LONG-STANDING DISPUTE

Russia and Japan, which presently enjoy good-neighbourly relations, hold regular top-level contacts and have a mutual trade turnout reaching $20 billion, remain, however, at war because of the long-standing dispute over the Kuril Islands, a remnant of the World War II. The talks held on January 22 in Moscow between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was not a turning point in resolving this issue again.

No reason for optimism

In fact, the meeting had no critical preconditions for optimism, except the outcome of the previous meeting between the both leaders in Singapore in November 2018, when the parties declared their readiness to hold future talks in accordance with the 1956 declaration. No one expected the path to a final compromise to be quick and painless. However, in early January, Mr. Abe expressed confidence that the decision would be reached precisely in 2019. Japanese prime minister even vowed on the grave of his father, a former Japanese Foreign Minister, who also dealt with this issue in 1982- 1986, to put an end to the territorial dispute.

Now everybody wonders what prompted Mr. Abe to make these statements and, most importantly, what remained undisclosed in Moscow after more than three hours of intense talks behind the closed doors. After all, none of the parties made promising statements about a speedy settlement of the dispute. "It is difficult to find a solution for the problem that has remained unsolved for more than 70 years after the end of the war, but we have to find it," said Mr. Abe. "Ahead of us lies painstaking work to create the conditions for us to arrive at a mutually-acceptable solution... Of course, solutions proposed by negotiators should be acceptable for the peoples of Russia and Japan, supported by the societies of both our countries," Mr. Putin said.

Wars and Treaties

The Kuril Islands had long been inhabited by the indigenous Ainu people. Then came the Russians and Japanese, who had long military and trade wars over some time. The islands have been under the Russian control for the last seventy years. In 1945, just before the end of the WWII, the USSR launched a military operation against Japan. According to Moscow, its control over the islands is legal and based on the results of the WWII. In 1951, Moscow refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty between some of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and Japan. At that time, the head of the Soviet delegation, Andrei Gromyko, regarded the treaty as a separate peace, emphasising that there were no representatives of China at the conference and the sovereignty of the USSR over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands was not clearly fixed in the treaty. Meanwhile, Japan claims that the four islands (Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai Ridge) are not part of the Chishima (Kuril) Islands (which Japan renounced sovereignty under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty), calling them the 'Northern Territories' subject to Hokkaido Prefecture. At the same time, Tokyo refers to the 1855 Treaty of Shimoda between Russia and Japan on trade and borders. In October 1956, the Soviet Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin and his Japanese counterpart Ichiro Hatoyama, signed a joint declaration on the normalisation of bilateral relations. According to the document, the USSR "agreed to return the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan... after the conclusion of a peace treaty." Return of the Lesser Kuril Chain was defined in general terms, making it unclear what specifically was agreed – transfer of sovereignty or long-term lease. A full-fledged peace treaty has never been signed.

Two or four, and why the United States?

It is certainly impossible to discuss the Russian (Soviet) -Japanese dispute without mentioning the role of the United States. Historians and experts believe that it was Washington's position, which linked the consent of Japan to return only two of the four South Kuril Islands with the return of Okinawa to Japan, that hampered the signing of a peace treaty in 1956 (agreement to return the Okinawa Island to Japan became effective in 1972). In 1960, the Japanese government signed an agreement allowing the American military to stay in the country, which also entitled the US to deploy ground, air and naval forces in or near Japan.

Therefore, the above would be the key issue even if Russia and Japan agreed on the Kuril Islands. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently stated that the efforts towards militarisation (deployment of the US air defence system in Japan) creates risks to the national security of Russia and China. "We wondered whether Japan could be independent given such reliance on the US and we were told that Japan would act proceeding from its national interests. We would like to hope it will indeed be so," Mr. Lavrov said. Abe, however, argues that the American troops in Japan are not hostile to Russia and US did not deploy troops on Hokkaido even at the intense period of the Cold War. Moscow does not seem to be convinced though.

Then why is the return to the terms of the 1956 declaration a topic of discussions again? Does it mean, according to Kyodo, that Mr. Abe is ready to confine himself merely to claims on Shikotan and Habomai in exchange for the treaty? What is his motive then? Why did Tokyo suddenly start talking about a "historical opportunity that should not be missed"?

Everyone playing own game

It is possible that the US is pushing Japan towards the terms of the 1956 declaration, which Japan did not like then. The situation has changed and, according to Mr. Abe's adviser, US should be interested in concluding a peace treaty between Russia and Japan, as this would "strengthen the bloc" to contain China. Abe himself said that it was necessary to avoid close interaction between Russia and China. According to Sankei Shimbun, Abe is trying to conclude a peace treaty with Moscow because he believes it is necessary to strengthen security and economic relations with Russia. And also in order to weaken the close cooperation between Russia and China. Therefore, it is even suggested that the main topic of the recent Russian-Japanese talks in Moscow was not the problem of the islands, but questions concerning defence. As a bonus, Japan, which depends heavily on Middle Eastern oil, also gets a chance to diversify energy supplies. But it is hard to believe that Tokyo decided to take this step without the approval and even support of US.

It is even harder to believe that Russia will agree to return the islands in exchange for even the greatest economic benefits. This move will inevitably affect Mr. Putin's rating. Russia will also face the threat of new American military bases on the Kuril Islands and problems with China. Therefore, Mr. Putin has repeatedly mentioned that the 1956 declaration, in fact, was not about sovereignty, as it did not specify the date and mode of return. Apparently, Moscow will enjoy the dispute with Japan in the long term, as fa as its obvious advantages are concerned. On the one hand, Russia will improve its position with regard to China; on the other hand, it is possible to demand concessions from Japan. Thus, in October 2018, Putin criticised Japan’s support to anti-Russian sanctions, and expressed his dissatisfaction with the meagre results of joint economic activities on the South Kuril Islands. Mr. Lavrov also noted "a very modest, unimpressive scale" of economic activities on the islands. Russia proposed Japan to cancel the visa regime for entry into Japan of the inhabitants of Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Mr. Putin believes that Russia and Japan could increase trade turnover to $30 billion. All these questions will certainly be raised during the planned visit of the Russian President to Japan in June to take part at the G20 summit. It is possible that Abe returns to the problem of the Kuril Islands trying to solve his personal political issues. In November 2019, Abe will become the prime minister with the longest period in power in the entire history of Japan, hence he is concerned about the political legacy he is going to leave behind.

Whatever the course of negotiations, both Moscow and Tokyo will have to acknowledge public opinion in their countries. Currently, the population of the Kuril Islands reaches about 20,000 people. The islands host Russian military and border settlements. According to recent sociological research held by Levada Centre, 77% of Russians are against the return of islands, while 81% believes in the significance of cooperation with Japan. More than half of Russians have a positive attitude towards Japan. 61% of respondents think "very good" and "mostly good" about Japan. On the other hand, according to the opinion poll conducted by the Japanese NHK Corp. in January, only 10% of respondents agree on the return of only Shikotan and Habomai to Japan in exchange for a peace treaty. According to the poll conducted by Fuji TV and Sahkei Shimbun, almost 44% of respondents supported the return of the first two islands, and then the continuation of negotiations on the remaining two. Another 32.9% supported the simultaneous transfer of all four islands to Japan. Thus, it appears that the dispute will most likely hang in air for some time. After all, negotiations on the sovereignty of the islands look much more profitable than a final decision on their fate.