Welcome everyone [Follow] me to talk about the past and the present together, and to discuss the general trend of the world. At the same time, it further proved to the US government the extreme importance of Japan's strategic position at the intersection of bipolar forces.

I am Tang Di, a history enthusiast. Welcome everyone [Follow] me to talk about the past and the present together, and to discuss the general trend of the world. A gentleman is just learning and making friends for the rest of his life!

In June 1950, Korean War broke out. It marks a regional hot war in the pattern of the global Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the intensity of the confrontation and conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union is far greater than any previous crisis.

At the same time, it further proved to the US government the extreme importance of Japan's strategic position at the intersection of bipolar forces. Since then, the United States' national security policy has taken a far-reaching turning point.

Home worldwide, the Truman government still regards the Soviet Union as a major threat and Europe as a strategic focus. But in Asia, the target of the containment strategy is the so-called "Asian communist group", including the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. The US government hopes to determine this strategic concept by signing a peace treaty on the Pair Day.

1. Peace with Japan and the US-Soviet game

September 8, 1950, President Truman approved the NSC60/1 document jointly drafted by the State Council and the Ministry of National Defense. The document

has become the blueprint for the "Seven Principles of Peace with Japan" published by the US government.

The Seven Principles of Peace with Japan stipulates that

The parties to make peace with Japan must be "all countries that intend to conclude a treaty on the basis of consensus" and "before the United Nations formulates satisfactory other provisions on substantive responsibility for security assurance, in order to maintain international peace and security assurances in Japan's territory, Japan and the United States and other countries will continue to share their responsibilities in order to maintain international peace and security assurances in Japan's territory."

Regarding the territory issue:

"Japan:

(A) recognizes North Korea's independence;

(B) agrees to be custodian of the United Nations to 29 degrees north latitude custodian and Ogasawara Islands, volcanic islands, Okinoto Island, and Minamito Island , including Nishinoshima , with the United States as the management authority;

The United States fully exercises administrative, legislative and judicial rights over the above-mentioned island areas.

(C) Accept the decisions made by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China and the United States on the status of Taiwan, Penghu Islands, Sakhalin Islands, and Kuril Islands, and Kuril Islands.

If a decision cannot be obtained within one year after the entry into force of the treaty, it will be decided by United Nations General Assembly ”.

Dules, the U.S. government's special envoy to peace with Japan, stated when submitting the "Seven Principles of Peace with Japan" to the Soviet government:

If the Soviet Union participates in the conclusion of the peace treaty against Japan, according to the peace treaty, Japan will ced the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands to the Soviet Union. Even if a certain country in the Far East Committee member state does not participate in the conclusion of the peace treaty against Japan, the United States will still negotiate peace talks with Japan. Here, the development trend of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Islands has been clearly demonstrated.

After the publication of the "Seven Principles of Peace with Japan", it aroused strong response among the allies. Originally, according to the decision of " Potsdam Conference ", peace for the original Axis powers should first be handled by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, namely the United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and China, in accordance with the principle of unanimous major powers.

2. Why does the United States create a dispute over the Kuril Islands?

Therefore, on November 20, 1950, the Soviet government submitted a note to the United States, accusing it of reversing the agreement procedures for preparing the peace treaty with Japan, and requiring the issue of peace with Japan to be discussed first at the meeting of the five foreign ministers. In the peace treaty with Japan, it should be clearly stipulated that the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands belong to the sovereign jurisdiction of the Soviet Union.

On December 4, the Chinese Foreign Minister also warned the United States' attempt to exclude China, emphasizing that "the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China is the only legal government representing the Chinese people. It must participate in the preparation, drafting and signing of the peace treaty against Japan." Otherwise, "the Central People's Government will all consider it illegal and therefore invalid."

However, the US government deaf ears and insisted on its own initiative, and adopted the policy of negotiating peace with Japan and the member states of the Far East Committee separately, attempting to obtain the consent of Japan and Western European countries first, and then discuss it on the Far East Committee that deals with the issue in accordance with the principle of majority voting, thereby completely isolating the Soviet Union and China.

In late January 1951, Dulles went to Japan to discuss the issue of peace treaty with the Japanese government. Although the Japanese government determined the "coordination line with the United States" at the beginning of its defeat and "cannot participate in any policy that slightly weakens and isolates the United States", it agreed to conclude a separate US-Japan security treaty in addition to a separate peace treaty, and recognize that the US military is stationed in Japan.

However, on the issue of territoriality, Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru said:

"Japan is ready to agree that the allies led by the United States will trust Ryukyu and Ogasawara Islands", but hopes that the United States will agree to determine the deadline for custody rule, "Once there is no need for custody rule, the above-mentioned areas should be returned to Japan." "During the custody period, Japan and the United States will jointly serve as custody rule."

Dulles was tough in this regard and insisted that the above-mentioned areas must be placed under the trusteeship rule of the United States.

Although Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida did not express his opinion on the ownership of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, Dulles considered it.

Before this trip to Japan, the political adviser of the Tokyo Allied Command, Nissaurde and Assistant Secretary of State Lusk suggested:

"The Japanese people attach great importance to the handling of Ryukyu and the Thousand Islands. The Socialist Party and the Democratic Party all oppose the abandonment of the territory that belongs to Japan in history and ethnic relations. If the ruling Liberal Party ignores these propositions and signs a peace treaty, it will definitely fall into a catastrophe."

After the coming of the day, Dulles personally felt this nationalist sentiment of the opposition party and affirmed the correctness of the above suggestions.

Therefore, in dealing with Japan's territorial issues, a strategy of using both soft and hard was adopted, forcing Japan to fully accept the arrangements of the United States.

The so-called "soft" means clearly demarcating boundaries in the scope of the Ryukyu Islands. During the talks on February 5, Dulles said that the US government originally drew the dividing line between the Ryukyu Islands and Japan at the 30-degree north latitude line, but is now willing to delineate the dividing line between the Ryukyu Islands and Japan at the 29-degree north latitude line.

On September 2, 1951, it verbally recognized Japan's "remaining sovereignty" over the Ryukyu Islands and Ogasawara Islands, and agreed to finally return the territory referred to in Article 3 of the San Francisco Treaty to Japan to jurisdiction.

The so-called "hard" means that in the handling of the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands, they acted as respecting and obeying the " Yalta Agreement ", insisting on inclusion in the draft peace treaty that "Japan should return the southern part of Sakhalin Island and its affiliated islands to the Soviet Union and ceding the Kuril Islands to the Soviet Union", but they did not clearly define the scope boundaries of the Kuril Islands.

3. The sinister intentions of the United States

Japan said that "they agreed to return the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the cedes of the Kuril Islands on the premise that the Soviet Union participated in the peace treaty with Japan." If the Soviet Union did not participate in the peace treaty with Japan, it hoped to delete this clause.

Yoshida Shigeru government basically supports the United States' peacemaking policy, and the basic situation of peacemaking has been formed.

The Draft Peace Treaty with Japan (commonly known as the Draft March) drafted by Dulles on March 23 appeared in this context.

The provisions of the "March Draft" on the ownership of southern Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands, can it be explained that Dulles is preparing to recognize the effectiveness of the Yalta Agreement?

The answer should be no.

First of all, paragraph 19 of the draft stipulates that no country shall enjoy the rights, rights basis and interests stipulated in this treaty before signing, ratifying or acceding to this treaty. Japan's various rights, rights bases and interests are not detracted or infringed by a certain country's failure to sign, ratify or accede to this Treaty.

According to this provision, as long as the Soviet Union does not participate in the conclusion of the Pair Day peace treaty, it cannot obtain the authority of the southern Sakhalin Islands and the Kuril Islands. This principle is very clear, and there is no need to repeat it.

Secondly, from the principles that Dulles himself repeatedly explained, making such provisions on the ownership of southern Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands is a diplomatic net that Dulles took great pains to wove. Behind it is a sinister intention of the United States not wanting to give the Soviet Union the sinister intention of refusing to sign the peace agreement against Japan.

For example, on February 18, 1952, Dulles said in a meeting with the foreign ministers of Australia and New Zealand:

"If the Soviet Union participates in peace with Japan, it will support the territorial requirements of the Soviet Union. Otherwise, there is no need to help determine the rights of the Soviet Union. The dispute between the Soviet Union and Japan will not bring us danger."

3 March 21 Du In his conversation with Deputy Secretary of State Lusk, Lus also pointed out:

"If the Soviet Union rejects the provisions of the treaty, we consider completely deleting the clauses on the southern Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands from the peace treaty."

This was explained more thoroughly in the conversation between Dulles and the Kuomintang authorities' ambassador to the United States Gu Weijun on April 24.

Dules said:

"About the Kuril Islands and southern Sakhalin Island, the language used in our draft treaty is inaccurate, and the words of the Yalta Agreement are used. However, because we know that the Soviet Union will not participate in the peace treaty with Japan, we do not want to change the original text of the Yalta Agreement, giving the Soviet Union the excuse of refusing to participate in the peace treaty with Japan."

The "March Draft" made the issue of peace with Japan the form of a legal document for the first time. However, it is only a unilateral intention of the US government after all, and it still needs to be recognized by other allies, especially the UK.

4, Dulles' fuzzy strategy

During this period, Britain's foreign policy was extremely complex. On the one hand, the British Empire was undergoing a process of disintegration and was in a position in Europe that could not match the United States nor the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, the long-term war destruction and economic depression almost exhausted Britain.

The problem is that after the war, the British government still envisioned continuing to pursue three roles:

(1) the center of the colonial empire and the Commonwealth across the five continents; (2) as a major country that influenced the balance of power on the European continent; (3) the Atlantic country that maintains special relations with the United States.

The British government has also promised the public to carry out huge social reforms. Obviously, there is a huge contradiction between reality and ideals, foreign policy and domestic policy.

This also determines the "dual" attributes of Britain's foreign policy:

Maintaining the empire's "imperial consciousness" is intertwined with the "Cold War consciousness" to curb communism.

In the process of formulating a peace policy against Japan, the British government always takes the protection of the interests of the United Kingdom and the British Empire as the axis, and determines its final basis based on the movements of the member states of the British Empire; Britain's policy towards Japan will follow the United States in some aspects, and in some aspects it will run contrary to the United States.

In the process of discussing the March Draft, in addition to the issue of China's representation and Japan's most-favored-nation treatment, the UK basically agrees with the US's position.

in the "May Draft" of May 13, 1951 stipulates:

"Japan ceded the Kuril Islands and the southern part of Sakhalin Island and its affiliated islands under Japan's previous jurisdiction to the Soviet Union."

objected to this, not the United Kingdom, but Dulles himself.

Dulles believes that if this regulation is followed, there will be two disadvantages to the United States. First, if the Soviet Union did not participate in peace with Japan, it would not be able to gain sovereignty over the above-mentioned islands, and simply occupy the above-mentioned islands. In this way, the United States, which concluded a defense agreement with Japan, may be involved in the territorial dispute between Japan and the Soviet Union.

Second, since it is still not certain whether the Soviet Union will eventually participate in peace with Japan. If the Soviet Union is given "direct interests", the US Senate may refuse to approve the peace treaty with Japan.

It was not until this time that Dulles revealed the American abdomen.

On June 5, 1951, during the talks between the United States and the United Kingdom, he proposed to deal with all territorial issues that Japan should give up in accordance with the principle of "undetermined ownership", and combine the provisions on the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands with the terms on Taiwan and Penghu Islands, and Japan abandons its sovereignty over the above islands.

As for whether the scope of the Kuril Islands includes the Chiba and Sedan Islands, Japan declares that it will give up the sovereignty of the Kuril Islands, who are the sovereignty of the Kuril Islands, there will be no clear regulations.

The British Cabinet Meeting agreed to the amendment and included this in the June Draft of June 14. was later included in the "August Draft".

In this way, although the Soviet Union participated in the San Francisco Peace Conference against Japan, he repeatedly asked for the modification of the above terms at the meeting to replace it with "Japan recognized the Soviet Union's complete sovereignty over the southern part of Sakhalin Island and its affiliated islands and the Kuril Islands, and gave up all rights, rights and requirements over the above-mentioned territory", but with the support of the United Kingdom, the United States finally got what it wanted.

The Soviet Union was unable to rebel, and eventually refused to sign the San Francisco peace treaty with Japan.

This shows that in the process of the undecided ownership of the Kuril Islands and the southern part of Sakhalin Island, the United States was the initiator of this major international dispute.

For this point, the American historian Dunn should be good at:

In the formation of various terms of the peace treaty against Japan in San Francisco, "the United States manipulates the dominance" and "is also "performed in accordance with the conditions, procedures and content of the United States."

5, the similarities and differences between the Kuril Islands issue and the Okinawa issue

From the perspective of international law , the "custodial rule" of the Okinawa issue and the "undetermined ownership" of the Kuril Islands and the Sakhalin issue are two completely different concepts.

The former makes Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan very flexible, leaving Japan with room for practical measures to meet the requirements of local residents in the future based on changes in the international situation and the U.S.-Japan relations. , in other words, it acknowledges Japan's "potential sovereignty" over Okinawa.

The latter enables Japan to explain this:

"Within the scope of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Kuril Islands and the southern part of Sakhalin Island are Soviet territory. Therefore, these areas are still under the Soviet wartime occupation state." "If there is a chance in the future, they should be resolved through an international conference."

From a political perspective, there is a unique correlation between the Okinawa issue and the Kuril Islands issue.

will have a profound impact on the future development of US-Japan relations, Japan-Soviet relations, and the development of US Asian policies.

In 1956, Japan and the Soviet Union began to negotiate to restore normal state relations.

The Soviet Union proposed to delineate the border between Japan and the Soviet Union north of Chiwu, Sedan and south of Secha and the country.

Japanese government proposes:

"I hope the Soviet government will return the Okinawa and Sedan to Japan now. When the US government returns the Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands to Japan, the Soviet Union will return the country's Houhei Islands to Japan."

6. The United States links the Okinawa issue to the Kuril Islands issue

From then on, the US government began to directly link the Okinawa issue with the Kuril Islands issue, using the Okinawa issue to restrain Japan from compromising with the Soviet Union on the Kuril Islands issue, and obstructing the normalization of national relations between Japan and the Soviet Union.

The basic strategy of the US government is exactly the same as when it induced Japan to accept the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, and it is still a combination of soft and hard work. On the one hand, on August 19, 1956, Secretary of State Dulles clearly stated to Japan's Foreign Minister Shigekimiya: "Either the Thousand Islands or Okinawa are dealt with in the same manner according to the conditions of surrender, but the United States agreed to retain Japan's potential sovereignty over Okinawa in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.At the same time, according to Article 26 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty against Japan, if Japan provides favorable conditions to the Soviet Union, the United States will also demand the same favorable conditions from Japan. "

" That is to say, if Japan recognizes the complete sovereignty of the Soviet Union over the Thousand Islands, the US government will decide to have complete sovereignty over Okinawa. "

On the other hand, the US government originally only agreed with the Japanese government's position on the "Kuril Islands" not within the scope of the "Kuril Islands" referred to in Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty against Japan. On May 23, 1957, in a note submitted to the Soviet government, it clearly stated: "The Kuril Islands mentioned in important documents such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty against Japan do not mean that they include the "Kuril Islands" or the "Kuril Islands" and there is no such intention. "

The Soviet government also quickly changed its negotiation strategy and put pressure on Japan in a tit-for-tat way.

The Soviet government proposed:

" It was unfair to ask the Soviet Union to return the four northern islands to Japan when the US army continued to be stationed in Okinawa. "

In this case, it stimulated the anti-American sentiment in Okinawa. Regarding the issue of expropriation of Okinawa land, various political parties and relevant agencies in Japan began to directly intervene in the Okinawa issue.

Kishi Nobusuke government linked the amendment of the US-Japan Security Treaty with the request for the return of Okinawa issue.

In the United States, the State Department's influence on the Okinawa issue policy is increasing. The US-Japan Security Treaty revised in 1960 determined the "Pre-negotiation System", which restricted the United States' right to use in Japan's local military base, and at the same time increased the United States' right to use the Okinawa military base.

In other words, The US government accepts the "pre-negotiation system" based on the free use of Okinawa military bases. The US government began to explore new policies to Okinawa.

The most fundamental feature is that it began to recognize the role of the Japanese government in the social and economic development of Okinawa; it began to link the return of the Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands issue with the issue of Japan playing a more active role in the US Asian strategy. The rapid development of the Japanese economy during the Ikeda Cabinet period not only created extremely favorable conditions for Japanese capital to expand its investment in Okinawa, but more importantly, it improved Japan's position in the US Asian policy.

After the US, the US fell deeper in the Vietnam War , the more I hope that Japan will play a greater role in the Asian strategy.

In 1968, the US government agreed to return the administrative jurisdiction of Ogasawara Islands; in 1971, the US government agreed to return the administrative jurisdiction of Ogasawara Islands, which occurred under this situation. In other words, the solution to the Okinawa issue was not achieved during the confrontation between the United States and Japan, but was completed under the conditions that the strategic alliance between the United States and Japan gradually moved from unequal to reciprocity.

7. The far-reaching impact of the Kuril Islands issue

From the perspective of Japan-Soviet relations, the issue of the ownership of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Island became the biggest historical obstacle in the normalization of the relationship between the two countries. In the early post-war period, the basic goal of the Japanese government was to look forward to the alliance The country returned the sarcasm and serdan when the peace treaty was concluded.

At that time, the reason why the Yoshida Shigeru government accepted the US policy proposal was mainly to "make all countries acquiesce" Japan's position on territory, "to prepare a pre-program for future negotiations." After

, all Japanese governments also used the San Francisco Peace Treaty against Japan as one of the basis for international law to demand that the Soviet Union return the four northern islands. In other words, the political proposition of the Japanese government's request for the "return of the four northern islands" was the product of the Cold War in the East and the West.

One of the conditions for the Soviet government to participate in the war against Japan in 1945 was to occupy and own the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Islands. Its most important purpose was for strategic considerations and future security guarantees for Japan.

So not only did the San Francisco peace meeting require that this be determined legally, but also refused to return the Kuril Islands after the San Francisco peace meeting, and built this area into a Soviet Far East Navy and Air Force base that competes with the US Navy Seventh Fleet based on Japan Yokosuka .

The Soviet government's posture on the Kuril Islands issue when discussing with Japan about the normalization of state relations, showed that it had no sincerity at all.

In the sixty years since the war, although the Japanese and Soviet governments have negotiated many times to develop bilateral relations, each negotiation has been at a deadlock due to the ownership of the Kuril Islands.

(end of the text)

If you have other topics or opinions about the historical field, you can [Follow] me to chat privately, or you can leave a message in the comment section below and reply as soon as possible.