Annexed islands in the sea: Russia & Japan since the end of World War II; not status quo ante bellum

Japan and Russia have never signed a peace treaty over World War II. The reason for this is that there is a dispute over four islands off Hokkaido that were occupied by Soviet forces that were once in Japanese hands. A 1956 Japanese-Soviet joint declaration signed in Moscow stated that Shikotan island and the Habomai islets would be returned to Japan after a peace treaty was concluded between Japan and the Soviet Union.

The Japanese call the islands the 'Northern Territories' and the Russians call the islands the Southern Kurils.

Japan has rejected the Russian solution to the land dispute. Russia has offered that they would return two of the four islands seized by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. Japan expects that all four will be returned. Japan has been flexible on the timing of the return of the islands and the recognition of Japanese sovereignty.

According to a 2006 report by the Pacific Forum of the Center for Strategic Studies, the “Northern Territories” problem is a multilaterally created bilateral problem. “Chapter II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty specified that Japan renounced Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, but did not specify these territories’ recipient or their precise boundaries. The treaty was legitimized in a multilateral framework in being signed by forty-nine countries, but the signatories did not include the USSR.” According to the report, agreement to transfer Southern Sakhalin and the Kurils from Japan to the USSR was reached by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at their Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the parties saw that the San Francisco Treaty did not include clear boundary demarcations, the problem arose which led to there being no peace treaty between Russia and Japan.

In 1951, Prime Minister of Japan S. Yoshida, speaking at the Conference in San Francisco, stated:

... With respect to the Kuriles and South Sakhalin, I cannot yield to the claim of the Soviet Delegate that Japan had grabbed them by aggression.

At the time of the opening of Japan, her ownership of two islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri of the South Kuriles was not questioned at all by the Czarist government. But the North Kuriles north of Urruppu and the southern half of Sakhalin were areas open to both Japanese and Russian settlers. On May 7, 1875 the Japanese and Russian Governments effected through peaceful negotiations an arrangement under which South Sakhalin was made Russian territory, and the North Kuriles were in exchange made Japanese territory. But really, under the name of "exchange" Japan simply ceded South Sakhalin to Russia in order to settle the territorial dispute. It was under the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905 concluded through the intermediary of President Theodore Roosevelt of the United States that South Sakhalin became also Japanese territory.Both the Kuriles and South Sakhalin were taken unilaterally by the Soviet Union as of September 20, 1945, shortly after Japan's surrender. Even the islands of Habomai and Shikotan, constituting part of Hokkaido, one of Japan's four main islands, are still being occupied by Soviet forces simply because they happened to be garrisoned by Japanese troops at the time when the war ended.

The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A.A. Gromyko, speaking at the Conference in San Francisco, stated:

“The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable.

Thus, while resolving the territorial questions in connection with the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, there should not be any lack of clarity if we are to proceed from the indisputable rights of states to territories which Japan got hold of by the force of arms…

Similarly, by attempting to violate grossly the sovereign rights of the Soviet Union regarding Southern Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it, as well as the Kurile Islands already under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, the draft also confines itself to a mere mention of the renunciation by Japan of rights, title and claims to these territories and makes no mention of the historic appurtenance of these territories and the indisputable obligation on the part of Japan to recognize the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over these parts of the territory of the USSR.

We do not speak of the fact that by introducing such proposals on territorial questions the United States and Great Britain, who at an appropriate time, signed the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, as well as the Yalta Agreement, have taken the path of flagrant violation of obligations undertaken by them under these international agreements.”

The omission of text in the peace treaty that specifically stated that Japan acknowledged the sovereignty of the USSR over southern Sakhalin and the Kurils resulted in the Soviet Union’s delegation refusing to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Soon thereafter, the 1956 Joint Declaration of Japan and the USSR was signed on October 19, 1956 in Moscow and was ratified on December 7, 1956.

Not Quite Rapprochment

The disputed territory was discussed at the opening of Russia’s first liquefied natural gas plant. In February, OAO Gazprom opened the new plant on the Sakhalin Island. According to the Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, who attended, Russia is “building a window to Asia” and it will provide about 7% of Japan’s LNG demand. He is the first Japanese Prime Minister to visit the island since World War II. According to the BBC, Mr. Aso and Mr. Medvedev spoke after the inauguration of the LNG plant and they have accelerated their efforts to resolve the territorial dispute without leaving it to future generations.

According to the Moscow Times, President Medvedev and Japanese Prime Minister Aso met on the sidelines of the Group of Eight meeting in L’Aquila, Italy. They exchanged views on the dispute of the Kuril Islands. They have “agreed to disagree.”

On June 11th, the lower house of the Japanese parliament amended a bill on what Japan calls the Northern Territories and declared the islands “historic territory of Japan.” Russia’s reaction and response at the time was disapproving. On July 3rd the upper house of the Japanese parliament approved that the four southern islands of the Kuril chain belong to Japan.

"These actions by Japan are out of place and unacceptable. It is well known that the South Kuril Islands legitimately went over to the Soviet Union and then to Russia on the basis of the results of World War II. Consequently, any 'return' of those territories has never been, is not, and cannot be considered," the document said.

"It is a bewildering fact that Tokyo has recently decided to escalate its illegitimate territorial claims on Russia. First, unacceptable statements on 'the illegal occupation of the South Kurils by Russia' were made at the highest governmental level, and now Parliament is persistently voicing the objective of 'returning' them," the statement continued.

"It has not gone unnoticed for Moscow that the further development of visa-exempt exchanges with Russians living on the islands and the 'rejuvenation' of the Japanese participants of the so-called 'movement for the return of the northern territories' have been named among 'methods' of achieving the goal of 'the earliest possible return of the islands,'" it said.

"The fanning of territorial claims on Russia, with the attempt to tie visa-exempt exchanges between Russia and Japan to this, does not promote bilateral dialogue on signing a peace treaty and may impede contacts in the border regions of the two countries," the statement said.

Prior to the parliamentary moves, political analyst Ekaterina Koldunova said that ownership of the Kuril Islands is an issue of strategic importance for Russia since it’s the country’s access to the Pacific Ocean. 

Whether or not the Kuril Islands are as strategically important to Russia as the islands may have been a few decades ago has been a topic of discussion among other strategic experts.

Since, Russia’s State Duma responded to the parliamentary moves suggesting that the Japanese parliament disavow its decision in order to further talks on a peace agreement.

As recently as August 8th, Japan has been sending delegations to the islands under visa-free exchange programs. On August 8th, a delegation of 64 Japanese teachers and students visited Shikotan Island under a bilateral visa-free exchange program. In order to deepen mutual understanding between Japan and Russia toward a solution of the territorial dispute, the exchange program was launched in 1992.

Russia has interpreted the June parliamentary decision as a dangerous precedent in world politics and in the Asia-Pacific region and as a threat to Russia’s national security, according to Vladimir Kozin, an independent political analyst. Kozin also has said that from the Russian perspective the June parliamentary move has been regarded as an attempt to redraw postwar borders already fixed by international law.

However, while the debate now seems to have shifted to be centered on the parliamentary decisions in Japan, whether both parties will ever try to achieve the conditions as set out in the 1956 Japanese-Soviet declaration in order to move forward on a peace treaty seems less probable at this point. So does the prospect of using the framework of international law. Should a problem that started in a multilateral framework be solved within another multilateral framework like the UN? Both countries are using domestic politics to assert their historical claims to the territory and are not looking for mutually acceptable solutions to the dispute.  While Japan has been hoping for an official end to World War II by resolving the Kuril dispute, Russia has been for years emphasizing that stronger trade ties will normalize Japan-Russia relations.  

Japan has since stated that there would be less economic cooperation in Russia’s Far East without progress in finding a solution to the territorial problem. Japanese Prime Minister Aso has expressed his frustration with the status quo by stating that “Japan cannot be satisfied with this situation. Unless Russia takes practical steps to sign a peace treaty, we will be unable to develop partner relations with it in the Asia-Pacific region.”  The impact to both economies might not be deserving casualties.  

Analysts have been considering how Aso’s clear-cut statement will affect Japanese business owners who might be willing to conduct business in Russia even without a political solution surrounding the Kuril Islands dispute.

Most recently, Federation Council of Russia Chairman Sergey Mironov arrived in Sakhalin Region on August 11th in order to get acquainted with the Kuril Islands and to get to know the social and economic situation in the region. 

It has labeled the Japanese parliamentary initiative as “the most unfriendly gesture, which is insulting to the Russian people.”

Over the years, solutions as to how to resolve the territorial issue have included involving a third party, especially the United States, in the negotiations. Other solutions have included cooperative ways to share the land, a two island solution, and retaining the status quo.