Connect with us

East Asia

Resolving territorial disputes in the Far East – Kuril Islands

Teja Palko

Published

on

A dispute over Kuril Islands is the reason why Russia and Japan still after more than 70 years have not signed a peace treaty to end the World War II. Could compromise about so long stagnating conflict which was so far discussed by Gorbachev, Yeltsin and also by Putin, be found this year during Russian planned visit in Japan?

The Kuril Islands lie north of Japan, and their status has been unresolved since 1945.Importance of Kuril Islands lies in strategic importance and access to Pacific for Russia. Importance of the Northern Territories lies also in its rich marine life, mineral deposits, gold, silver, titanium, iron and possibly offshore oil and gas reserves. National pride also plays an important role.

kuril1Russia’s view is that Kuril Islands, called by Japan the Northern territories are legally part of Russia as a result of the World War II. The Yalta Agreement, signed by the United States of America, Great Britain and the Soviet Union in 1945 stated the Kuril Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union and since Russia is its legal successor islands are Russian. Russian official stance is that Japans territorial claim over Kuril Islands is not historical nor geographical supported. Russian officials have expressed their preparedness to negotiations and resolving the territorial dispute. Kremlin considers the Northern territories to be the price Japan payed for Second World War. Russia also points to the Treaty of San Francisco as justification of ownership, which gave them right of occupation not annexation.

Japan’s view on four disputed islands Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, Habomai islands which also have two names, one Russian and the other Japanese, differs from Russian. Disputed islands were annexed by the Soviet Union at the end of the WW II. Japan points out the Treaty of Shimoda – the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation from 1855, which defines the border between countries as a line running through the Vries Strait, between the islands of Iturup and Urup is a keystone in Japan’s claim of ownership. The Treaty of Saint Petersburg signed in 1875 gave Japan sovereignty over the entire Kuril Islands in exchange of relinquishing its claim to Sakhalin Islands. Japan and United State claimed that the Yalta agreement did not apply to the Northern territories because they are not a part of the Kuril Islands. Potsdam Declaration from the same year does not explicitly include the Northern territories, but in the phrase that Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the four major islands and “such minor islands as we determine” is today used to justify the Japan sovereignty over the islands. In 1951 Japan signed The San Francisco Peace Treaty, which states that Japan must give up all claims to the Kuril Islands, but these four islands were not mentioned since by Japan opinion has never been part of the Kurile chain. The peace treaty, however, did not grant a non-signatory country – Russia any rights. Since the 1960s country claimed all four islands to be Japanese territory. Japanese authorities oppose to any trips by Russian officials to these islands. We have seen many protests and not only on the Northern Territories Day. In 2010 when Dimitri Medvedev, as a first Russian leader to visit the islands, visited disputed islands sharp criticism from Japan began and temporary called its ambassador back from Russia. Their official stance is that Russia should return all four islands to Japan. In 2009 Japanese parliament adopted a law stating the Southern Kuril Islands are Japanese territory unlawfully occupied by Russians. All agree that territorial issues should be settled by a peace treaty.

kuril2With many international agreements and peace treaties between the Japan and Russia and before Soviet Union Robert A. Collins has in his paper in 2013 examined The Russo-Japanese Dispute over the Ownership of the Southern Kuril Island and concluded that scientific evidence and legal evidence justify Russia’s claim to all of the Kuril Island chain, including the islands of Kunashir and Iturup. He has summoned up that Japan in highly unlikely to sign a peace treaty with Russia. Is he right?

Broader region is also changing as a result of regional competition. Military Balance by International Institute for Strategic Studies revealed that Russia ranked third on scale of top defence budgets (in billions of US dollars spend for defence) for the year 2013 and what is surprising is that Japan is very high on the scale on seventh place. Regional competition and rival are seen among nations in Asia. China has raised concerns about Japan defense budget and questioned if Japan was abandoning it’s exclusively defence policy based on peace constitution that was signed at the end of the World War II with which country, gave up the right to wage war and was forbidden of use of force to settle international disputes. Japan plans for defense spending for fiscal 2015 was set to 42.1 billion dollars or about 329 dollars per capita, which is the highest largest military budget since WWII and three times larger compered to China. Reason is also territorial disputes in the East China Sea. Based on the World Bank Russia military expenditure as a % of GDP are 4.5 and rising and Japan 1% stagnating.

Recent events regarding the relationship between countries are Russia’s prime ministers Dmitry Medvedev intentions to visit archipelago that includes Japanese claimed islands. A senior official in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement “If Russia wants to improve relations with Japan, it should restrain its actions”. Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida has also sent a request to cancel the visit. The date of the visit is unknown, but the purpose, official Russian statement, is to bolster border security and installation of military and civil infrastructure on the islands. Russian government revealed a program to develop southern Kuril Islands or Northern Territories called by the Japanese. Japan and Russia are trying to build and strengthen their relationship with economic cooperation. We have seen many statements and intentions made publicly which are not helping to reach the goal of cooperation and solution of so long lasting territorial dispute that is not going to solve itself over time. It looks like backward solutions are not working so new narrative should be found. The territorial dispute should not be resolved separately but within the broader concept. Maybe some guaranties should be made because Japan is afraid the scenario that happened in the Crimea could also happen in the Kuril Islands. We are still waiting for the right solution that could solve the territorial dispute between Russia and Japan and could lead to increased cooperation between the countries. Agreement and solution between Moscow and Tokyo has yet to be reached and question of the rightful owner has to be answered.

Teja Palko is a Slovenian writer. She finished studies on Master’s Degree programme in Defense Science at the Faculty of Social Science at University in Ljubljana.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Freedom, Sovereign Debt, Generational Accounting and other Myths

Published

on

“How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and Asia’s success story? Well, it might be easier than it seems: Neither Europe nor Asia has any alternative. The difference is that Europe well knows there is no alternative – and therefore is multilateral. Asia thinks it has an alternative – and therefore is strikingly bilateral, while stubbornly residing enveloped in economic egoisms. No wonder that Europe is/will be able to manage its decline, while Asia is (still) unable to capitalize its successes. Asia clearly does not accept any more the lead of the post-industrial and post-Christian Europe, but is not ready for the post-West world.” – professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic diagnosed in his well-read ‘No Asian century’ policy paper. Sino-Indian rift is not new. It only takes new forms in Asia, which – in absence of a true multilateralism – is entrenched in confrontational competition and amplifying antagonisms.  The following lines are referencing one such a rift.

At the end of 2017, Brahma Chellaney, a professor with the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research, wrote an article titled “China’s Creditor Imperialism” in which he accused China of creating a “debt trap” from Argentina, to Namibia and Laos, mentioning its acquisition of, or investment in the construction of several port hubs, including Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Piraeus in Greece, Djibouti, and Mombasa in Kenya in recent years.

These countries are forced to avoid default by painfully choosing to let China control their resources and thus have forfeited their sovereignty, he wrote. The article described China as a “new imperial giant” with a velvet glove hiding iron fists with which it was pressing small countries. The Belt and Road Initiative, he concluded, is essentially an ambitious plan to realize “Chinese imperialism”. The article was later widely quoted by newspapers, websites and think tanks around the world.

When then United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Africa in March, he also said that although Chinese investment may help improve Africa’s infrastructure, it would lead to increased debt on the continent, without creating many jobs.

It is no accident that this idea of China’s creditor imperialism theory originates from India. New Delhi has openly opposed China’s Belt and Road Initiative, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as it runs through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which India regards as an integral part of its territory. India is also worried that the construction of China’s Maritime Silk Road will challenge its dominance in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Based on such a judgment, the Indian government has worked out its own regional cooperation initiatives, and taken moves, such as the declaration of cooperation with Vietnam in oil exploration in the South China Sea and its investment in the renovation of Chabahar port in Iran, as countermeasures against the Chinese initiative.

Since January, India, the United States, Japan and Australia have actively built a “quasi-alliance system” for a “free and open Indo-Pacific order” as an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. In April, a senior Indian official attending the fifth China-India Strategic Economic Dialogue reiterated the Indian government’s refusal to participate in the initiative.

The “creditor imperialism” fallacy is in essence a deliberate attempt by India and Western countries to denigrate the Belt and Road Initiative, which exhibits their envy of the initial fruits the initiative has produced. Such an argument stems from their own experiences of colonialism and imperialism. It is exactly the US-led Western countries that attached their political and strategic interests to the debt relationship with debtor countries and forced them to sign unequal treaties. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is proposed and implemented in the context of national equality, globalization and deepening international interdependence, and based on voluntary participation from relevant countries, which is totally different from the mandatory debt relationship of the West’s colonialism.

It is an important “Chinese experience” to use foreign debts to solve its transportation and energy bottlenecks that restrict its economic and social development at the time of its accelerated industrialization and urbanization. By making use of borrowed foreign debts, China once built thousands of large and medium-sized projects, greatly easing the transportation and energy “bottlenecks” that long restrained its social and economic development. Such an experience is of reference significance for other developing countries in their initial stage of industrialization and urbanization along the Belt and Road routes.

In the early stage of China’s reform and opening-up, US dollar-denominated foreign debt accounted for nearly 50 percent of China’s total foreign debts, and Japanese yen close to 30 percent. Why didn’t Western countries think the US and Japan were pushing their “creditor imperialism” on China?

Some foreign media have repeatedly mentioned that Sri Lanka is trapped in a “debt trap” due to its excessive money borrowing from China. But the fact is that there are multiple reasons for Sri Lanka’s heavy foreign debt and its debt predicament should not be attributed to China. For most of the years since 1985, foreign debt has remained above 70 percent of its GDP due to its continuous fiscal deficits caused by low tax revenues and massive welfare spending. As of 2017, Sri Lanka owed China $2.87 billion, accounting for only 10 percent of its total foreign debt, compared with $3.44 billion it owed to Japan, 12 percent of its total foreign debt. Japan has been Sri Lanka’s largest creditor since 2006, but why does no foreign media disseminate the idea of “Japan’s creditor imperialism”?

In response to the accusation that China is pursuing creditor imperialism made by India and some Western countries, even former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa wrote an article in July using data to refute it.

Most of the time, the overseas large-scale infrastructure construction projects related to the Belt and Road Initiative are the ones operated by the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises under the request of the governments of involved countries along the Belt and Road routes or the ones undertaken by Chinese enterprises through bidding.

It is expected that with the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects and industrial parks under the Chinese initiative, which will cause the host country’s self-development and debt repayment ability to constantly increase, the China’s creditor imperialism nonsense will collapse.

An early version of this text appeared in China Daily

Continue Reading

East Asia

Arrogance of force and hostages in US-China trade war

Published

on

Even before the ink on the comments made by those who (just like the author of these lines) saw the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires as a sign of a temporary truce in the trade war between the two countries had time to dry, something like a hostage-taking and the opening of a second front happened. The recent arrest in Canada under US pressure of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of China’s telecommunications giant Huawei, is unfolding into a full-blown international scandal with far-reaching consequences.

Meng Wanzhou faces extradition to the United States where she is suspected of violating US sanctions against Iran, namely by making payments to Tehran via the UK branch of the US bank HSBC. The question is, however, how come someone is trying to indict a Chinese citizen according to the norms of American law, and not even on US territory to boot?

China’s reaction was extremely tough with Deputy Foreign Minister Le Yucheng summoning the Canadian and US ambassadors in Beijing and demanding the immediate release of the detainee, calling her detention “an extremely bad act.” First of all, because this is yet another arrogant attempt at extraterritorial use of American laws.

Other countries, above all Russia, have already experienced this arrogance more than once; suffice it to mention the cases of Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko, or of the alleged “Russian hackers,” who, by hook or crook, were taken out to the United States to face US “justice”.

Enough is enough, as they say. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who is usually careful in his choice of words, said that while Russia is not involved in the US-China trade war, it still regards Meng’s arrest as “another manifestation of the line that inspires a rejection among the overwhelming majority of normal countries, normal people, the line of extraterritorial application of their [US] national laws.”

“This is a very arrogant great-power policy that no one accepts, it already causes rejection even among the closest allies of the US,” Lavrov said. “It is necessary to put an end to it,” he added.

One couldn’t agree with this more. But first, I would like to know who really is behind this provocation, even though China’s reaction would have been much anticipated. The arrest of Meng Wanzhou sent US markets into a tailspin and scared investors, who now expect an escalation of the trade war between the United States and China.

The point here, of course, is Washington’s displeasure about Huawei’s activities, with The Wall Street Journal reporting that the US Justice Department has long been conducting a probe into the Chinese company’s alleged violation of US sanctions against Iran.

There is more to this whole story than just sanctions though. The US accuses Huawei (as it earlier did the Chinese ZTE) of the potential threats the company’s attempts to use tracking devices could pose to the security of America’s telecommunications networks. The United States has demanded that its closest allies (primarily Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, with whom it has set up a system for jointly collecting and using Five Eyes intelligence) exclude 5G Huawei products from their state procurement tenders.

I still believe, however, that the true reason for this is not so much security concerns as it is a desire to beat a competitor. Huawei has become a world-renowned leader in the development and application of 5G communications technology, which looks to the future (“Internet of Things”, “Smart Cities”, unmanned vehicles and much more.)

Since technology and equipment are supplied along with standards for their use, there is a behind-the-scenes struggle going on to phase out the 5G standard developed by Huawei from global markets.

As for the need “to put an end to this,” the big question is how. Formally, detainees are extradited to the United States in line with national legislation, but at Washington’s request (which often comes with boorish and humiliating pressure from the US authorities and is usually never mentioned in public).

Add to this the US Congress’ longstanding practice of changing, unilaterally and at its own discretion, already signed international treaties and agreements as they are being ratified – another example of “arrogance of power” as mentioned before.

The question could well be raised at the UN Security Council, but its discussion is most likely to be blocked by the US representative. However, there is also a moral side to the assessment of any political practice the work on international legal norms usually starts with.

If China and Russia, as well as other countries equally fed up with the “arrogance of power” submit a draft resolution “On the inadmissibility of attempts at extraterritorial use of national legislation by UN member states” to the UN General Assembly, it would most likely enjoy the overwhelming support by most of the countries of the UNGA, maybe save for just a dozen or so of the most diehard advocates of Washington’s policy…

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

East Asia

Will China Save the Planet? Book Review

Published

on

Barbara Finamore has been involved in environmental policy in China for decades.  Her new book, Will China Save the Planet?,is a succinct report (120 pg.) on the short, yet promising history of China’s actions to address climate change and pollution.

Chapter 1 is about the recent global leadership role that China has taken in the fight against climate change.  At first, the PRC was hesitant to commit to specific pollution-reduction benchmarks.  After experiencing increasingly devastating bouts of industrial smog in the 1990s however, China began to take its environmental commitments more seriously.  It has set out to become the de facto leader in combatting climate change through ambitious domestic action and sponsoring international conferences.  The Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement has only furthered China’s dominance.

Chapters 2-4 give in-depth analysis on China’s efforts to wean itself off of coal, develop its renewable energy capacity and become a global leader in electric vehicle production.  China has long used coal to fuel its unprecedented rate of industrialization.  In recent years, it has pledged to wean itself off of coal dependency by enforcing coal plant efficiency standards, enacting a cap-and-trade program, managing grid output, promoting local politicians based on their success in implementing green policies and supporting green energy developments.  China is now home to many of the world’s top manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and commercial & private electric vehicles.

There is much to applaud China for in its efforts.  Finamore writes that, “After growing by an average of 10% annually from 2002-2012, China’s coal consumption leveled off in 2013 & decreased in each of the following three years… Largely because of the dip in China’s coal consumption, global CO2 emissions growth was basically flat between 2014-2016.”  By moving away from coal, China has been able to, “Every hour… erects a new wind turbine & installs enough solar panels to cover a soccer field.” As of last year, “Chinese solar manufacturers accounted for about 68% of global solar cell production & more than 70% of the world’s production of solar panels.”

Chapter 5 focuses on China’s mission to export its green initiatives around the world, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).  The BRI is shaping up to be the largest international infrastructure plan in history, investing trillions of dollars in 65 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East.  China thus has a golden chance to help much of the developing world to adopt clean energy goals and foster economic growth.  The Chinese government is encouraging its citizens to invest in renewable energy initiatives in the BRI countries by implementing a “green finance” system.  Through its pivotal role in the G20, China can also help to lead the developed world by spearheading reports and policies among the 20 member nations.

Barbara Finamore has written a highly readable and informative overview of China’s role in the global climate change battle.  She lists the Chinese government policies that have led the world’s largest nation to meet and exceed many of the green benchmarks that it set for itself.  It would have been helpful if Finamore had written more about China’s water instability and how that ties to the Tibetan occupation, as access to drinking water is one of the top environmental issues in the world today.  As a whole, Will China Save the Planet?is a good primer for environmental policy analysts and anyone else interested in studying feasible solutions to climate change, humanity’s greatest threat.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy