Japan-Russia:
New approach to disputes By Ralph A
Cossa
MARIEHAMN, Aland - It was cruel
irony that the tragic killing of a Japanese
fisherman by Russian security forces in the
disputed Northern Territories (or southern Kuril
Islands, depending on where you stand in the
dispute) took place just as a group of Japanese
and Russian scholars and former government
officials were meeting with a group of Alanders to
discuss possible creative solutions to this
long-standing territorial dispute.
Aland
is an autonomous, demilitarized Swedish-speaking
island
incorporated into the broader
Finnish state with a unique set of constitutional
guarantees aimed at preserving its special status.
It served as a willing host for the dialogue not
only because it is proud of its history and eager
to serve as an example for others, but also
because it constantly seeks greater international
awareness, and reaffirmation, of its neutral
status, which dates to a post-World War I solution
imposed on the Alanders (and Swedes) by the League
of Nations.
The Northern Territories issue
has a decidedly different history. It was born out
of World War II, as Soviet forces occupied these
then-Japanese islands in the closing days of the
war, deporting the roughly 17,000 Japanese who
resided there.
The Russians claim there is
no territorial dispute since the Japanese, at the
San Francisco peace talks following World War II,
renounced their claims to the Kurils. Tokyo claims
that the islands are part of Japan - a position
Washington supported throughout the Cold War - and
in 1956 there was an agreement in principle
between Moscow and Tokyo that the two southernmost
of the four islands could be returned to Japan
once a formal peace treaty was signed between the
two nations.
Despite a few false starts,
including one early in Russian President Vladimir
Putin's term in office, little real progress has
been made even in seriously negotiating, much less
actually signing, a peace treaty.
In
listening to the dialogue in Aland - I was there
to discuss US security interests - it appeared
that the prospects for a breakthrough were slim.
Russians left open the possibility of reviving the
1956 agreement but wondered what was in it for
Moscow. What was Japan prepared to give in return?
Japanese interlocutors seemed even less prepared
to compromise, pushing for "all or nothing"
solutions, with the only sign of flexibility being
a "two plus alpha" solution whereby the
southernmost territories were returned at the time
of a peace agreement, with the details surrounding
the eventual return of the remaining territories
left deliberately vague.
To the outside
observer, it seemed clear that national pride, as
much as or even more than national interests,
seemed to be driving both sides' positions.
It was hard to come away from the
discussion feeling optimistic about the immediate
future. If non-governmental experts who had spent
their lives promoting better Russo-Japanese
relations could not reach agreement, what hope is
there for the two governments ever to do so? But
lack of consensus regarding a solution does not
equate to lack of hope. Perhaps affected by the
spirit of compromise and cooperation inherent in
the "Aland experience", participants highlighted
the importance of small steps that might defuse
the sovereignty debate and create a better
atmosphere in which to craft an eventual solution.
Aland's status as a neutral, demilitarized
territory figured in this discussion. It seemed
clear that the only condition under which the
territories could possibly be returned would be
with a future Japanese pledge not to maintain
military forces in the islands. While no one in
the room pretended to speak for the Japanese
government, most believed that Tokyo would find
such a condition acceptable.
Russia's
willingness to demilitarize the territories today
"as an act of good faith" seemed less likely,
although the military significance of the
territories decreased significantly with the end
of the Cold War and few Russian troops looked
forward to an assignment there. Perhaps Moscow
could make a virtue out of necessity by removing
an unnecessary and costly base, especially if
Tokyo were to agree to assist in the transition
(ie, help pay for the move).
Participants
also agreed that greater joint economic
development and cooperation in the Northern
Territories would help create a better atmosphere
for eventual resolution of the problem. A
softening of borders, such as currently exists
between Aland and Sweden (or throughout the
European Union, for that matter), could reduce
sovereignty concerns over the long run and make it
possible for former residents at least to visit,
if not eventually return to, the islands.
As one rides the ferry between Stockholm
and Mariehamn, the number of people crowded into
the ship's duty-free shops and lined up in front
of its slot machines attests to the attractiveness
of an open economic zone that permits hassle-free
transit not only between Aland and Sweden but with
the rest of Finland as well (another
characteristic of Aland's unique autonomy).
Finally, to avoid a repeat of tragic
incidents like the recent shooting of a Japanese
fisherman, joint patrols and joint enforcement of
joint fisheries agreements should be considered.
Ideally, this could be part of a broader "code of
conduct" between the two sides, aimed at defusing
tensions and limiting the possibility of future
unfortunate incidents.
Regrettably, a
near-term solution to the Northern Territories
issue appears unlikely. But there are positive
confidence-building steps that both governments
can take, in keeping with the Aland example, to
increase the prospects for a solution in the long
run.
Meanwhile, it would be an even
greater contribution to regional peace and
stability of representatives from Beijing and
Tibet's government-in-exile (and perhaps even from
Taiwan as well), were to meet in Mariehamn to
learn from the Aland experience and see how true
autonomy can be made to work for all concerned.
Ralph A Cossa is president of
the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based
non-profit research institute affiliated with the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington and senior editor of Comparative
Connections, a quarterly electronic journal.
