kihon Bunsho Shiryo-shu: 1855-nen—1988-nen [Japanese-Soviet Basic Document Material Collection] (Tokyo: Sekainougoki-sha, 1990), 148–149.
Asahi Shimbun, 24 March, 1972; Alexander N. Panov, Fushin kara Shinrai e [From Distrust to Trust] (Tokyo: Simul Press, 1992), 73.
“The irrational bargainer is characterized by a rigid belief system that dominates his behavior. He knows from the onset of a crisis what the opponent is up to because he has studied the opponent thoroughly and understands his ultimate aims, bargaining style, preferences, and internal political problems. He also is a keen judge of men on his side, knowing whose opinions to value and whose opinions to ignore or bypass.... Knowing the opponent as he does, he is not going to be duped by the opponent’s tricks or deceptive statements, nor is he going to lose heart at temporary setbacks, alarms, and rumors, but continues firmly on his chosen strategy through all diversions and difficulties.” Glenn H. Snyder and Paul Diesing, Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining Decision-Making and System Structure in International Crisis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 337.
Haruki Wada, “Chishima-retto no Han’i ni tsuite [On the Geographic Boundaries of the Kurile Islands],” Sekai, May 1986; Shichiro Murayama, Kuriru-shoto no Bunkengakuteki Kenkyu [Philological Study of the Kurile Islands] (Tokyo: Sanichi-shobo, 1987).
Kimie Hara, New Light on the Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute, Working Paper No.1995/1, Department of International Relations, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, May, 1995; Asahi Shimbun, July 12, 1995.
Sato has published a detailed account and an excellent analysis of the “Suzuki Scandall” and the MOFA’s internal politics behind it. See Masaru Sato, Kokka no Wana — Gaimusho no Rasupuchin to Yobarete [A Trap Laid by the State—Being called Rasputin of the Foriegn Ministry]. (Tokyo: Shincho-sha, 2005). Togo also provides his explanation on this issue in his most recent book. (See Kazuhiko Togo, Hoppo-ryodo Kosho Hiroku — Ushinawareta Godo no Kikai, [Secret Notes on the Northern Territories Negotiations—Five Lost Opportunities] (Tokyo: Shincho-sha, 2007).
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2008 Yoichiro Sato and Keiko Hirata
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hara, K. (2008). Norms, Structures, and Japan’s “Northern Territories” Policy. In: Sato, Y., Hirata, K. (eds) Norms, Interests, and Power in Japanese Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230615809_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230615809_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53997-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61580-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)