[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
I would like to draw your attention to the fact the directions and reference points for their further forward
presence of NATO does not pose an obstacle to normal movement.
relations between the Soviet Union and European coun- In other words, we see this document as being all-
tries which are members of that bloc. I think that the embracing, complex, and encompassing all spheres of
security treaty should have the same influence on Japa- relations between our countries. And namely the political,
nese-Soviet relations that the treaty on the creation of economic-trade, scientific-technical, fishing, and other
NATO has on the relations between the USSR and spheres, and, of course, one of the composite parts of the
European states. treaty would be the location of the border.
Yesterday Mr. Shevardnadze referred to the letters I want to emphasize that the peace treaty is a complex
which were exchanged between the plenipotentiary of the of issues and not some single, separable issue.
government of Japan S. Matsumoto, and the first deputy Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR
minister of foreign affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko on made an exposition of our thoughts in connection with the
29 September 1956. In regard to this, I would like to say historical points which you mentioned today. We consider
that it is difficult for us to understand what was said that the excursion into history which Mr. Uno made
yesterday by the minister of foreign affairs of the USSR. yesterday and which we heard from you today, is useful.
In the course of the whole period of Japanese-Soviet A comparison of your and our evaluations of the
negotiations at that time, the Soviet side insisted that it events of the distant and recent past show that you and we
would resolve the territorial issue by transferring the differently interpret these historical events.
islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan, although the It is very important that neither side become emo-
Japanese side insisted on the return of all four islands, tional about this, but instead try to comprehend historical
including the islands of Kunashir and Iturup. Because of lessons and take them into account in building our future
this very issue, an agreement was not reached and it was relations.
not possible to conclude a peace treaty. That is a well- You believe that the historical facts bear witness in
known fact, which no one can deny. favor of the correctness of your position, but we have
The principled position of our side is that the negotia- another point of view we believe that an historical
tions on the conclusion of a peace treaty should be approach bears witness to the justice of our position.
conducted on the basis of a recognition of the Japanese- You say that in the treaties of 1855 and 1875 it was
American security treaty and the confirmation of the made clear that the islands of Habomai, Shikotan,
understanding of 1973 between the leaders of our two Kunashir and Iturup are not included in the Kurile islands,
countries on the fact that the problems left unresolved but we consider that in the aforementioned treaties there
from the Second World War include the issue of the four are no articles which geographically define a concept of
islands [and should be conducted] in keeping with the the Kurile islands and for that reason your understanding
ninth article of the Joint Declaration of 1956. of these treaties is insufficient (ne sostoiatel no).
On that I would like to conclude the statement of our Although the USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke
position and am ready to hear out your opinion on the about this yesterday, for my part I want again to draw your
Soviet side. attention to the fact that there is a whole series of works by
Rogachev. Thank you, Mr. Kuriyama. We have Russian and Japanese scholars which bear witness to the
listened to your thoughts and comments with great fact that priority in the discovery, study and integration
attentiveness& . [osvoenii] of the Kurile islands, including their southern
COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN 10 205
part, belongs to Russia. Shikotan to Japan was a gesture of good will (zhest dobroi
We do not deny the fact that, according to the Russo- voli) by our country toward Japan, but was not our
Japanese Treaty of 1855, the border between Russia and obligation toward your country. In the Declaration the
Japan went between the islands of Iturup and Urup, and agreement by the sides to continue negotiations on
that in the 1875 treaty Russia ceded the northern part of concluding a peace treaty after the restoration of normal
the Kurile islands in exchange for the cession by Japan of diplomatic relations is also talked about, and the concept
a part of Sakhalin island to Russia. of the territorial issue does not figure in the Declaration.
We also paid attention to the fact that the Japanese I want to remind you that, as is mentioned in the Declara-
side, referring to these agreements, at the same time tion, the actual transfer of the islands Habomai and
prefers not to recall the Russo-Japanese war and the Shikotan will be carried out after the conclusion of a
Portsmouth treaty. Meanwhile, it is well known that peace treaty between the USSR and Japan. However, the [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl chiara76.opx.pl
I would like to draw your attention to the fact the directions and reference points for their further forward
presence of NATO does not pose an obstacle to normal movement.
relations between the Soviet Union and European coun- In other words, we see this document as being all-
tries which are members of that bloc. I think that the embracing, complex, and encompassing all spheres of
security treaty should have the same influence on Japa- relations between our countries. And namely the political,
nese-Soviet relations that the treaty on the creation of economic-trade, scientific-technical, fishing, and other
NATO has on the relations between the USSR and spheres, and, of course, one of the composite parts of the
European states. treaty would be the location of the border.
Yesterday Mr. Shevardnadze referred to the letters I want to emphasize that the peace treaty is a complex
which were exchanged between the plenipotentiary of the of issues and not some single, separable issue.
government of Japan S. Matsumoto, and the first deputy Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR
minister of foreign affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko on made an exposition of our thoughts in connection with the
29 September 1956. In regard to this, I would like to say historical points which you mentioned today. We consider
that it is difficult for us to understand what was said that the excursion into history which Mr. Uno made
yesterday by the minister of foreign affairs of the USSR. yesterday and which we heard from you today, is useful.
In the course of the whole period of Japanese-Soviet A comparison of your and our evaluations of the
negotiations at that time, the Soviet side insisted that it events of the distant and recent past show that you and we
would resolve the territorial issue by transferring the differently interpret these historical events.
islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan, although the It is very important that neither side become emo-
Japanese side insisted on the return of all four islands, tional about this, but instead try to comprehend historical
including the islands of Kunashir and Iturup. Because of lessons and take them into account in building our future
this very issue, an agreement was not reached and it was relations.
not possible to conclude a peace treaty. That is a well- You believe that the historical facts bear witness in
known fact, which no one can deny. favor of the correctness of your position, but we have
The principled position of our side is that the negotia- another point of view we believe that an historical
tions on the conclusion of a peace treaty should be approach bears witness to the justice of our position.
conducted on the basis of a recognition of the Japanese- You say that in the treaties of 1855 and 1875 it was
American security treaty and the confirmation of the made clear that the islands of Habomai, Shikotan,
understanding of 1973 between the leaders of our two Kunashir and Iturup are not included in the Kurile islands,
countries on the fact that the problems left unresolved but we consider that in the aforementioned treaties there
from the Second World War include the issue of the four are no articles which geographically define a concept of
islands [and should be conducted] in keeping with the the Kurile islands and for that reason your understanding
ninth article of the Joint Declaration of 1956. of these treaties is insufficient (ne sostoiatel no).
On that I would like to conclude the statement of our Although the USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke
position and am ready to hear out your opinion on the about this yesterday, for my part I want again to draw your
Soviet side. attention to the fact that there is a whole series of works by
Rogachev. Thank you, Mr. Kuriyama. We have Russian and Japanese scholars which bear witness to the
listened to your thoughts and comments with great fact that priority in the discovery, study and integration
attentiveness& . [osvoenii] of the Kurile islands, including their southern
COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN 10 205
part, belongs to Russia. Shikotan to Japan was a gesture of good will (zhest dobroi
We do not deny the fact that, according to the Russo- voli) by our country toward Japan, but was not our
Japanese Treaty of 1855, the border between Russia and obligation toward your country. In the Declaration the
Japan went between the islands of Iturup and Urup, and agreement by the sides to continue negotiations on
that in the 1875 treaty Russia ceded the northern part of concluding a peace treaty after the restoration of normal
the Kurile islands in exchange for the cession by Japan of diplomatic relations is also talked about, and the concept
a part of Sakhalin island to Russia. of the territorial issue does not figure in the Declaration.
We also paid attention to the fact that the Japanese I want to remind you that, as is mentioned in the Declara-
side, referring to these agreements, at the same time tion, the actual transfer of the islands Habomai and
prefers not to recall the Russo-Japanese war and the Shikotan will be carried out after the conclusion of a
Portsmouth treaty. Meanwhile, it is well known that peace treaty between the USSR and Japan. However, the [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]