JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
0
OssanAmerica
Just because we're not stuffy doesn't mean we're disrespectful. I'm sure State Dept staff are instructed to remove their sunglasses, put away the ipod and stop chewing gum when meeting foreign heads of state.
Posted in: New envoy
0
OssanAmerica
Doubt it. While the streets and stores of Japan are rampant with English mistakes, I've yet to see any Japanese Foreign Ministry document with any similar mistakes.
Posted in: New envoy
0
OssanAmerica
Do you think the Queen of England has to read foreign documents herself?
Maybe. Good thing Queen Elizabeth (Height 163cm) didn't have to attend a state dinner with Putin (165 cm) and Medvedev (163cm). With heels she'd be taller than both of them.
Posted in: New envoy
0
OssanAmerica
Yes it was boring but I thought it made the Chinese look too clean
Posted in: Ken Watanabe to make 7th major international movie appearance in 'Shanghai'
0
OssanAmerica
Saw it. Nothing to write home about. Not enough Gong Li cleavage if you ask me.
Posted in: Ken Watanabe to make 7th major international movie appearance in 'Shanghai'
0
OssanAmerica
Several years ago there was a widely read book in Japan. It was titled Unit 731. It's hardly a secret. Nor is the U.S. governments role in covering it up either.
Posted in: Japan excavating site linked to WWII human experiments by Unit 731
0
OssanAmerica
Come clean? you didn't know about Unit 731 till now?
Posted in: Japan excavating site linked to WWII human experiments by Unit 731
0
OssanAmerica
That's the most unappetizing colored curry I've ever seen. It does look mopre like that "white stew" stuff but you can see the red "fukujinzuke" next to the fat panda head.
Posted in: Pandamonium
0
OssanAmerica
No, you're quite wrong. The gop ahead was goven to Stalin to take territories that were formerly Russian prior to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05. That was specifically the southern half of Sakhalin and the Kuriles. However the four islands are not part of the Kuriles and they were never taken from Russia as they have always been Japanese territory. After the USSR took the what was promised at the Yalta Conference, after Japan surrendered on Aug 15th they occupied the four islands on August 18th. Just another soviet land grab which the US and the UK did not recognize as in keeping with the Yalta Conference, and still don't to this day.
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
"According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in April 1991, at the time of the visit of then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to Japan, the Japan-Soviet Joint Communique issued expressly mentioned the Islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Etorofu, and Kunashir. Furthermore, in the Communique, it was agreed that the peace treaty should be the document marking the final resolution of war-related issues, including the territorial issue and that work to conclude the preparation of a peace treaty would be accelerated. In September 1992, the Joint Compendium of Document on the History of Territorial Problems between Japan and Russia was released simultaneously in both countries. In October 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin visited Japan, and after negotiating with then Japanese Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa, the Tokyo Declaration was signed. The Declaration established the clear basis for negotiations toward an early conclusion of a peace treaty through the solution of the territorial issue on the basis of historical and legal facts and based on the documents produced with the two countries' agreement as well as on the principles of law and justice. Since then, the Tokyo Declaration has been repeatedly confirmed as the basis of the development of bilateral relations between the two countries."
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
While there is somewhat limited economic value, most of it being fisheries and natural resources, the big value for Russia is that controlling the four islands limits any country's ability to block the Russian pacific naval ports like Vladivostock. Of course this is aimed at the United States.
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
No brainer. China and North Korea are dictatorships that don't think twice about killing it's own people to stay in power.
Posted in: What do you think about the wave of anti-government protests in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Iran? Should countries like China and North Korea feel uneasy about it?
0
OssanAmerica
The title is "Who has the best claim" but you can see from this entire thread that the only basis that Russia has for it's claim is that it was taken by force.
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
No spudman your guess is completely wrong. Rooseveldt promised Stalin at the Yalta Agreement and the Potsdam Declaration both in 1945 that the Soviets could have what Russia lost in the 1904/05 Russo-Japanese War. That included the southern half of Sakhalin and the Kuriles. It did NOT include the four islands in question because one, they are not part of Kuriles and two; they have never been Russian and had nothing to do with the Russo-Japanese War.
"an August 27, 1945 letter from Truman to Stalin:"You evidently misunderstood my message [about the Kuril Islands].... I was not speaking of any territory of the Soviet Republic. I was speaking of the Kurile Islands, Japanese territory, disposition of which must be made at a peace settlement. I was advised that my predecessor agreed to support in the peace settlement the Soviet acquisition of those islands."
How you interpret this to mean that Truman "gave" the Kuriles to the Soviets is incomprehensible. The U.S. has never considered the four islands to be anything but Japanese. THe UK also holds the same view as the Soviets did not sign the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, a prerequisite to receiving any territory. The U.S. position is clear and unchanged to date:
"The US Senate Resolution of April 28, 1952, ratifying of the San Francisco Treaty, explicitly stated that the USSR had no title to the Kurils,[17] the resolution stating:
As part of such advice and consent the Senate states that nothing the treaty [San Francisco Peace Treaty] contains is deemed to diminish or prejudice, in favor of the Soviet Union, the right, title, and interest of Japan, or the Allied Powers as defined in said treaty, in and to South Sakhalin and its adjacent islands, the Kurile Islands, the Habomai Islands, the Island of Shikotan, or any other territory, rights, or interests possessed by Japan on December 7, 1941, or to confer any right, title, or benefit therein or thereto on the Soviet Union.
The USA maintains that until a peace treaty between Japan and Russia is concluded, the disputed Northern Territories remain Japanese territory under Russian military occupation via General Order No. 1.[9]"
The Aug 18th Soviet advance, after Japan surrendered on August 15th, into the four islands south of Kuriles was a typical Soviet land grab of the immediate post WWII period as exemplified by the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
Posted in: Russian FM talks tough to Maehara on dispute with Japan
0
OssanAmerica
"The US Senate Resolution of April 28, 1952, ratifying of the San Francisco Treaty, explicitly stated that the USSR had no title to the Kurils,[17] the resolution stating:
As part of such advice and consent the Senate states that nothing the treaty [San Francisco Peace Treaty] contains is deemed to diminish or prejudice, in favor of the Soviet Union, the right, title, and interest of Japan, or the Allied Powers as defined in said treaty, in and to South Sakhalin and its adjacent islands, the Kurile Islands, the Habomai Islands, the Island of Shikotan, or any other territory, rights, or interests possessed by Japan on December 7, 1941, or to confer any right, title, or benefit therein or thereto on the Soviet Union.
The USA maintains that until a peace treaty between Japan and Russia is concluded, the disputed Northern Territories remain Japanese territory under Russian military occupation via General Order No. 1.[9]"
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
No, Japan surrendered to the Allies on August 15th. The formal surrender was on September 2nd. You can't shoot a handcuffed criminal on his way to the station on the grounds that he hasn't been formerly booked yet. None of the other Allies took any offensive action against Japan after August 15th. The USSR started taking the four islands on August 18th.
The four islands are not part of the Kuriles, although they are called "southern kuriles" by the Russians. The US and other allies to this day recognize them to be Japanese territory.
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
"The DF 21D is unique in that it is believed capable of hitting a powerfully defended moving target—like the USS George Washington—with pinpoint precision. That objective is so complex that the Soviets gave up on a similar project."
This makes you wonder if the Chinese missle can actually perform as advertised.
Posted in: U.S. admiral: China's carrier killer won't stop U.S. Navy
0
OssanAmerica
Your memory does not fail you but you did not read the thread. Your fellow countryman labelled the Chinese bond purchase as a loan to help the United States. I clarified that bonds are an IOU, an investment vehicle easily bought and sold and a place to put China's vast US Dollar reserves. At the same time it supports the US economy upon which much of China's exports are reliant. It is NOT a loan. Nor is it a question of good or bad, it benefits both parties' own interests. It is not some big hearted action by China to which the United States or any other country owes China any particular thanks.
Posted in: Japan welcomes China becoming world's No. 2 economy
0
OssanAmerica
Yes they did. "During a time of war, occupation of one country's territory by another can take place and according to international ar, the occupying country has the right to put the territory, based on military requirements, under its administration. However, at the same time, an occupying nation's obligation, including respect for the private rights of the residents are provided for by international norms including the 1907 Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Stalin ignored these international norms and incorporated the territories under occupation into its own territory by the Decree of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, dated February 2, 1946. This act was executed without a peace treaty and was in complete violation of international law. However, under the totalitarian system, this annexation was disguised as if it were a legal act, and such propaganda had long been continued as if the islands of Etorofu, Kunashir, Shikotan, and Habomai had legally become Soviet territory. Consequently, the misconception that these were indeed Soviet territories began to take hold among people in the Soviet Union. In addition, reportedly, a misunderstanding arose that the resolution of the territorial issue between Japan and Russia is the question of ceding something that is originally Soviet territory to Japan, or the question of selling out such territory to Japan."
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?
0
OssanAmerica
Totally wrong as usual smith. The four islands are NOT part of the Kuriles. The "Kurile Islands" that Japan renounced did not include Etorofu, Kunashir, Shikotan, or Habomai islands, which had always been Japanese territories. They were never Russian or Soviet. The United States government also states in its official document that the "Kurile Islands" in the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not include and was not intended to include the Habomai Islands, or Shikotan, or the islands of Kunashir and Etorofu which have always been part of Japan proper and therefore under Japanese sovereignty.
Posted in: At this point in time, who has the best claim to the disputed four Russian-administered islands off Hokkaido?