The presence of disputed border territories of England. All disputed territories of the world (1 photo)

"LOOST KARELIA-I"

During the Tartu Peace Treaty between the RSFSR and Finland in 1920, the entire Pechenga volost (Petsamo) departed to Finland in the Arctic, also West Side Rybachy Peninsula and most of the Sredny Peninsula.

"LOOST KARELIA-II"

As a result of World War II, the USSR annexed Karelian Isthmus, Vyborg and the western coast of the Vyborg Bay, territories to the west and north of Lake Ladoga, a group of islands in the Gulf of Finland, part of the Rybachy and Sredny peninsulas in the Barents Sea, as well as the Pechenga region. The current Russian-Finnish border was fixed by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. In Finland, to this day there are forces that stand up for the return of the lost territories.

"ZANAROVIE AND PETSERIMAA"

The Tartu Peace Treaty was signed on February 2, 1920. According to the agreement, part of the territory of the Petrograd province and the Pskov province (Zanarovye and Pechora Territory) was transferred to Estonia in the form of annexations. In 1944, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree according to which part of the lands of southeastern Estonia were included in the RSFSR (the Pskov and Leningrad region). In 2005, a border treaty between Russia and Estonia was prepared and signed. However, during ratification, Estonia added to it an amendment not agreed with Russia on the effectiveness of the Tartu Peace Treaty of 1920, according to which the pre-war border between the countries passed. Russia regarded this step as Estonia's intention to present territorial claims and withdrew its signature on the document. Only in 2014 did the foreign ministers of Russia and Estonia sign an agreement establishing the border between the two countries. Nevertheless, many in Estonia consider the signed treaty to be an act of betrayal by the Estonian political elites.

"PYTALOVSKY DISTRICT"

In 1920, according to the Riga Peace Treaty between Soviet Russia and Latvia part of the Ostrovsky district of the Pskov province (including the city of Pytalovo) was transferred to Latvia. In 1944, by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Pskov Region was formed as part of the RSFSR. In its composition, with reference to the requests of the population, East End Abrensky district, on the basis of which Kachanovsky and Pytalovsky districts were formed. In 2005 V.V. Putin, commenting on the claims of the Latvian nationalists, uttered his famous catchphrase: "They will not receive the Pytalovsky district, but ears from a dead donkey." In 2007, Russia and Latvia signed a border treaty, according to which Latvia officially renounced its claims to the Pytalovsky region.

"LITHUANIA SMALL"

In the XIV-XVII centuries. the northeastern part of Prussia is inhabited by a Lithuanian-speaking population, which creates its own special type culture. The first Lithuanian book was published in Königsberg in 1547, and the first Lithuanian grammar in 1653. In the XVIII century. in the village of Tolkminken, the pioneer of the Lithuanian national revival K. Donelaitis worked. In the 19th century, during the era of the Lithuanian national revival, the idea of "Lithuania Minor" was formed as the cradle of Lithuanian culture. In 2015, a group of enterprising Lithuanians created a community in social network Facebook, which promoted the Lithuanian identity of Kaliningrad and called for the return of the city to Lithuania. Lithuanian nationalist politicians regularly express ideas of this kind.

Perhaps, there is no other country in the world with such a number of territorial claims that Russia expresses. Record-breaking spaces of the country do not allow many to sleep peacefully. And perhaps the most difficult geopolitical knot has been and remains the north-west of Russia, where it comes into contact with NATO and the European Union.

On September 28, 1939, the Treaty of Friendship and Border between the USSR and Germany was signed. It was signed by German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Molotov. We decided to talk about the five disputed territories of Russia with other states.

The treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was concluded on September 28, 1939. It was signed after the invasion of Poland by the armies of Germany and the USSR by German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Molotov. According to this agreement, the territory of Poland was divided between Germany and the USSR. The text of the treaty and a map with the border line between the USSR and Germany were published in the Soviet press. Under this treaty, Lithuania passed into the sphere of influence of the USSR. This provided the Soviet Union with German non-intervention in relations with Lithuania, which resulted in the establishment of the Lithuanian SSR on June 15, 1940.

DISPUTE ISLANDS

Kurile Islands includes 30 large and many small islands. They are included in Sakhalin region Russia and are of great military-strategic and economic importance. However, the southern islands of the archipelago - Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai group - are disputed by Japan, which includes them in the Hokkaido prefecture.

Moscow's principled position is that the southern Kuril Islands became part of the USSR, whose successor was Russia, and are an integral part of the territory Russian Federation on legal grounds following the results of the Second World War, enshrined in the UN Charter, and Russian sovereignty over them, having the appropriate international legal confirmation, is beyond doubt.

In Japan, they say that the northern territories are the centuries-old territories of this country, which continue to be under the illegal occupation of Russia. According to the Japanese position, in the event that the northern territories belong to Japan, it is ready to flexibly approach the time and procedure for their return. In addition, since Japanese citizens living in the northern territories were forcibly evicted by Joseph Stalin, Japan is ready to come to an agreement with the Russian government so that those living there Russian citizens did not suffer the same tragedy. In other words, after the return of the islands to Japan, she intends to respect the rights, interests and desires of the Russians now living on the islands.

TAKEN ONE AND A HALF ISLANDS

Problem disputed islands Tarabarov and Bolshoy Ussuriysky arose in 1964, when a new draft agreement on the border between Russia and China was developed. And the story was like this. In 1689, the Treaty of Nerchinsk was concluded, when Russia recognized China's rights to lands on the right bank of the Amur and in Primorye. In the middle of the 19th century, taking advantage of the weakness of China, Russia annexed 165.9 thousand square kilometers of Primorye, which were under joint control. China was left without access to the Sea of Japan. During World War II, between Stalin and the commander-in-chief of the PLA Mao Zedong, who controlled the northern regions of China, an agreement was concluded on drawing the border line along the Chinese bank of the Amur and Ussuri rivers. Thus, China was actually deprived of the right to use the fairway of these rivers, but received support from the USSR.

In 2004, an agreement was signed between Russia and China on the Russian-Chinese state border on its eastern part. The document defines the border in two sections: in the area of Bolshoy Island in the upper reaches of the Argun River (Chita Region) and in the area of the Tarabarov and Bolshoy Ussuriysky Islands at the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri Rivers near Khabarovsk. Tarabarov is completely given to China, and Ussuriysky is only partially. The border line, according to the document, runs both along the middle of the rivers and on land. The territory of both sites (about 375 sq. km) is distributed approximately in half.

WANTED TO CUT OFF A PIECE

Estonia lays claim to the Pechora district of the Pskov region and the right bank of the Narva River with Ivangorod. On May 18, 2005, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Estonia, Sergey Lavrov and Urmas Paet, signed agreements on the state border and delimitation of maritime spaces in Narva and Gulf of Finland, fixing the passage of the state border between the two states along the former administrative border between the RSFSR and the Estonian SSR "with a slight adjustment on the terms of adequate territorial compensation." One of the main subjects of negotiations on the Russian-Estonian border is the Saatse boot. It was planned to transfer it to Estonia, exchanging it for other territories. The agreement was not ratified by Russia, due to the amendments made to it by the Estonian side.

FISH WAR

For almost half a century, Russia has been waging an undeclared fish war with Norway. Most of the fighting takes place on the territory of the famous "twilight zone" in the Barents Sea. This is controversial body of water half the size of Germany or Italy, two thirds of the UK.

The essence of the dispute boils down to the fact that Russia drew the border along the coast of the island of Svalbard, Norway believed that the border should be equidistant from Svalbard on the one hand and Franz Josef Land and the island New Earth with another. Since the states were on friendly terms, the dispute over the border rarely resulted in any actions, and occasionally there were detentions of Russian fishing boats. However, in the future, the dispute escalated, since hydrocarbon reserves were discovered in the Barents Sea, including in the disputed territories. In April 2010, the parties agreed that the new delimitation line would divide the disputed territory into two equal parts, the 40-year-old dispute was finally settled on September 15, 2010 after the signing of the agreement "On the delimitation of maritime spaces and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the North Arctic Ocean» transfer of 90 thousand sq. m. km. in favor of Norway.

CRIMEA - A TERRITORY OF DISPUTES

For many years, disputes around perhaps the most beautiful and favorite vacation spot of the Soviet people have not subsided. Crimea is not only an "all-Union health resort", but also a strategic territory.

In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, relations between Ukraine and Russia deteriorated. The people living in Russia, after the loss of so many territories, remembered the Crimea, which could be returned, because. transferring it to Ukraine in 1954 was disapproved by many. At the same time, 80 percent of Crimean residents said they consider themselves citizens of Russia, and Crimea is part of its territory. But Ukraine had one very significant lever of pressure on Russia - the Black Sea Fleet. In January 1992, the then President of Ukraine L. Kravchuk announced that he had taken the Black Sea Fleet under his guardianship. It was a collapse for Russia. But the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine is a very huge loss for Russia.

Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. South Atlantic

Two major islands and about 100 small ones. The islands were discovered by the British navigator Francis Drake back in the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries (regardless of him, these islands were discovered by the Spaniards). And since then, the UK considers that they are under British jurisdiction. However, they are located near the Argentine coast and about 16 thousand km from London. Disputes between Argentina and Great Britain about the ownership of the islands began in the early 19th century, when the first British settlers appeared on the islands. In 1980, about 1.8 thousand people permanently lived on the islands.

In 1982, Argentine troops captured the Falklands. These actions were condemned by the UN Security Council. The British Expeditionary Force, which arrived at the islands, pushed back the Argentines. During the fighting, 250 British and 750 Argentine soldiers were killed. Argentina has not given up its rights to the islands. The conflict is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, as large deposits of oil have been discovered in the Falklands area.

Machias Seal Island. North Atlantic, Gulf of Maine near US and Canadian coasts

The two-hectare island is claimed by the United States and Canada. Machias Seal Island was first landed by an American captain in 1826. However, in 1828 a British guard post was established on it (Canada was part of British Empire). Diplomatic battles over the ownership of a piece of land were fought in the middle of the 19th century, but gradually lost their intensity. Now this question periodically pops up in the press. The diplomatic departments of both states prefer not to raise it. Now there is a lighthouse on the island and two caretakers - Canadians - live permanently. In addition to them, several million sea birds live on the island. American and Canadian tourists are free to visit the island.

Islands in Corisco Bay. Coast of West Africa

Several tiny patches of land, the largest of which is the islands of Bagne, with an area of several hundred square meters, are the subject of a dispute between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. The reason for the dispute is the unsettled state borders that were formed back in the colonial era. Skirmishes between the police, military and civilians of both states have been ongoing for about 20 years, since it is in this area that fishermen from both countries have been intensively fishing. Attempts by the Organization of African Unity to resolve the conflict, undertaken in the mid-1980s, did not lead to concrete results. In the 1990s, oil fields were discovered in the area, which makes the settlement of the dispute even more difficult.

Hans Island. North Atlantic, near Greenland

Little island is not indicated at all geographical maps. Denmark claims that the island was discovered by the Vikings, geographically closer to Greenland than to Canada and therefore belongs to it. Canada refers to the fact that the island once belonged to the UK. Near the island is actively conducted fishing, and the Eskimos use it for migration. At the end of 2002, Denmark sent a patrol ship to the island to demonstrate its priority. The move sparked outrage in Canada. The parties are now negotiating the fate of the island.

San Andres and Providencia Islands. caribbean sea

A group of islands and coral reefs off the coast of Nicaragua. They have a number of resorts. The islands are the subject of a dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. In 1928, the two countries entered into a treaty recognizing Nicaragua's sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast and Colombia's sovereignty over the islands. In 1979, after the victory of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, Managua announced that it would denounce the 1928 treaty under the pretext that in 1928 Nicaragua was under the control of US troops. The islands have been declared integral part Nicaragua.

This territorial dispute is extremely difficult to resolve, because the maritime borders of not only Nicaragua and Colombia, but also Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica and Panama depend on the ownership of the islands. Through the mediation of the Organization of American States, the parties agreed not to use force in resolving this conflict - all military formations and warships withdrawn from the disputed area.

Sapodilla Caeis Islands. caribbean sea

The islands are part barrier reef. Nobody lives on them. The government of Belize declared its sovereignty over the islands, which caused protests from neighboring Honduras and Guatemala, which also claimed their rights to these pieces of land. The subject of the dispute is, first of all, the fish stocks of this area, as well as their tourism opportunities (9 thousand tourists visit them annually). The parties exchanged notes of protest and are now preparing lawsuits for filing in international courts.

Navassa Island. caribbean sea

The island, with an area of approximately 10 km², is located between the coasts of Haiti, Cuba and Jamaica and is now the subject of a dispute between the United States and Haiti. In 1857, American entrepreneurs began to develop guano reserves on the island, and the United States declared it its territory. In 1858, the Empire of Haiti made a similar declaration. There were no armed conflicts between the parties to the dispute. In 1898, the development of guano was completed, and the island lost its permanent population. A lighthouse operates on it and Haitian fishermen periodically land. The United States intends to create a nature reserve on it.

Perejil Islands, Veles de la Gomera, Penon, Chafarinas and others. Strait of Gibraltar, Mediterranean Sea

These uninhabited islands are the subject of a dispute between Spain and Morocco (formerly a Spanish colony). Small islands are constantly used by drug dealers, smugglers and illegal immigrants. In addition, they are located in a busy shipping area.

In July 2002, Moroccan troops captured the island of Perejil and left behind a six-man garrison. Spain first tried to resolve the conflict through diplomacy, and then landed rangers and returned the island. Neither side suffered losses. Morocco, which managed to declare Perekhil its territory, called the actions of Spain a declaration of war, but did not take any retaliatory steps. The parties refused direct negotiations, so the conflict was resolved with the help of mediators. Currently, there are no installed on the territory of the island state flags or other signs of nationality, and there are no permanent military posts.

Imia Island (Kardak). Aegean Sea

In December 1996, the rocks of Imia ( Greek name) or Kardak (Turkish) became a pretext for conflict between Greece and Turkey. The history of the islands is very confused. They were part of Ottoman Empire before Greece gained independence in the 18th century. After that, no one claimed the islands until the Dodecanese archipelago, which includes Imia, was occupied by Italy at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1923, the islands were transferred by Italy to Greece. In the 1970s, Turkey made a number of statements proving that Italy, which seized these islands from Turkey, did not have the right to transfer them to Greece.

In 1996, a Turkish ship wrecked off the coast of Imia, which turned for help not to the Greeks, but to the Turks. This was the beginning of the conflict, because Greece perceived the entry of Turkish military rescuers into its territorial waters as an act of aggression. A week later, a correspondent from the leading Turkish newspaper Hürriyet landed on the island, tore down the Greek flag flying on the island, and set up a Turkish one. A few hours later, Greek sailors landed on the island and restored the status quo. Near Imia, military squadrons of both states began to cruise.

The conflict was stopped by the international community, but both countries did not give up their claims. Attempts to resolve the issue in an international court are rejected by Turkey, which believes that its historical rights to these territories do not need to be confirmed, and the agreements referred to by the Greeks were not approved by the League of Nations (the forerunner of the UN).

Bassas da India, Europe, Juan de Nova and Gloriose Islands. Indian Ocean near the African coast of Madagascar

The islands of strategic importance (the largest has an area of 200 m²) are the subject of a dispute between France and Madagascar (a former French colony). The conflict did not go beyond the exchange of diplomatic notes. Now controlled by France.

Tromelin Island. Indian Ocean, near the east coast of Madagascar

Dispute between France and Mauritius. The conflict did not go beyond the exchange of diplomatic notes. Now controlled by France.

Chagos Archipelago (practically, the geographical center of the Indian Ocean)

65 islands, the largest of which is Diego Garcia, with an area of 40 km². The subject of the dispute between Mauritius and Great Britain. Diego Garcia has a large air base of great strategic importance. From it, in particular, American bombers made sorties during military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Once Mauritius and Chagos were a colony of France and were under a single control. Then these colonies were captured by Great Britain. After it was decided in 1965 to grant independence to Mauritius, Great Britain tore away the Chagos from it. In 1972, when the decision was made to create military base, Great Britain resettled approximately 2 thousand indigenous inhabitants of the archipelago (mostly descendants of black slaves) to Mauritius. Now they demand the return of their lands. The conflict did not go beyond the exchange of diplomatic notes and protest demonstrations.

South Talpatty Island (New Moor). Indian Ocean, Ganges Delta

The "new" island - South Talpatti - the Bangladeshi name, New Moore - the Indian - arose as a result of land reclamation by the waters of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. The island has importance, because from it you can control the process of navigation in a busy delta. In addition, significant oil reserves have been explored nearby. So far, the conflict has not entered an active stage, since it is not clear what India and Bangladesh should share - now there are not even accurate maps islands.

Abu Musa Island and Tanb Islands. Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz

Dispute between Iran and the United United Arab Emirates. The islands are now controlled by Iran, which took control of them in 1971. The history of ownership of the islands is complicated: at first they were part of Persia and Iran, in the 19th century the British drove the Iranians away and created their own naval base there to fight pirates, and when the UAE was granted independence, they transferred the rights to these islands to the new state. The Iranians captured these territories two days before the withdrawal of British troops and the formal declaration of independence of the UAE. The conflict between Iran and the UAE periodically flares up and turns into a phase of an exchange of harsh statements.

Spratly archipelago. Pacific Ocean

A group of about 100 islets and reefs in the South China Sea. Approximately 7 billion tons of high-quality oil have been discovered nearby. Oil is shallow, but international energy companies refuse to develop these deposits until issues of the nationality of the islands are resolved. The subject of dispute between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines - these powers have placed their garrisons on 45 islands. Brunei has also claimed part of the archipelago since 1984, but there are no Brunei soldiers in the conflict zone yet. The struggle for these islands has repeatedly led to armed conflicts. In particular, in 1974 there was a naval battle between the Chinese Navy and South Vietnam. In 1988, the Chinese sank a Vietnamese transport carrying soldiers.

Paracel Islands. Pacific Ocean. South China Sea

dispute between China and Vietnam. China took over the islands in 1974 after a fierce battle with the South Vietnamese garrison. Today, several hundred people live on the islands, who mainly fish and maintain a large air force base built by China. The islands are of great strategic importance - they are a kind of "key" to South China Sea. In addition, the waters adjacent to them are rich in fish.

Pedra Blanca Island (Pulau Batu Puteh) and two small islands. Indian Ocean, Singapore Strait

The islet is a disputed territory between Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore built a lighthouse on the island, prompting Malaysian protests. The island has no economic value and can only be used as a navigational landmark. The parties perceive their rights to these territories as a matter of national honor. Singapore and Malaysia are constantly negotiating the fate of the islands, and the naval exercises of both countries are taking place near them.

Matthew and Hunter Islands. Pacific Ocean, roughly midway between Australia and South America

Once the islands were jointly owned by France and Great Britain and administratively belonged to the New Hebrides archipelago. In 1975, France officially declared the islands its territory. In 1980, the New Hybrids gained independence, became the Republic of Vanuatu and laid claim to the islands. In 1982, the islands were officially declared part of Vanuatu (under the names Unaenag and Umaenupane). There is a small French garrison on the islands. Sovereignty over the islands gives the right to claim control over a large part of the Pacific Ocean.

Takeshima Islands (Tok-Do, Liancourt). Pacific Ocean, between South Korea and Japan

uninhabited islands ( total area about 250 meters²) were discovered by French sailors, and since 1904 they have been declared part of Japan. They were under the administrative control of Korea, which at that time was part of the Japanese Empire. After Korea gained independence, it laid claim to the island. In 1952 South Korea officially declared Takeshima its territory and planted its own flag. In response, Japanese sailors landed on the island, arrested six Koreans, and hoisted the flag of Japan. A few hours later, superior Korean forces recaptured the islands. For six decades, South Korea has built a radio station and a lighthouse on the island and constantly keeps a garrison of 12 people on it. All these acts provoked notes of protest sent by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Negotiations about the fate of the island have been ongoing since 1965.

In Japan, there is the Takeshima Society, which demands the return of ancestral Japanese lands. She organizes many actions together with the "Society of the Northern Territories", demanding the transfer of four islands of the Kuril chain to Japan. Control over Takeshima gives the right to control over 20 thousand km² of ocean rich in fish.

Senkaku Islands. Pacific Ocean, East China Sea

Eight islets, with a total area of 7 km². Oil reserves have been discovered near them. The islands were discovered by Chinese navigators, but in 1895 Japan declared them their property, to which the then Chinese government did not pay attention. Now the islands are the subject of a dispute between Japan, China and Taiwan, but are controlled by the Japanese Navy. Periodically extremist demonstrators from Japan, China and Taiwan go to the islands and try to plant national flags on them. Sometimes these actions turn into violent fights with representatives opposite camp or the Japanese military. In 1996, one person died as a result of a similar collision. In 2003, the Japanese government announced that it intended to lease three of the islands to a Japanese entrepreneur. Taiwan and China immediately issued strong statements condemning the decision.

Abstract on the topic:

"Disputed Territories"

Pupil 8 "A" class

linguistic gymnasium №13

Korostyleva Vladimir

Scientific adviser: Lokteva Galina Ivanovna

I.Introduction…………………………………………p.1

II.History of the discovery and development of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Island……………………..page 2

III. The problem of the "Northern Territories" after the second

World War…………………………………..page 4

IV.Conclusion…………………………………..page 10

V. Bibliography…………………………………p.11

Globalization processes are beginning, countries are actively cooperating with each other, but still remain unresolved issues, territorial issues, such as the dispute over Western Sahara between Mauritania and Morocco, over the island of Majote (Maore) between France and the Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros, over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands between Great Britain and Argentina, the War of Independence of Palestine, etc. d. Russia is also among the disputants, Japan lays claim to southern part Kuril archipelago. This is what I am going to talk about in my essay.

The Problem of the “Northern” Territories

ancient and medieval history Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands are full of secrets. So, today we do not know (and we are unlikely to ever know) when the first people appeared on our islands. Archaeological discoveries of recent decades only allow us to say that this happened in the Paleolithic era. The ethnic affiliation of the population of the islands remains a mystery until the first Europeans and Japanese appeared here. And they appeared on the islands only in the 17th century and were caught in the Kuriles

and southern Sakhalin Ainu, in northern Sakhalin - Nivkhs. Probably even then in the central and northern regions Sakhalin lived Ulta (Oroks). The first European expedition that ended up near the Kuril and Sakhalin

coast, was the expedition of the Dutch navigator M.G. Friz. He not only explored and mapped the southeast of Sakhalin and the South Kuriles, but also proclaimed Urup a possession of Holland, which, however, was left without

any consequences. Russian explorers also played a huge role in the study of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. First - in 1646 - the expedition of V.D. Poyarkov discovered the north-western coast of Sakhalin, and in 1697 V.V. Atlasov learned about the existence of the Kuril Islands. Already in the 10s. 18th century the process of studying and gradually joining the Kuril Islands to Russian state. The success of Russia in the development of the Kuriles became possible thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit, courage and patience of D.Ya. Antsiferov, I.P. Kozyrevsky, I.M. Evreinov, F.F. Luzhin,

M.P.Spanberg, V.Valton, D.Ya.Shabalin, G.I.Shelikhov and many other Russian explorers-explorers. Simultaneously with the Russians, who were moving along the Kuriles from the north, the Japanese began to penetrate into the South Kuriles and the extreme south of Sakhalin. Already in

second half of the 18th century. here appear Japanese trading posts and fishing, and since the 80s. 18th century - scientific expeditions begin to work. Mogami Tokunai and Mamiya Rinzo played a special role in Japanese research.

At the end of the XVIII century. research off the coast of Sakhalin was carried out by a French expedition under the command of J.-F. Laperouse and an English expedition under the command of V.R. Broughton. The emergence of the theory about the peninsular position of Sakhalin is connected with their work. The Russian

navigator I.F. Kruzenshtern, who in the summer of 1805 unsuccessfully tried to pass between Sakhalin and the mainland. G.I. Nevelskoy put an end to the dispute, who in 1849 managed to find a navigable strait between the island and the mainland. The discoveries of Nevelskoy were followed by the accession of Sakhalin to Russia. Russian military posts and villages appear one after another on the island. In 1869-1906. Sakhalin was the largest penal servitude in Russia. Since the beginning of the XIX century. Sakhalin and the Kuriles become the object of the Russian-Japanese territorial dispute. In 1806-1807. on South Sakhalin and Iturup, Russian sailors defeated Japanese settlements. The answer to this was the capture by the Japanese of the Russian navigator V.M. Golovnin on Kunashir. Over the past two centuries, Russian-Japanese

the border has changed several times. In 1855, in accordance with the Shimodsky Treaty, the border passed between the islands of Urup and Iturup, while Sakhalin was left undivided. In 1875, Russia handed over to Japan the Northern Kuriles that belonged to it, receiving in return all rights to Sakhalin. Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands met the beginning of the 20th century as part of different states. Sakhalin was part of Russian Empire, Kuril Islands - part of the Japanese Empire. Question about territorial affiliation islands was decided by the Russian-Japanese

an agreement signed in 1875 in St. Petersburg. In accordance with the St. Petersburg Treaty, Japan ceded to Russia all its rights to Sakhalin. Russia, in exchange for this, ceded the Kuril

islands. As a result of Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan managed to wrest away from her South Sakhalin. In 1920-1925. Northern Sakhalin was under Japanese occupation.

IN last time The Russian-Japanese border underwent changes in 1945, when our country, as a result of victory in World War II, regained South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. In August-September 1945, with US approval, the Soviets occupied all the Kuriles, and in 1946 the US Occupation Administration announced to the Japanese government that the entire Kuril chain, including Habomai, was excluded from Japanese territory. In 1951, Japan began peace negotiations with the United States and its allies. Moscow participated at first, but then withdrew from the talks under the pretext of disagreements over US actions in the Cold War. Despite this, the final text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty establishes quite unambiguously that Japan "renounces all rights, claims and claims to the Kuril Islands."

At that time, Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, who was negotiating on the Japanese side, publicly stated that Japan was unhappy with this wording, especially with regard to the southern part of the islands. Administratively, Habomai and Shikotan under Japanese rule

always referred to Hokkaido, and not to the Kuriles. As for Iturup and Kunashir, the historical fate of these two islands differs from the fate of the rest of the Kuriles, the rights of Russia to which were recognized by Japan back in 1855.

Nevertheless, Yoshida signed the treaty. All he could get from the Americans, represented by the ardent anti-communist Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, was that if Japan had such strong feelings for Habomai, it might try

apply to the International Court of Justice. Regarding the Japanese claims to the rest of the islands, the answer was very loud silence.

In 1955, Japan began trying to negotiate a separate peace treaty with Moscow. Japan understood the weakness of its position regarding the islands. But she hoped that there was an opportunity to get at least some

concessions regarding Habomai and Shikotan and to ensure that the United States, France and Britain recognize that at least these islands do not belong to the Kuril Islands, which Japan abandoned in 1951.

To Tokyo's surprise, the Soviets agreed to this demand: they wanted to stop Tokyo from moving closer to the US. But the conservatives in the Foreign Ministry, fearing any Japanese-Soviet reconciliation, immediately intervened and included Iturup and Kunashir in the list of territorial claims. Moscow said no, and the conservatives calmed down.

Nevertheless, in 1956, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama decided to try to break the stalemate and sent his conservative foreign minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, to Moscow with the authority to negotiate peace.

Shigemitsu started with the already standard Japanese requirements of Iturup and Kunashir - - was immediately refused. However, the Soviets again offered to return Shikotan and Habomai on the condition that a peace treaty be signed.

contract. Shigemitsu decided to accept this offer. However, when news of a possible deal leaked out, the Tokyo anti-communist

The Conservatives are back in action.

Shigemitsu was recalled and on the way home he was "intercepted" by the same John Foster Dulles, who just five years earlier forced the Japanese to abandon the Kuril Islands, including most what is now called the Northern Territories. Dulles warned that if Japan stopped claiming all of the Northern Territories, the US would not

will return Okinawa to the Japanese. Tokyo immediately broke off negotiations with Moscow.

Scientists argued a lot about how Dulles managed to make such a 180-degree turn. One theory claims that the US knew in 1951 that if it did not abide by the Yalta Accords over the Kuriles, Moscow might cease to abide by the Yalta Accords.

agreements on Austria - the problem had all but disappeared by 1956. Another interesting theory put forward by Professor Kimitada Miwa of Sophia University in Tokyo claims that the 1951 American position was the result of a deal with the Soviets that secured Micronesia to the United States by decision of the UN Security Council three years earlier.

And, finally, there is such a theory that the insidious Dulles thought everything over and planned in advance. His intention from the very beginning was to force Japan to give up the Kuriles in 1951 and, knowing that the Japanese would later try to return the islands, to include in the peace treaty an article

Allowing the US to turn in its favor any concession that the Japanese might make to the Russians in the future. In short, if Japan allows the Soviets to hold even part of the Kuriles, the US is holding Okinawa. Today's Japanese position completely ignores all the subtleties described above. She simply states that the Northern Territories are ancestral Japanese lands ("koyu no ryodo") and as such must be returned. As far as the San Francisco Treaty is concerned, Tokyo puts forward two highly controversial arguments. The first is that, since the treaty does not say who exactly should receive the very Kuriles that Japan refused, then anyone, including Japan itself, can claim them. Another argument is that the Northern Territories do not belong to those Kuril Islands that Japan refused, and indeed cannot be treated, being, again, "original Japanese lands." With the last argument, however, not everything is in order. If Japan had not really given up the Northern Territories in 1951, then why would Yoshida have declared to the whole world in 1951 that he was devastated by the loss of the Northern Territories? Upon his return from San Francisco, he appeared before Parliament and was asked whether the term "Kuril Islands" used in the San Francisco Treaty included Iturup and Kunashir. The Office of Treaties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responding officially to this request on behalf of the Prime Minister, replied to Parliament on October 19, 1951: "Unfortunately, yes, it includes." Over the following years, Foreign Ministry officials commented on this key point in the following way: that the answer to parliament on October 19 was: a) misunderstood, b) outdated, and, finally, c) was "kokunai flour", that is, "for internal use" , - in other words, foreigners like me should not stick their nose into such matters. Foreign Ministry officials also like to indicate vigorous support from the United States, which, since 1956, has officially stated that Iturup and Kunashir definitely do not belong to the territories, which Japan abandoned in San Francisco. It is clear that the US, saying the exact opposite of what they said in 1951, is simply using a little trick in the style of cold war to keep Tokyo and Moscow at bay - but such an assumption is politely ignored. But not only the United States participated in this process. In 1951, Britain played a major role in forcing Japan to give up the Kuriles, and the British embassy in Tokyo has in its archives a report from 1955, where the unexpected demand by the Japanese of Iturup and Kunashir was called "amusing and naive." Today Britain supports the same demand as perfectly reasonable. Australia, which in 1951 made efforts to prevent any concessions to Yoshida on territorial issues (for fear that post-war Japan would use any border uncertainty as an excuse for militarization), today also unequivocally supports the Japanese position. In short, what began as an exercise in punishing Japan for wartime aggression turned into the most successful operation of the Cold War to keep Japan in the West's camp. I am not suggesting that the Japanese position be completely abandoned. If Tokyo would refer to the reluctance with which Yoshida abandoned the Kuriles, and especially from their southern part in San Francisco, and would present some secret documents demonstrating what exactly the United States forced him to surrender, this would constitute a good legal basis for that. to push for a revision of this part of the peace agreement. But today Japan is trapped in its own claims that it never gave up the Northern Territories, so it no longer dares to tell the truth about what exactly happened in 1951. It's easier for her to blame everything on the former Soviet Union than in the USA. It vainly insists on the return of these "primordial lands" by Moscow, not realizing that in the face of precisely such a demand, Moscow cannot yield, even if it wanted to, for fear of setting a precedent that would allow its other neighbors to lay claim to the former "primordial lands". ". Hashimoto's suggestion that Moscow can control the territories for a few more years, provided it recognizes Japanese sovereignty over them, shows how inadequate Tokyo perceives both the laws of international diplomacy and the Russian mentality. Meanwhile, most Japanese, even educated ones, have completely forgotten what exactly happened back then, in the 50s, and are convinced that Tokyo's demands are absolutely legal. The government is being urged to continue negotiations in a hard-line manner and ignore Moscow's regular hints that it is still ready to return Shikotan and Habomai. Such a dispute is doomed to eternal extension. And John Foster Dulles is giggling to himself in his coffin.

I believe that the Kuriles should belong to Russia, because. Japan abandoned them in 1951 and it is too late to abandon their decisions, she lost the war and must endure the hardships associated with this. After all, if all peoples demand their lands, then there will be no such states as the USA, Great Britain, Russia, etc. And secondly, Russia and Japan are still at war, and from the beginning it is necessary to sign a peace treaty, and only then talk about territorial disputes.