Kuril Islands student speech

[Otaku]

So, I've got a student who wants to enter the Japan-wide JHS make-a-speech contest. Her topic? The Kuril Islands (the islands that are being fought overright now between Japan and Russia on the tip of Hokkaido.

Anyways, I've got an interesting question I thought I would ask to you all. The 'Kuril Islands' are how the western world refers to them but Japan calls them the 'Northern Territories'. So, in an "English" speech, how do you think these islands should be referred to?

[azuhlLt.]

Both, specifying that one is the Japanese name and one is the one the West uses.

Then use which ever is easiest for the student to pronounce.

[Otaku]

Here's the MEXTed up thing, Japan has a name in Japanese for those islands as well: Chishima.

[jessen100]

i saw that poster in my school. i found the writing about the speech and the islands to be quite propogandal.

theres no way thats a word.

ill go read it again.

[Otaku]

I think both sides just do stuff to piss the other one off because they can't truely fight each other again. Check this out:

"The dispute over the Kuril Islands was further exacerbated on July 16, 2008, when the Japanese government published new school textbook guidelines directing teachers to say that Japan has sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. The Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs announced on July 18, "[these actions] contribute neither to the development of positive cooperation between the two countries, nor to the settlement of the dispute" and reaffirmed its sovereignty over the islands."

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I think both sides just do stuff to piss the other one off because they can't truely fight each other again. Check this out:

"The dispute over the Kuril Islands was further exacerbated on July 16, 2008, when the Japanese government published new school textbook guidelines directing teachers to say that Japan has sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. The Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs announced on July 18, "[these actions] contribute neither to the development of positive cooperation between the two countries, nor to the settlement of the dispute" and reaffirmed its sovereignty over the islands."

The delusions will continue for a long time. Japan had it's chance to negotiate for at least 2 of them and blew it. Reminds me of any territory dispute. (Think Isreal/Palestine) Any government to offer any concession can kiss their job good-bye. Nationalists, and the opposition will quickly capitalise on this "weakness."

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Don't mean to completely hijack the thread here but it seems the Japanese have another chance at settling the matter. Lets all watch them blow it again!

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/russia-seeks-calm-talks-with-japan-over-disputed-islands

[crustpunker]

Not to shit on yer question but what I would advise is to tell her to pick another topic. A speech that is drawn on from personal experience is much more original and will capture the attention of the audience and most importantly the judges..

Unless she has some unique personal story about the islands, has visited them or can relate them directly to herself then it will just be another boring speech about a complicated topic that honestly no one cares about.

Another problem with these kinds of speeches is that even if they are well written, they almost always sound like they are lifted straight from a newspaper article or research paper. Too much presentation of data, dull facts and figure and well, that is NOT a speech.

the last competition we had at school the kids wrote about:

A book about death called "ITAMUHITO" and how it helped the kid deal with the passing of a family member
A speech relating the ant and the grasshopper from Aesops fables to the student and his father
unique solutions to problems and how alternative/creative thinking has helped this student make difficult decisions easier

anyway, there are lots of things the kids can write about, they all have unique experiences and I really doubt that those shitty islands in the middle of nowhere that no one has ever been to or can even slightly relate to would be of interest to anyone. Kids just think that they are boring or that it isn't "OK" to write something personal when in fact, those are the speeches that are most engaging.

Also, tell her to make sure to make eye contact with the audience and not stare straight out into the distance. Kids seem to do that alot and it is creepy.

[Paul]

Crust, as you know the topics for speech contents while they can be about personal experiences, are not necessarily supposed to be about them either. It's the students choice. Social and environmental issues are also more than acceptable too. I agree that a speech with a bunch of facts and figures is not going to be a winner with any judges but if she wrote the speech about her own feelings and thoughts about how the issue should be resolved or she raised issues in her speech with the intent of asking the audience to consider her point of view I would think it would be a good topic.

Kids here used to write all sorts of speeches about WWII and what they thought about the horrors of war, none had any experiences themselves of course, but they in their JHS naivety asked questions like why can't people just get along, things like that. Many now write speeches about what they read in the newspapers or hear in the news and the ones that write speeches about school or club activities never get past the district stage no matter how well they seem to present them.

Good example btw with Aesop's fables, I would have liked to hear that speech.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I mentioned it before, but one student I coached brought home some hardware from the competition. But her topic was gold. The fusion of politics and personal experience.

I told you guys before it was essentially her negative view of China shaped by the spats between the countries leaders, as well as food scandals.

She actually ended up visiting China, and initially wasn't happy to go. But she made lots of friends and realized just how much people of the world have in common!

[moolooman]

We had our speech and recitation contests last week. I tell you, after listening to "A Mother's Lullaby" and "Freddie the Leaf" being recited about fifteen times, I was almost in a frame of mind to self immolate.

Self immolating smiley. Yes? No? Maybe?

[Paul]

Best I could find on a google jp image search;

[moolooman]

Vintage

[Paul]

Ahh the things we all get burned up about.

[jeisensei]

I just came back from my student's speech and recitation contest. The first year kids had to memorize something out of the text book's supplementary materials (in my kid's case it was "I Am a Mouse"). He got 3rd place. I had two 3rd year kids write and give speeches. The first kid got 4th place and wrote about her future dream to become a nurse (a slightly tired topic) and my other kid got 1st place and she wrote about the bullying she went though as a kid (a powerful topic to say the least).
This next Friday I am actually going to be a judge at a different speech contest. Not really looking forward to it at all to tell you the truth. But, que sera sera.

[Otaku]

The spin my student is putting on her speech is pretty interesting. She's not taking sides but is looking at the situation from a 3rd-person approach.

However, in helping add to her speech I've been doing my own research on this topic and actually, and it rarely happens when it comes to things about WW2, I actually side with Japan on this matter.

Back in 1855, Japan and Russia signed an agreement that gave Japan 4 of the Kuril Islands: Kunashir, Habomai, Iturup and Shikotan.

Then, in 1875, the two countries signed another agreement giving Japan ALL of the Kuril Islands, with the exception of Sakhalin Island, which until that point was being shared by the two but Japan handed it over in turn for the rest of the islands.

It wasn't until after WW2 when agreements were being signed that SOMEHOW SOMEBODY wrote in the agreement that Japan has to hand over all the Kuril Isands to Russia. I don't understand how that made it onto the Peace Treaty documents?!?! Both countries previously agreed to land ownership. Then, when Japan loses the war, they have to turn over land that was already rightfully theirs?!?!

To add icying on the cake, Japan SIGNED the damn document, but later went back and said they didn't think the agreement included the four closest islands to their Hokkaido shoreline. I'm guessing it was a simple case of not being able to read what you were signing? DOH!

Here's what doesn't make sense in this whole dispute, in the agreement Japan/Russia signed back in 1875, Japan owned ALL the Kuril Islands. But, then in the agreement they signed in 1951 after the war stating they have to hand over all the islands to Russia, they said they didn't think the agreement included 4 of the Kuril Islands.

QUESTION: If you legally owned ALL the islands, why in the hell would you sign an agreement giving them all away, simply because you lost a war? THEN, why would you continue bitching about your mistake and argue you still own at least 4 of the islands when you already signed over all of them?

I think Japan should still have rights to all the islands but MEXTed up when they signed the 1951 Peace Treaty.

Here's the kicker though. Russian never signed the 1951 agreement, so how in the world do they even lay claim back over Kuril Islands when Japanese people were living there up until one year before WW2 kicked off? I'm confused how these islands are Russia's?

Comments?

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I think it was the Yalta agreement where (in my opinion) the U.S probably offered Russia a blank check as long as they helped in the war effort in the Pacific.

I think the biggest problem here was it was not in writing.

The U.S claims after the San Fran treaty with Japan, and all allied powers except Russia, that it didn't agree to any such thing with Russia. Instead they insist at Yalta they meant the islands would no longer be under Japanese control, but this DIDN'T mean they would be Russian EITHER. So they pushed through a signed document which favors Japan's control over Soviet. They bring up (below) the whole case that Japan can't renounce conqured territory (Hague?) and should it do so then U.S can get Okinawa. (to put it simply)

To me it just seems like one of the two cases.

a) America told Russia what it wanted to hear during WW2 to gain support.
THEN during the cold war when alliances began to shift, wanted to contain Russia as much as possible, thus doubling back on their word. But Russia still seems entitled.

b) The Ruskies mis-interpreted the Yanks agreement at Yalta. Mainly how many islands they were entitled to. Or the Russians twisted the words, and lied about the promise they got from the U.S. Motivation of course being regaining their former glory after losing the Japanese-Russian war.

And here is the meat where I think it gets sticky:

"1956 Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration and dispute over the composition of the Kuril islandsDuring the 1956 peace talks between Japan and the Soviet Union, the Soviet side proposed to settle the dispute by returning Shikotan and Habomai to Japan. In the final round of the talks, the Japanese side accepted the weakness of its claim to Etorofu and Kunashiri and agreed to settle for return of Shikotan and the Habomais, in exchange for a peace treaty. However, the Americans intervened and blocked the deal.[14][16] The U.S. warning to Japan that a withdrawal of the Japanese claim on the other islands would mean the U.S. would keep Okinawa caused Japan to refuse these terms. The U.S. had asserted that the San Francisco Peace Treaty "did not determine the sovereignty of the territories renounced by Japan," but that "Japan does not have the right to transfer sovereignty over such territories.[18] Nevertheless, on October 19, 1956 in Moscow, the USSR and Japan signed the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration. The Declaration ended the state of war between the Soviet Union and Japan, which technically had still existed between the two countries since August 1945.[19] The Joint Declaration did not settle the Kuril Islands dispute, the resolution of which was postponed until the conclusion of a permanent peace treaty between USSR and Japan. However, Article 9 of the Joint Declaration stated: "The U.S.S.R. and Japan have agreed to continue, after the establishment of normal diplomatic relations between them, negotiations for the conclusion of a peace treaty. Hereby, the U.S.S.R., in response to the desires of Japan and taking into consideration the interest of the Japanese state, agrees to hand over to Japan the Habomai and the Shikotan Islands, provided that the actual changing over to Japan of these islands will be carried out after the conclusion of a peace treaty."[20]

The question of whether Etorofu and Kunashiri islands are a part of the Kurils, and thus whether they are covered by Article (2c) of the Treaty of San Francisco, remains one of the main outstanding issues in the Kuril Islands dispute. Based on a 1966 book by a former Japanese diplomat and a member of the 1956 Japanese delegation for the Moscow peace talks, Clark traces the first Japanese claim that Etorofu and Kunashiri islands are not a part of the Kurils to the 1956 negotiations on the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956. The Soviet Union rejected the view at that time, and subsequently, Russia has maintained the same position since then."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute#1956_Soviet-Japanese_Joint_Declaration_and_dispute_over_the_composition_of_the_Kuril_islands

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Does that help? Still unclear?

[Otaku]

What was the U.S.'s purpose to nose their way into Russia and Japan's land dispute by holding Okinawa over their head? I'm confused by that one.

Furthermore, and if I'm reading things correctly, ALL the Kurile Islands legitamately belonged to Japan before the WWII. I think if they had internet back then, they would easily have records to that fact. The Treaty of St. Petersburg back in 1875 testifies to this fact. Russia pushed the Japanese off all the islands during WW2. So, how does Russia think they have land claim to it? I'm befuddled!

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

What was the U.S.'s purpose to nose their way into Russia and Japan's land dispute by holding Okinawa over their head? I'm confused by that one.

Furthermore, and if I'm reading things correctly, ALL the Kurile Islands legitamately belonged to Japan before the WWII. I think if they had internet back then, they would easily have records to that fact. The Treaty of St. Petersburg back in 1875 testifies to this fact. Russia pushed the Japanese off all the islands during WW2. So, how does Russia think they have land claim to it? I'm befuddled!

Right they got them all gradually through treaties and military might, and then lost them ALL. The only ones in dispute now or the most important ones are the southern ones, nearest to Hokkaido. And those islands if we are following the standard conventions on war cannot be annexed by Russia, Japan's defeat or not. So like you said I am also "befuddled." Clearly a violation of international law. (No matter what happened at Yalta)

What was the U.S.'s purpose to nose their way into Russia and Japan's land dispute by holding Okinawa over their head? I'm confused by that one.

Power? Stand off with Russia? To try and stop Russia from gaining power? To Illustrate that countries just can't take conqured land anymore? But I am with you I think they could have done this wihout threatening to steal Okinawa.

[Otaku]

60+ years and this is still trying to be settled? I don't see that Russia has any standing whatsoever...

I told my JTE today that I completely agree that those islands should belong to them. I followed it up with, "Japan was stupid to sign that the Potsdamn Agreement to begin with because in the Treaty it specifically says that Japan has to give up all of the islands."

If the islands were theirs, Russia and Japan signed an agreement 50 years prior, I'm perplexed why the islands were specifically put into the Agreement to begin with? That's why I started thinking I had missed some type of history event along my reading travels...

I mean, straight logic would make the islands Japan just out of sheer location of where they are at.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I mean, straight logic would make the islands Japan just out of sheer location of where they are at.

Yeah it would be nice if we used geography for some of these claims, it's ridiculously close to Japan, and clearly an extention of their land mass.


As for your missed reading causing confusion, maybe it centers around this? Basically a concession by Japan, which in hindsight seemed silly.

During the 1956 peace talks between Japan and the Soviet Union, the Soviet side proposed to settle the dispute by returning Shikotan and Habomai to Japan. In the final round of the talks, the Japanese side accepted the weakness of its claim to Etorofu and Kunashiri and agreed to settle for return of Shikotan and the Habomais, in exchange for a peace treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute


EDIT: Don't forget, victorious powers usually force a country to give up its rights to bits and pieces of their nation after losing, but it is usually a temporary measure. Reduction of power, create buffer zones to contain them, etc... This could have been what America was thinking and the lands would later be returned, but the Soviets just slipped right in there.

[moolooman]

[Otaku]

On the flip side, I swear I read somewhere that Russia admitted their claim to the islands were pretty weak as well?

Moral of the lesson: Don't lose in a fight or you will be punkt out of land?

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

A good lesson to learn I think! The Palestinians learned this, the Mexicans learned it ....etc