СБОРНИК -Россия 21 век

7. Bordachev T., Likhacheva A., Zhang X. What Does Asia Want? // Russia in global affairs - http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/What-Does-Asia-Want-17374

Raubo Vitalii

Far Eastern Federal University

Modi’s model of Indian foreign policy

Positioning of India in the international arena in the last two or three decades has evolved under the influence of internal and external factors that have fundamental and interrelated impact [1]. It can be divided into three stages. The first phase is mainly connected with the end of the Cold War, behind which was Soviet-oriented foreign policy without ideological similarities and antiAmericanism as a result of post-colonial and anti-British sentiments despite close economic ties. In addition there has been deterioration in India-Pakistan relations and Chinese territorial challenge.

The loss of a former economic ally in the 90s as a result of the lack of influence of the Russian Federation in the Asian region has stimulated the process of turning Indian economy to the West. Thereby supporters of «Realpolitic» claimed about the end of Non-Aligned movement and «bhai» concept. Instead of this India must look for new allies and must become one of the political and military poles in the modern world [2]. This course has been going through the last twenty years, but has been varied because of domestic politics that pre-conditioned foreign politics.

After the historic victory in the Indian general election in 2014, there has been formed a parliament with a majority of Bharatiya Janata Party. Narendra Modi has become the new Prime minister. Although the main strategy of foreign policy was not changed, there are many interesting features, which can transform some cases of India’s international relations. In fact, if we remember the BJP-lead in the government of Atal Vajpayee who had prosecuted «Machtpolitic» and made India a nuclear state and successfully used «Look East policy» strategy. The new Prime minister is a strong-willed, tough and smart politician. He really wants to make India an important actor in the global world. He really intends to increase international cooperation in the name of economic development and security. But Indian strategic interests in the South Asia, Asian-Pacific region will be in a priority. They put forward six top priorities for the ministry of external affairs. The main line is addressed to the United States that remain the most significant economic partner of India. China is represented as the main rival in Asia that adducts to strengthening of bilateral cooperation with Japan [3]. «Look East policy» proceeds as a «Glance East policy», and interests in ASEAN will be advancing. Traditionally, Pakistan’s tension has continued, and cooperation in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) will contribute to preservation of stability in the region [4]. Islamic state has created new problems of Islamic terrorism in India. About 15 % of population is Muslims that heat the society provoking sectarian clashes. BJP has had a tremendous support among Hindu and has been playing a game with the nationalism. People have tired of corruption of INC government. In this way Indian competent domestic policy is a key to the regional security. Foreign policy reflects national interests, not partisan sympathies.

First year of Modi has been eventful. Bilateral meetings with Abe, Xi Jinping, Obama and Putin have evolved his purposes of economic development and political independence and revealed a real desire of cooperation between global actors [4]. But economic interests have turned out as the crucial one that is demonstrably seen on American-Indian affairs. There were many asperities connected with IT-technologies, support of Pakistan and even the incident with Indian vise-consul in New York. But American administration has not decided to continue confrontation with new government and reminded of mutual interests and values. And that is explainable [5].

From the other side, India continues to build up bilateral cooperation with Russian Federation. It comes about not only in BRICS but among business community as well. It occurs in a year of

71

anti-Russian sanctions in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. Many politicians claim for the IndoRussian strategic partnership. New contracts have been signed in nuclear energy sphere, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, petroleum products and so on. The new project «Make in India» has been announced and Russia will be engaged in the development of Smart cities and increase Russian military output through collaboration and co-production [6].

New Indian authorities promote a strategy of «Minimum government, maximum governance» [7]. Economy is on the first point in international Indian partnership. There is no need to indulge in illusions that India supports Russian and American foreign policy. They balance and act. SinoRussian excessive contingence hinders to Indo-Russian political partnership. But there is no doubt that this Indian position is right. There were many expectations from Modi personally, and there are many goals that must be achieved in future. Modi has become a new trend in the world politics and it can be said about Modi’s model. Will India become a great power? It is open to question.

References

1.В. Терехов О внешней политике Индии [Journal] // Новое Восточное обозрение. - Москва : Новое Восточное обозрение, Июнь 11, 2014.

2.F. Burgess S. India's Emerging Security Strategy, Missile Defence, and Arms Control [Book]. - Colorado : USAF Institute for National Secyrity Studies , 2004.

3.Modi-Abe intimacy brings scant comfort [Online]. - The Global Times, September 2, 2014. - April 3, 2015. - http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/879478.shtml.

4.6 top priorities for the ministry of external affairs [Online]. - The Times of India, May 26, 2014. - April 1, 2015. - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/news/6-top-priorities-for-the- ministry-of-external-affairs/articleshow/35615678.cms?.

5.Ravi Agraval Modi and Obama's surprising rapport [Online]. - CNN, January 26, 2015. - April 3, 2015. - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/23/opinion/agrawal-modi-obama-ties/.

6.India-Russia Relations [Report] / Ministry of External Affairs. - Delhi : Government of India, 2014.

7.Narendra Modi Holds Rahul Gandhi's Hand Amid Bonhomie in Parliament [Online]. - India Times, June 10, 2014. - March 28, 2015. - http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/narendra-modi- holds-rahul-gandhis-hand-amid-bonhomie-in-parliament-154029.html.

72

permanent members of the Council. Russia signaled it would be ready to make such a statement with respect to the nuclear-weapon-free status of Mongolia if other nuclear-weapons states would do the same.

In 2000, Russia was the first among the nuclear-weapon states to recognize that Mongolia’s status contributed to the consolidation of a nonproliferation regime on the Asian continent, along with the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone.

In 2006, it once again stated the value of the Mongolian initiative for the non-proliferation regime and noted its ambition for building confidence in Northeast Asia and beyond.

In 2009, Mongolia and Russia both noted the importance of nuclear-weapon zones for strengthening the non-proliferation regime, and declared that “the internationally recognized status of Mongolia represented a substantial contribution to this process.”

The Russian statements suggest a clear recognition that Mongolia possesses a status which, although not enshrined in a legal instrument, by virtue of the legitimacy conferred to it by the UN, is part of the regional and, by extension, global efforts towards non-proliferation. Russia, opposed its legal institutionalization.11

So the Russian desire to have all nuclear-weapon states involved in the discussions on Mongolia’s status was nothing new; Russia has always favored a group approach. This position was explicitly re-stated in the Mongolian-Russian Joint Statement of June 2011, where Russia said it was “ready to continue to discuss, together with the other states of ‘the nuclear five,’ Mongolia’s proposal to strengthen the assurances regarding its nuclear-weapon-free status.” In 2012, Mongolia modified its approach, and the earlier proposal not to contribute to acts that would violate Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status, previously put forward before Russia and China, was extended to all nuclear-weapon-states.

“The uniqueness of Mongolia’s case resides in the fact that it cannot be part of any traditional [i.e. regional] nuclear-weapon-free zones. This unique case needs [an] equally unique approach. The assurance that Mongolia is seeking, bearing in mind that it is located between two nuclearweapon states, is to have the P5 formally recognize its status and commit not to contribute to any act that would violate that status.”12

During his visit to Mongolia in 2000 Vladimir Putin made speech in his Joint Statement that “concerning Mongolia’s Nuclear weapon free status Russia confirms that it would strictly follow its concept made by five nuclear weapon Powers about security assurance”13

During the visit of Mongolia’s Prime Minister to Russia in 2008, in Mongolia-Russia Joint Statement “Russian Federation confirms its security assurance which was stated in Joint Statement by UN Security Council nuclear five countries on 5th of October 2000

Today relation between Russia and China is friendly and close as never before. But we can’t omit the circumstance when international environment could change, no one can predict what will happen in the future and how international environment will change. Therefore, Mongolia’s NWFS possible would be one of the significant elements of peace and stability in Northeast Asia region.14 Being a small State sandwiched by two nuclear neighbors, Mongolia is genuinely interested in safeguarding its nonnuclear status which would be in the interests of Mongolia as well as its neighbors, especially in their strategic calculations and hence for the predictability and stability of the region.

11N.Tuya, Mongolia’s Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Status: Recognition vs. Institutionalization, 2012, p19

12Ibid, p13

13Монгол улсын үндэсний аюулгүй байдлыг хангахад цөмийн зэвсэггүй бүсийн гүйцэтгэх үүрэг, УБ, 2007, стр 80

14J.Enkhsaikhan.Mongolia’s non-nuclear-status-an important element of Northeast Asia security.UB.15 Februar 2006.p.10

74

References

1. N.Tuya, Mongolia’s Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Status: Recognition vs. Institutionalization, 2012 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/8/nuclear-weapon-free-

mongolia-tuya/08-nuclear-weapon-free-mongolia-tuya.pdf

2.J.Enkhsaikhan.Mongolia’s non-nuclear-status-an important element of Northeast Asia security.UB.2006.

3.http://www.mongoliajol.info/index.php/MJIA/article/viewFile/80/80

Монгол улсын үндэсний аюулгүй байдлыг хангахад цөмийн зэвсэггүй бүсийн гүйцэтгэх

үүрэг, УБ, 2007

Tugushev Anton

Russian Customs Academy

The future of BRICS economic and financial cooperation

“After 10 years of emerging market growth it is time for a new world order – with the BRICS taking their rightful place at the top table”.

Jim O'Neill, The Telegraph 19 Nov 2011

The BRICS are both the fastest growing and largest emerging markets economies. They account for almost three billion people, or just under half of the total population of the world. In recent times, the BRICS have also contributed to the majority of world GDP growth. According to various economists’ projections, it is only a matter of time before China becomes the biggest economy in the world. But not only China but Russia, India and Brazil are estimated to become the most important economies by 2050 as well.

Firstly, I would like to analyze the current state of BRICS cooperation and its positive aspects. It should be mentioned that the increasing role of BRICS in the system of global governance is determined not only by countries` economic growth but also by strengthening of cooperation between the countries [1].

Apart from their growth characteristics, the BRIC countries frankly have little in common by now. Undoubtedly, cooperation should be much more cohesive, but it seems problematic when a lot of contradictions exist. For example, Brazil is a major supplier of commodities to China and has relied on it for its economic success, but the two powers compete for resources in Africa. Russia and China may have found common views on the Syria conflict, but they compete for being a world political and economical leader [2]. And though intra-BRIC commerce is growing rapidly, the countries have not yet signed a single free trade agreement with each other. Moreover, South Africa formally joined BRICS, but being a member of the group does not make it equal: South Africa does not have the population, the growth, or the long-term economic potential of the other four members.

As the topic of the essay is the Future of BRICS financial and economic cooperation, I did my best to identify some problematic issues here. Obviously, BRICS have some challenges on the way to cohesive economic and financial partnership. Among them are:

1. Slowdown of BRICS economic growth

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the BRICS can maintain their rapid growth rates. Just as their expanding economies reached top ratings over the past decade, the tendency for the next decade may be that they will grow less quickly than it was assumed. For instance, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have already shown that growth rates slow down when a basic level of industrialization has been reached. The production structure tends to change when basic infrastructure is in place and consumers want more health care, education, and free time.

2. Enhancing the crisis management in BRICS group

75

It is well-known that the financial crisis in 2008 did not emanate from emerging markets. Instead, the BRICS were not affected much while the United States, Europe, and Japan collapsed due to their overspending, fiscal imprudence, and overreliance on just-in-time production that made them dependent on a consumer economy that quickly blew up. Moreover, the BRICS’ demand helped pull the global economy out of its initial slump. Nevertheless, inflation also increased significantly in China, India, and Brazil. Although all this did not provoke another crisis, it might have planted the seed for future problems. Economic history teaches us that the next crisis usually comes from the less affected region. They say, the next economic shock is more likely to come from the BRICS. In any case, BRICS states have to be well prepared for economic disasters.

3. Decrease in BRICS investment attractiveness

In 2008 The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) published the report, which proclaimed BRICS to be the most investment attractive states for transatlantic corporations. From 2007 till 2011 investors in the four original BRIC states earned an annualized 52 percent return, compared with just 16 percent in the G-7 markets. Unfortunately, the situation has changed. It seems that the BRICS’ competitive edge is now being questioned in more fundamental terms. Of course, it still makes sense for investors not to ignore such a huge and successful part of the global economy, but the tendency is negative, particularly for Russia in terms of sanctions of western countries.

Taking into account current economic and political conditions, outcomes of recent G20 and BRICS summits and the specific features of each BRICS country, I can pick out the objectives of BRICS future development:

1.completing the development of BRICS forum into an organization;

2.broadening multidimensional cooperation, including mutual trade and investment;

3. reforming of the global financial and economic architecture, including the IMF (in frameworks of G20 as well);

4. Moving from a speculative to a production based economy for the elimination of crisis influence.

There is much to be done during next years to provide successful BRICS financial and economic cooperation. The problems of the economic contradictions, decrease in investment attractiveness, the slowdown of economic growth and preventing regional crisis demand rather complex solutions. So, my suggestions are:

• Creating action plans to improve investment attractiveness (for problem 1 and 3).

BRICS remain attractive investment destinations for long-term investors despite slowing down of domestic growth and uncertainty in the global economy. However, The Central Banks should cut its key interest rate in a continued effort to stimulate the domestic economy, stepped up intervention in the foreign exchange market. Investors’ main concern is the lack of reforms and the corruption scandals. I believe that the power of the media and the increasing use of information technology in delivering public and private services should help to reduce corruption in public and private transactions in BRICS countries and stop frightening investors. Moreover, I believe there are a number of necessary legal reforms in the field of tax policy.

• Trading in BRICS own currencies (for problem 2).

The BRICS members should be trading in their own currencies further away from the US dollar and the petrodollar. All these actions are strengthening financial stability of BRICS – some kind of safety net precaution, an extra line of defense. BRICS may use their central banks to swap up some billions of U.S. dollars in their own currency over the next couple of years, allowing businesses to trade between the five countries without converting earnings and investments to U.S. dollars. The institutional and financial resources for this idea have already been provided by creating NDB and establishing Contingent Reserve Arrangement as parallel institutions to both the IMF and the World Bank. The advantage of this suggestion is that BRICS economies would have a possibility to develop more independently and the demand for their national currencies will significantly increase. The possible risk hides in low assurance of these currencies and the complexity of the global market.

76

In conclusion I should say that the formation of the dialogue mechanism of five-sided interaction involving Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa is one of the important priorities of the Russian foreign policy. The further advancement of cooperation in the BRICS format will enable our countries to more effectively influence the global economic and financial processes and will become a substantial positive factor in the interests of the entire world community.

References

1.Никонов В.А. Стратегия России в БРИКС: цели и инструменты: сб. статей / под ред. В.А. Никонова, Г.Д. Толорая. – М. : РУДН, 2013. – 429 с.

2.Беликова К.М. Актуализация процесса взаимодействия стран БРИКС в экономике, политике, праве: Материалы Научного семинара. Москва, 9 октября 2012 г. / Отв. ред. и сост. Беликова К.М. – М.: Сенат Пресс, 2012. – 251 с.

Harvelian Agnes

Far Eastern Federal University

Political-Law Perspective of The International Terrorism

(Regulation, Ideology, Politics and Religion)

Terrorism is an extraordinary crime, which requires treatment with the efforts and ways extraordinary. Crime of terrorism has become one of the international crime and disrupt the world community. The target terrorism is random method or indiscriminates, which tends to sacrifice innocent people. In the 21st century, terror carried out in various countries to invite the attention of the entire international organizations and member countries of the world. Peace, security and improving the welfare of the world are a goal that is currently preferred by the civilized countries in the modernization of this century.

The word "terrorist" and terrorism is derived from the Latin word "terrere" which roughly means making shake or vibrate [1]. The word can also cause terror the fear. But until now there is no definition of terrorism that could be universally accepted. Basically the term terrorism is a concept that has a sensitive connotation because of terrorism resulted in a random victim. Black Law Dictionary provides definitions of terrorism as The Use of Threat of Violence to Intimidate or Cause Panic; Especially as a means of Affecting Political Conduct [2]. Terrorism is a crime against humanity in the form of an organized movement. Currently terrorism has an extensive network and global nature that threatens the peace and national and international security. The purpose of terrorism is done through the method with various motifs such as the interests of a political motive for the change of power which is considered incompatible with the ideology espoused.

United States Department of State recorded 128 acts of terrorism since 1961 until 2008. During the terrorist movement is growing and becoming stronger, they terrorize the world with a variety of harsh measures. There are 5 of the 10 most dangerous terrorist in the world, among others, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Al-Nusra and Boko Haram [3]. Kidnapping, Murder, extortion, rape and Piracy has been done by this terrorist organization and create an international network to recruit members and supporters from around the world. Economic sectors in the (have much oil resource) country has become a mastery of the various groups in the name of himself as a network of so-called terrorism. ISIS has control of Iraq's oil refinery as part of an effort to create capital for its actions in a variety of terror. The problem of terrorism is very complicated because it cannot be seen partially, that terrorism is the root of the problem of religion. A more comprehensive manner can be seen that the problem of terrorism is a combination of motives and ideology and political aspects, while religion is a supporting factor on the objectives to be achieved.

77

Since the advent of the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the United States September 11, 2001, the UN is more intense again give attention to the issue of terrorism. This is done as a reasonable response since the terrorist attacks to the heart of the defense business and the United States are categorized as the largest terrorist attack in the history of modern terrorism. Associated with this event, the United Nations through the Security Council has issued two (2) pieces, namely Resolution No. 1438 of 2002 which strongly condemned the bombings in Bali, offered condolences and deep sympathy to the government and people of Indonesia as well as the victims and their families, while Resolution No. 1373 of 2002 contains a call to cooperate and to support and assist the government of Indonesia to capture and reveal all the actors associated with the event and proceed to court. The first international regulation of terrorism has been conducted by the United Nations International Convention and Suppression of Terrorism, 1937.

One of part to coping terrorism is to use criminal law (Penal Policy). According to Marc Ancel, Penal Policy is defined as "a science and an art, which in turn has a practical purpose to allow the rule of positive law formulated better" is the rule of positive law is criminal legislation [4]. Thus the term "penal policy" by Marc Ancel is equal to the term political policy or criminal law. Every country has a policy (regulations) or law for coping terrorism, but found out the obstacles in implementing. This condition has as evaluation of international society to reinforce the policies and regulation that have been made and restrain the growth of terrorism in the world. Russia as the largest country in the world and is strategic located between the continents of Europe and Asia, also has a very large role in coping the issue of terrorism. Various regulations have also been issued by the Russian example only, the federal law on combating terrorism and article 205 of the criminal code.

Related with the duty of every country to coping terrorism, UN Security Council passed several resolutions that theoretically required to be followed as a member of the United Nations as set forth in article 25 of the UN Charter, namely "The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." One of the UN Security Council resolution is the resolution number 1368 dated September 12, 2001, which contains, "Calls Reviews those states to work together urgently to bring justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks and streesses Reviews These Reviews those responsible for that aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held Reviews These accountable."[5]

In the conditions can be seen that each country has universal jurisdiction with terrorism. Theoretically every UN member states have an obligation to coping terrorism in any way or by any means. Political laws of each country will be the center of world security, because the firmness of law in the fight against terrorism will destroy existing terrorist organization. Terrorism is a crime that is multidimensional, financing terrorist activities and also arranged in any state law. Financing a company or activity that lasts personal radically cannot be denied, because it will always be there.

The comprehensive approach to tackle terrorism is a very important thing to remember multiple aspects surrounding the crime of terrorism various acts of terrorism which has not recognize national borders is a fact that must be faced by the international community, therefore, to be conducted either through cooperation activities together bilateral and multilateral levels to counter terrorism through law enforcement, intelligence and security [6]. Commitment and strength to guard the security of the country and the world, a solid foundation to stop the dominance of terror carried out by the terrorists of the world. Make a legal instrument through necessity in the handling of terrorist crimes from upstream to downstream, actors who execute until the flow of funds to terrorist organizations. This paper will include in-depth study of the political perspective of state policy International law in preventing regeneration of terrorism in the world.

78

References

1.Abdul Wahid, Religious Perspectives on Terrorism Crimes, Human Rights and Law, Retika Aditama, 2004, p 22.

2.Bryan A. Gardner, Editor in Chief, Black Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, 1999, p. 1484

3.Tempo Magazine News URL: http://tempo.co/

4.Barda Nawawi, Some Aspects of Development Policy Enforcement and Criminal Justice, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, London, 1998, p. 23

5.The Charter of the United Nations. URL: www.un.org/en/documents/charter

6.Simula Victor Muhammad, Terrorism and the New World Order, the Center for Information Services and House of Representatives, Jakarta, 2002, p. 110

Hiroaki Mayumi

Far Eastern Federal University

Can Japan and Russia cooperate to develop the disputed territory?

The territorial issue has been a stubborn obstacle to expansion of the relations between Japan and Russia for many decades. The islands disputed between them are located in the southern part of the Kuril Islands and just to the east to Hokkaido Island. They consist of three larger islands: Iturup, Kunashir and Shikotan Islands, and a group of smaller islands and rocks: Habomai. While they are collectively called the Southern Kuril Islands in Russia, they are called the Northern Territories by the Japanese side. Kimie Hara, Professor at the University of Waterloo, argues that the controversy over these islands originated from the peace treaty signed after the World War II. She also points out that a flaw about the definition of the Kuril Islands was purposely left in provisions in the peace treaty in order “to create a source of dispute between Japan and the USSR” for the benefits of the U.S. government and the Japanese pro-American state officials [1]. In the Cold War period, as intended, the territorial issue played a role to keep Japan politically distant from Russia. However, today as the international situations have changed, the governments of both countries feel the need to expand their economic and political relations.

My question here is whether Japan and Russia can cooperate to develop the disputed islands. Some people may say simply no to this question, but my answer is yes. I take an optimistic stance toward this problem because the territorial issue between Japan and Russia is different from others in some points. First, Japan and Russia share a long history of the negotiation over this issue. Despite the difficult situations caused by the Cold War, the both sides succeeded to sign some agreement in economic and humanitarian fields and realize the interaction crossing over the officially closed border. Second, through these kinds of interaction, the both countries have attempted to mitigate the burdens imposed on local residents. I think that it is a rare case in the world because in many similar cases, economic activities and migration across borders are strictly regulated or watched for the security reasons. I believe that the both governments can reach an agreement to develop the islands together and solve the sovereignty problem of the islands in the near future by using the experience cultivated in the past negotiations and interaction.

1. A long history of the negotiations over the disputed islands

The first negotiation between Japan and Russia dates back to the middle 1950s just after the World War II. The both governments reached the agreement to normalize their relations, but the territorial issue failed to be solved because of an arising confrontation caused by the Cold War. Though they were in the difficult political situations, they kept their economic ties to overcome an atmosphere of mistrust. During the 1960s and 1970s, Japanese companies were the most active of the “Western” countries at the business in the Soviet Union, especially the development of Siberia and the Russian Far East. In the same period, some enthusiastic politicians on both side tried to

79

mitigate burdens imposed on local people around the disputed border and, as a result of their effort, some frameworks of interaction in the fishery and humanitarian fields were realized. After the end of the Cold War, Japan and Russia accelerated the expansion of their relations again. Most of the interaction framework across the border, such as cultural interaction between local people and the special fishing zones around the islands, started during the 1990s. Compared with other territorial issues facing Japan today, the issue with Russia has experienced many times of negotiation and stored up many pieces of agreement, which can be a legal basis for a final solution in the future. Of course it can be said that the problem was not solved “despite” such a lot of efforts by both sides, but the territorial issue with Russia is a less heavy task for the Japanese government than other territorial issues with China and South Korea.

It is true that the latest conditions make people anxious about the progress of relations between Japan and Russia. Since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s inauguration with the majority of public support in December 2012, the Japanese government has attempted to get over a decline of Japanese diplomacy caused by the unstable domestic politics in the past few years. In 2013, Abe held the summit talk with President Vladimir Putin five times. This seemingly enabled them to build deep personal relationship, which is essential to embark on hard negotiations. However, as the disturbance in Ukraine got serious, the Japanese government had to keep away from Russia in consideration of the alliance with United States. These days, the Japan government faces a dilemma between Russia and United States and carefully deals with the situations. For example, Japan imposed economic sanctions on Russia because of the Ukraine crisis, but when you take a closer look at the Japanese sanctions, they turn out to be superficial. The Japanese sanctions include; suspension of visa issue and asset freeze targeting at officials who were allegedly involved in the Ukraine crisis; trade embargoes on weapons and products capable of military utilization; and restriction on bond issues by the major Russian banks [2]. All of them can be said to be much less influential on Russia than sanctions by the U.S. and European countries. The officials on the sanction list have never been to Japan, nor will they probably go to Japan. Weapons are hardly traded between two countries. Russian banks on the list don’t procure funds by bond issues in Japan [3]. It seems that the Japanese government makes efforts to balance the relations with Russia and United States and continues to seek Putin’s visit to Japan postponed in the difficult situations.

2. Interaction frameworks across the disputed border

The interaction frameworks between Japan and Russia on the disputed territory started in the Cold War period and their range of activities was expanded in the rapprochement after the Cold War. They consist of three categories: Japanese former residents’ visit to the islands, mutual interaction between local people and the special fishing zones around the islands.

(a)Japanese former residents’ visit to the islands

For the humanitarian purpose, the Soviet / Russian government has admitted the visit of Japanese former residents to graves in the disputed islands since 1969. What is important for the Japanese government is that Japanese former residents can visit the islands only with simplified form of identification, without passports and visas. This is because according to the official interpretation, any visit of Japanese citizens to the islands with obeying the immigration system of Russia means that they recognize the sovereignty over the islands. In the Cold War period, the Soviet government sometimes demanded the formal condition to the Japanese visitors. Then the Japanese government objected it and stuck to the conventional principle, thus the visit to graves was cancelled from 1971 to 1973 and from 1976 to 1986 [4].

(b)Mutual interaction between local people

In the atmosphere of rapprochement after the Cold War, the framework of mutual interaction between local people has begun in 1992. The important point in this framework is also the special condition of visitors. They are able to travel around the disputed islands or Japan with simple version of documents, without passports and visas. At first Japanese visitors who can apply for this framework were limited to former residents, members of the return campaign, the press and experts in various fields. Recently the Japanese government widened the scope of Japanese visitors and

80