By: Pragathi Kowndinya, Research Analyst, GSDN
The year was 2012. Shinzo Abe returned to power as the Prime Minister of Japan. Ever since he occupied the position, he firmly and persistently reiterated in the august ‘National Diet’ of Japan regarding resetting the bilateral relations with the Russian Federation. This was an acute shift from the traditional approach towards its historical rival. Accordingly, Abe envisioned a ‘New Approach’ to formalize ties with Russia. Even the 2016 ‘Diplomatic Bluebook’ of Japan reflected Abe’s geopolitical vision towards Russia which stated that the ‘development of ties with Russia contributes to Japanese interests and to regional peace and prosperity’. However, despite these strategic manoeuvring by Abe, the relations between hitherto rival nations remained low and cold. Series of geopolitical gambits didn’t yield a tangible and acute solution to the historical hustle.
The relations further plunged down with Shinzo Abe stepping down from power. With the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War, the animosity among the orthodox rivals was further fuelled. Since then, Japan has imposed a series of sanctions on Russia and has outrightly criticized Russia’s military action in Ukraine and has claimed it as ‘an effort to threaten the post-Cold War world order’. The efforts to revamp the relations thus have reached a stalemate and the diplomatic tone towards Russia has radically changed in the latest Diplomatic Bluebooks of Japan. This deadlock has not just thwarted all the previous diplomatic endeavours to restore ties but can also lead to geopolitical repercussions in Asia, Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Tracing the Roots of the Tensions
- Tussle for hegemony in East Asia
The Sea of Japan (a marginal sea of the Western Pacific Ocean) separates the Russian Far East and the Japanese Archipelago. Japan and Russia had cordial commercial and diplomatic relations in the 1850’s. However, cordiality began to turn into contestations as both the nations urged to exercise their geopolitical and territorial ambitions in the region. By the 17th century Russia had established control over the entire Siberian region. However, Russia’s ambition of expansionism further towards East Asia was hindered by the mighty Japanese empire. The two nations thus contested to control Manchuria and Korea, which led to the outbreak of Russo-Japan War in 1904-1905 when Japan launched a surprise attack on the Pacific fleet of Russia.
The war ended with the ‘Treaty of Portsmouth’ which upheld the Japanese interests in Korea and other parts of East Asia. Thereby Japan emerged as a great power and epicentre of the geopolitical dynamics of Asia. The relations between Japan and the Soviet Union in the aftermath of Communist takeover of Russia from the Tsars Empire in 1917, is also characterized as hostile and indecisive. When Japan took full control of Manchuria in 1931, the USSR extended support to China to protect the Manchurian province. The Soviet Union decisively defeated Japan in 1939 in the Nomonhan (a tiny landscape in Manchurian province) Incident as the Japan controlled Manchurian region and the neighbouring USSR backed Mongolia fought over the border conflicts. Here on, Japan decided to not have any confrontation with the USSR and allied with Britain, USA and other western partners.
- Offshoots entangling the Yalta Conference
In 1945, the USA, USSR and Britain convened over the Yalta Conference to negotiate the post-war plans. The key outcome of the conference was the decision to permit the USSR to attack Japan as a gesture to appreciate Germany’s surrender in the war. Russia’s war on Japan was also rewarded with territorial concessions and influence for the former in the Far East. This was a strategic move by the allied powers to annihilate the axis powers. With this USSR not just aimed to regain the territories lost to Japan including the South Sakhalin and Kuril Islands but also aspired to spike its stakes and influence in the post-war geopolitical order.
As per the agreement, the USSR declared war on Japan on August 08, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima incident and a day before the bombings on Nagasaki. These series of atrocities against Japan by the allied powers came to a grinding halt with the surrender of Japan on 15th August 1945.
- The pacification process
In the post-war era, Japan was in the complete custody of the USA. This annoyed the USSR, thus, it refused to sign the 1951 peace treaty that restored normalcy and peace between Japan and the Allied Powers. This prolonged the tense atmosphere between the USSR and Japan. However, in 1956 Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration was inked to end the hostility and re-establish diplomatic relations. This declaration also gave impetus to discuss a permanent peace treaty and resolve territorial apprehensions.
However, these peace efforts were derailed amidst the Cold War bipolarities. Also, Japan and Russia are unable to strike a practical and tangible peace treaty even to this day, due to their respective territorial claims over the Kuril Islands, in the Northern part of Japan.
- The chaos during Cold War
The Japan-Russia tensions accelerated further as a proxy of the cold war bipolarity. Japan, which was an ally of the USA, was deemed by the latter as a bulwark to suspend communist expansionism in Asia. As a fallout of the Cold War, USSR made military build-up in the Pacific region in the vicinity of Japan. On the other hand, Japan was compelled by the United States to check the Soviet expansion in the Asia-Pacific in the aftermath of Soviet annexation of Afghanistan in 1979. During the Reagan administration in Washington DC, Tokyo sharply aligned with the US to propagate the narrative of ‘Soviet threat’. Japan welcomed the presence of the US military forces in the Western Pacific and pledged to thwart the perils propelling from the USSR camp.
In the 1980’s Tokyo imposed a series of economic sanctions on the USSR for the latter’s Afghan invasion. Japan continued to strongly oppose the stationing of the Soviet troops in the Kuril Island chain (the Northern territories) which was captured by the USSR during the ultimate days of the Second World War. Japan reiterated the Soviet presence in the Kuril Islands as evidence for the latter’s expansionist and unfair hegemonic motives.
With Mikhail Gorbachev assuming power as the President of the USSR, a comparatively flexible diplomatic stance was seen towards Japan. However, the deadlock over the suzerainty of Kuril Islands (Northern territories) was still a pivotal gridlock in the path of unlocking normalcy and peace among the nations and the leaders also emphasized that the economic and diplomatic deadlock cannot be rectified until the issue over the Kuril Islands is been solved. Meanwhile, even Japan didn’t express any strategic interest towards resolving disputes and restoring relations with the USSR and was highly tilted towards its western allies.
Post-Cold War: A Citation to Reset the Ties
With the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the USSR, Boris Yelstin occupied the helm in the Russian Federation. President Yelstin met his Japanese counterpart Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and both of them resolved to navigate the territorial disputes over the Northern territories in a peaceful and mutually acceptable way. The leaders also unveiled the ambitious ‘Hashimoto-Yeltsin Plan’ in 1998 which aimed at promoting economic cooperation and financial assistance among the nations.
Despite spurring limited economic cooperation during this period specifically as an impact of personal bonhomie among the leaders, a lasting solution to the territorial disputes couldn’t be achieved. Infact, in 1998 Russia proposed to give Japan a special status over the Kuril Islands with Moscow being a transitory legal regime. Regardless of these efforts, an enduring solution to the historical territorial disputes couldn’t be realized due to change in leadership and other geopolitical and geoeconomic reasons. These territorial differences over the Kuril Islands (Northern territories) are a major reason for the freeze of relations in economic, trade and other realms, even for this day.
The Strategic Game of Alliances and Geopolitical Agilities
One of the significant impediments that are prevalent across the globe, for restoring the bilateral tensions between any two states, is the way in which the global power alliances and partnerships have been crafted. The rivalry between two nations can deepen not because of mere bilateral factors but also due to the larger geopolitical or geoeconomic repercussions.
- The ripple effect of Russia-Ukraine conflict
With respect to Japan-Russia tensions, the relations between the two states have hit a new low, as a spill-over effect of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The 2022 Diplomatic Bluebook of Japan strongly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Then Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida claimed that ‘it can no longer carry-on the relations with Russia in the same way it used to’ thereby Tokyo joined other G-7 nations and imposed a series of stringent economic sanctions on Russia.
For example, it banned the ability of the IMF and World Bank to finance Russia. Japan joined the G-7 countries to isolate Russia from the international financial system and removed certain Russian banks from the SWIFT arrangements. It also prohibited the Japanese companies from making new investments in Russia and revoked MFN status acclaimed to Russia. Japan has also referred Moscow to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine War, Tokyo also revived the debate with respect to the authority over the Northern Territories and has aggressively exclaimed that it is ‘an inherent of Japan, but is currently occupied by Russia illegally’. In retaliation, Russia has conducted military exercises in the disputed Islands of Northern territories and has fired missiles in the Sea of Japan. Further, Moscow has designated Japan as an ‘unfriendly country’ and has withdrawn from the ‘Japan-Russia Dialogue’. This reversion to a hard-line approach by both the nations has made the decades of ‘New Approach’ diplomatic efforts go in vain and futile and the relations between Tokyo and Moscow are lowest since the post-cold war world order.
- Ignitions due to Geopolitical Nexus
The ideological affiliations of the respective states and the bloc politics indeed impact the bilateral relations. Though 21st century geopolitics is defined as multipolar and multi-alignment in nature, ideological and strategic tilt is definitely witnessed among the global power players. Such geopolitical dispositions severely impact on a broader spectrum, leading to security concerns, economic repercussions and other geopolitical vulnerabilities. The tensions between Japan and Russia are not indifferent from this geopolitical game.
The spiking alliance between the USA & Japan and voicing out for the autonomy of Taiwan on the one hand, an ‘all weather partnership’ evolving between Russia and China on the other end, surge of relations between Russia and North Korea in terms of military and economic cooperation and rising geopolitical animosity and trade wars between the US and China are clearly encapsulating an ideological and geopolitical bifurcation in the Asia-Pacific domain. As an impact, the Russia-Japan tensions are also soaring to new heights who are technically placed in opposite geopolitical camps.
For example, Shinzo Abe’s ‘New Approach’ was frequently opposed by the Obama administration in Washington DC. Overcoming all the obstacles from both within the home and abroad Abe was firm in resetting ties with Russia. Infact, the core objective of Abe’s ‘New Approach’ towards Russia was not just to break the orthodoxy and restore relations with Moscow, but also had larger geopolitical ambitions. Abe perceived that by re-establishing ties with Russia the spiralling nexus between Moscow and Beijing can be broken; thereby the revolutionizing Chinese expansionism in Asia can be counterbalanced. However, Abe’s vision of restoring balance of power in the Asia Pacific wasn’t fruitful and with the outbreak of Russia-Ukraine war the bilateral relations slipped down to much more awful frontiers.
Robert D. Kaplan in his renowned work “The Revenge of Geography’ exclaims, “Geography and history demonstrate that we can never discount Russia. Russia’s partial resurgence in our own age following the dissolution of the Soviet empire is part of an old story”. The historical tensions between Moscow and Tokyo, thus, cannot be ever understated. With Washington DC seeking to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict and normal ties with Russia under Trump 2.0, Japan might encounter a newer set of challenges to align and balance its strategic interests with both the USA and Russia. With growing Chinese military might and maritime presence in the South China Sea and in other regions of East Asia and Beijing’s unhindered support to Russia and North Korea can further foil Japan’s interests and strategic autonomy in the region.
Not just that, any counter-measures, from Tokyo’s club, can ultimately make the entire Indo-Pacific and Asian landscape volatile, harming the collective security and balance of power of the region! ‘Anarchy’ being an unsaid rule of the international system, the sovereign geopolitical players, thus, be vigilant of the fact that the orthodox bilateral tensions should not manifest anywhere else in the world, in any form, either on land or in air or in the blue oceans. Instead, global peace, security and prosperity should be the ultimate motto of the geopolitical bulwarks either across respective geographic borders or in the larger geopolitical latitude.
