Упрощенная HTML-версия
http://interaffairs.ru
Author : V. Petrovsky
Chief Research Fellow, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Doctor of Science (Political Sciences)
THE UNSTABLE SITUATION in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific
region, the presence of unresolved territorial disputes and conflicts,
and the lack of regional security and cooperation mechanisms have
their roots in the events of recent history in the second half of
the 20th century and stem from the related historical and geopo-
litical tensions.
The historical lessons of World War II in the Pacific and the Ko-
rean War remain unlearned.
From the outset, the post-war order in East Asia evolved differ-
ently than in Europe, where the Yalta system of international rela-
tions took root. Its political arrangements for Asia and the Pacific
never came to fruition in the context of the escalating Cold War and the confrontation between East and West.
In solving the issues of territories and boundaries in East Asia after the end of World War II, the Allied powers
followed primarily their own geopolitical and strategic interests, not historical facts or the interests of the parties in
territorial disputes and conflicts.
One cannot but agree with the fact that regional and global international contexts are essential for a balanced and
objective assessment of the actions of Soviet diplomacy, related to the preparation and signing of the San Francisco
Treaty of Peace. As suggested by Cherniavskiy, the catalyst of its signing was the Korean War (1950-1953). It forced
the U.S. and Japan to review their postwar relations. At that time, it was extremely important for the United States
to get Japan to follow the mainstream of its Far Eastern policy, making Tokyo in fact its chief ally in the region.8
Nevertheless, the Korean War fundamentally changed the geopolitical situation not only in Asia, but also around
the world. It was the first major test of strength for the United Nations, just set up by the victor powers. Faced
with the escalating Cold War, which had nearly evolved into a hot world war with the employment of weapons of
mass destruction, the great powers, retracting their promises, experienced the strongest temptation to act only in
the name of their own interests and ambitions, at the expense of the logic of compromise and collective action.
The USSR fully supported its ally, the People's Republic of China, both in the diplomatic battles fought in the
United Nations as well as in the Korean War battlefields.
For Russia, the lessons of the Korean War are particularly important. Then, in a bid for a wider sphere of influence,
the Soviet Union put at stake its international reputation by worsening its relations with the West to the limit, which
nearly brought about a disintegration of the UN and the turning of the Cold War into a hot war. The logic of com-
promise and collective action was cast away in favor of the promotion of ideologically motivated geopolitical in-
terests.
Not only Russia-Japan, but also Japan-China and Japan-South Korea relations are still stuck in the Cold War trap
set a few decades ago by the creators of the San Francisco system.
Once again, we will repeat that in solving the issues of territories and boundaries in East Asia after the end of
World War II, the Allied powers followed primarily their own geopolitical and strategic interests, not historical facts
or the interests of the parties in territorial disputes and conflicts. Since then, for decades, historians and experts
have continued very actively and convincingly to defend the correctness of the viewpoint of "their" conflicting
party...
Scholars and experts can help policy makers and diplomats of the countries of Northeast Asia work together to re-
solve the "unresolvable" issues left over from the Cold War and to finally turn over this page of the 20th century
history.
The Echo of World War II in East Asia