Russian Media Poll on Northern Territories

The Russian state-owned media RT (Russia Today) recently ran an article (read here) about a poll taken of the Russian public showing an overwhelming majority of Russians oppose any deal to return the Northern Territories to Japan in exchange for a peace treaty with Japan. According to the survey, a majority of 56% said Russia retaining the Northern Territories was more important than a peace treaty with Japan, even if that were to include giving Russia access to Japanese technology and financial loans. For the question of giving up the entire Kuril Island chain, 78% of Russians opposed that, while a still overwhelming majority of 71% opposed giving up even the two southernmost islands, Habomai & Shikotan, while keeping the rest. Another compromise offered was to ask if the people would approve of a deal by which Russia acknowledged the Northern Territories as belonging to Japan but retained control of the islands for Russia and a still massive majority of 69% opposed even that nominal concession, which would actually change nothing. Less than half of the Russians polled, 48%, said that a peace treaty with Japan was important.

Soon, Prime Minister Abe and President Putin are scheduled to meet in Vladivostok as PM Abe has been desperately working throughout his time in office to come to an agreement with Russia, to return the Northern Territories to Japan and normalize Russo-Japanese relations. However, the simple fact that this study of public opinion was even undertaken at all shows that Russia has no intention to ever return the Northern Territories to Japan willingly. They have already invested a great deal in building up the military facilities on the islands with air and naval bases and can hardly afford to simple strip all of that down and give the islands away. The actions of the Russian government and the views of the majority of the Russian people have been pretty clear that while they would be pleased to have a treaty normalizing relations with Japan, they are not prepared to forfeit any territory they control in order to obtain that. It is quite a different attitude from that taken towards their new partners in the People's Republic of China. In that case, Russia did cede territory to China in order to obtain the current relationship between the two countries.

There is, however, one other view which, while not related in the article, can be seen numerous times in the 'comment' section which is that the impediment to an agreement over the islands is the current alliance between the United States and Japan. Numerous comments make the claim that Japan is not really an independent country at all but simply a dependency of the United States and that if the islands were returned to Japan, they would soon be hosting American military bases. This, of course, is nothing new. The Russians made the same argument during the Meiji era at the time of the Russo-Japanese War, portraying Japan as being the instrument of the English-speaking powers as seen here:

It was taken for granted in the Russian Empire that the only reason the Japanese were able to win the war against them was because of British and American support. Attitudes have clearly not changed. However, one can give the Russians or, at least, the Russian-sympathizers reading the article above, the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this is true. How does that affect the situation?

A re-alignment of the international situation is not beyond the realm of possibility considering what is being discussed in the current U.S. presidential election. Donald Trump is widely seen as being much more inclined toward Russia and President Putin than past American leaders. He has at the very least strongly implied that America should not be so concerned about Russia and stay out of the affairs between Russia and Russia's neighbors. Trump has also been less than enthusiastic about maintaining American military bases around the world in allied countries. If Trump were to win the election, it is not then beyond the realm of possibility that the United States might ultimately close its military bases in Japan and withdraw American forces from the country. After all, Japan has considerably more influence than The Philippines and when the Filipino government ordered American military forces to withdraw from their country, which included the largest U.S. naval base in the world outside American territory (at Subic Bay), the United States packed up its gear and went home. If that were to happen with Japan, and if the Russians are correct that the American alliance with Japan rather than the Russian alliance with China is the real impediment to improved relations, that could be ended and we would be able to see the truth of the matter clearly.

No Third Alternative Between Right and Wrong

Today on the main weblog we look at The "Third Force" That Never Works. After World War II the United States went into colonial countries in Africa and Asia to support pro-independence forces in competition with the Soviet Union that was doing the same but supporting socialist/communist revolutionary elements. However, because of ideological bigotry against monarchy the U.S. rejected the legitimate, traditional leaders of these countries and always looked for a 'third alternative' which invariably resulted in splitting the anti-communist opposition and allowing the communists to win. This was a totally different approach from that taken by the Empire of Japan that always supported traditional, legitimate local authorities wherever possible. It must also be said that the action taken by the United States in East Asia was also often tainted by post-war anti-Japanese sentiment that prevented the best course of action from being taken. How many lives could have been saved if the Allies has supported maintaining the Qing Emperor in Manchukuo, Prince Phetsarath in Laos or Emperor Bao Dai in Vietnam? However, the U.S. refused to have anything to do with any traditional figure who had anything to do with an imperial power whether British, French, Dutch or Japanese. The result was to make it harder for the anti-communist forces and the policy did not serve America well.