s********e
发帖数: 2783 | 1 本政府在新地图上圈出了这三个区域，锋芒毕露地声称这些主权长期存在争议的岛屿群
都是日本领土。资料来源：日本外务省
http://news.ifeng.com/a/20150202/43077157_0.shtml
在自民党上月国会选举取胜的鼓舞下，日本首相安倍晋三再次立誓，定要将日本从往昔
的桎梏中解脱出来，尤其是要带领国家走出二战失败的阴影。安倍晋三和他的支持者们
将对那个时代的主流记述看作“自虐史学”，并认为正因如此日本人才难以对所谓的“
新日本”产生自豪感。他们提出要修改日本宪法第九条，即日本人民“永远放弃战争作
为国家的主权权力”。
去年4月，日本外务省在其官方网站公布了一幅日本地图，集中体现出开拓新日本的雄
心壮志。在这份被译成12种语言的地图上，日本的疆域超出了国际社会承认的边界。它
以“固有领土”的名义，将周边国家提出主权主张的许多岛屿统统划归日本所有。按照
日本的说法，这些地方都是日本国不可分割的一部分。
实际上，安倍政府的扩张主义观点反而有损于日本的经济和战略利益。
日本提出“固有领土”的概念，其实是在提倡一种无视历史的领土观，它尤其无视日本
获取这些岛屿的历史。这些岛屿，都是日本通过向中俄发动帝国主义战争；通过武力征
服朝鲜；以及对岛屿土著民族实行灭绝或同化而攫取的。
在一定程度上，正是这个原因使日本卷入了许多领土争端。中国大陆和台湾都驳斥了日
本对“尖阁群岛”的主权主张，这片岛屿被北京称作钓鱼岛，被台北方面称为“钓鱼台
”。韩国从1954年起，便对独岛（日本称“竹岛”）派驻了警察守备队。俄罗斯则声称
对南千岛群岛（日本称“北方领土”）拥有主权，这四个位于北海道东北方向的岛屿是
千岛群岛的一部分，上面从1945年起便有俄罗斯人居住，如今人口数量已达约两万人。
根据《联合国海洋法公约》规定，日本在现有海域中已获得了巨量的渔业资源，并坐拥
价值高达3.6万亿美元的海底资源。如果算上这些争议岛屿，这个数字还要惊人得多。
根据美国能源信息署等机构的估测，中国东海已探明的及可能存在的石油储量达2亿桶
（世界日均消耗量约9000万桶），天然气储量在一至两万亿立方英尺之间（美国2013年
天然气消费量约26万亿立方英尺）。中日两国存在争议的海域占东海总面积约17%。
南千岛群岛中的库德莉雅韦火山，盛产铼这种熔点极高的稀土金属，它是航空发动机设
计师梦寐以求的耐热材料。除此之外，日本和朝鲜半岛之间的海底还蕴藏着庞大的甲烷
水合物（观察者网注：即“可燃冰”，主要成分是甲烷分子与水分子）资源。2013年，
在首次从可燃冰中提取出甲烷气体后，日本石油天然气金属矿物资源机构的发言人称，
“日本终于可以拥有自己的能源资源了。”
对资源匮乏的日本来说，如此丰富的资源储量无异于天大的诱惑。2012年，日本政府花
在进口燃料上的开支高达2500亿美元。在2011年3月福岛核泄漏事件发生之后，核反应
堆的拆除清理成本预计至少将达到900亿美元。这个理由似乎足以促使日本将这些存在
争议的地区划为本国领土。
然而，日本推行激进的边缘政策可能得不偿失，反而失去更多资源。《联合国海洋法公
约》不适用于解决领土主权问题，它只是允许提出领土主张的各国对存有争议的海域进
行联合开发。然而，一旦领土纠纷升级，这些国家自然倾向于撤销所有的联合开发计划。
2008年，中国和日本达成共识，欲联合开发东海油气田。但因日本反对中国单独开发无
争议海域的油气田，整个项目次年便告流产。安倍晋三的极端政策只会欲速而不达，不
但令中日恢复合作的前景更黯淡无光，而且使所有涉及日本的新项目都面临被撤销的风
险。
安倍晋三所奉行的领土修正主义，不但会对日本造成经济伤害，还会产生战略成本。日
本提出“固有领土”，实际上是在暗地里否认1951年日本与盟国之间签订的《旧金山和
约》的公正性（观察者网注：中国作为主要战胜国之一，被排除在该条约缔约方之外，
同样不承认《旧金山和约》的法律效力）。该和约主要是为了解决二战战败国日本的战
后地位问题，同时也正式结束了盟国的对日战争状态。日本通过帝国主义侵略战争，形
成了一个北至中国北方地区、南抵瓜达尔卡纳尔岛的庞大帝国。《旧金山和约》重新划
定了日本的领土，使日本国土形状成为了我们今天熟知的样子（后来，冲绳等岛屿被美
国交还给了日本）。签订和约时，包括安倍晋三外祖父——甲级战犯岸信介——在内的
许多日本人都感到愤怒，他们声称千岛群岛是日本领土必不可少的一部分。
同期生效的还有另一个条约——1951年的《美日安保条约》。根据该条约规定，美国将
“在日本国内及其周围驻扎军队”以防止“日本受到武装攻击。”1960年对该条约进行
修订时，日本已经拥有了有限的自卫队，美日两国做出多项承诺共同应对“日本管理的
领土上任何一方遭到的武装进攻”。《新美日安保条约》今天仍然有效，因此正确界定
日本领土范围对美国政府也至关重要。
目前，华盛顿和东京的官员们正忙着审视各自对日本防务的责任，因为一旦发生威胁到
日本和平与安全的事件，美日双方需要明确各自承担何等责任。一个令人担忧的问题是
，在彼此独立的防御安排下，美国承担着防卫日本和韩国的双重责任，而这两个国家可
能因为领土纠纷而攻击对方。换句话说，日本“固有领土”的提法是在挑战二战后美国
做出的安全承诺，甚至产生了触发安全机制的风险。
面对历史，安倍晋三的脑子里想的是如何“收复失地”，正是这种复仇主义观点使他提
出要让未来的日本“在世界舞台的中央重现辉煌”。但这种歪曲历史的观点恰好损害了
日本的重大利益，甚至削弱了日本人的身份认同。安倍领导的自民党鼓吹的修宪计划包
括：日本公民有“义务保卫国家的固有领土、固有领海和固有领空”，其中包含了所有
存在争议的岛屿。修宪草案还补充提出，“所有公民必须遵守宪法”，暗示违反者的公
民权等权利可能遭到剥夺。
安倍晋三的所作所为，无非是想为日本开疆拓土，可最后难免会落得个搬石砸脚的下场。
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/opinion/the-shape-of-japan-to
The Shape of Japan to ComeAlexis Dudden is a professor of history at the
University of Connecticut.
Bolstered by his party’s victory in Diet elections last month, Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe has renewed his vow to free Japan from the fetters of
the past, especially its defeat in World War II. Mr. Abe and his supporters
view the prevailing accounts of that era as “masochistic” and a hindrance
to taking pride in what he calls the “new Japan.” They propose to modify
the article in Japan’s Constitution that states the Japanese people “
forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation.”
These aspirations have been laid out in a map of Japan that the Japanese
Foreign Ministry published on its website last April, with translations in
12 languages. The map extends beyond Japan’s internationally recognized
boundaries, incorporating in the name of ryodo — or the “inherent
territory” of Japan — many islands claimed by neighboring countries. Those
lands, the argument goes, are integral to Japan’s very being.
In fact, the Abe government’s expansionist view undermines Japan’s
interests, both economic and strategic.
Ryodo promotes a notion of Japan’s territory that circumvents history,
particularly the history of how Japan laid claim to these islands in the
first place — through imperial wars with China and Russia, through wars of
conquest against Koreans, through the extermination or assimilation of
indigenous peoples.
Partly as a result, Japan is embroiled in many territorial disputes. China
and Taiwan contest the Senkaku Islands, which Beijing calls the Diaoyu and
Taipei the Diaoyutai. South Korea claims Takeshima (calling it Dokdo) where
it has stationed military police since 1954. Russia claims sovereignty over
what Japanese know as the Northern Territories, four islands in the Kuril
chain northeast of Hokkaido where Russians have lived since 1945, numbering
about 20,000 today.
Under the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (
UNCLOS), Japan already has access to vast fisheries and rides up to $3.6
trillion in seabed materials. The disputed islands would add much more.
Tokyo is more aggressively claiming island groups that have long been in
territorial dispute. The government highlighted these 3 areas on a new map.
Sources: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan; maritimeregions.org
According to some estimates, including by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, the East China Sea holds 200 million barrels in proved and
probable oil reserves (the world consumes around 90 million barrels of
liquid fuels each day) and between 1 and 2 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas (the United States consumed about 26 trillion cubic feet in 2013). Japan
and China contest nearly 17 percent of the area.
A volcano on one of the southern Kurils has rhenium, a rare-earth metal with
a melting point that makes jet-engine designers dream. There are also vast
quantities of untapped methane hydrate in the seabed between Japan and the
Korean Peninsula. After gas was extracted from similar deposits elsewhere
for the first time in 2013, a spokesman for the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals
National Corporation said, “Japan could finally have an energy source to
call its own.”
The lure of such riches might seem like reason enough for resource-poor
Japan to claim these territories. The government spent $250 billion on
imported fuel in 2012. And the cost of decommissioning the nuclear reactors
at Fukushima after the meltdown following the March 2011 tsunami is expected
to reach at least $90 billion.
Yet Japan risks losing access to many of these resources because of its
brinksmanship. UNCLOS does not determine sovereignty over land, and it
allows for joint development agreements in waters around contested territory
. When disputes heat up, however, they naturally tend to scuttle any joint
schemes.
In 2008 China and Japan agreed to explore together four gas fields in the
East China Sea. But the project was scuttled the following year, after China
went at it alone. Mr. Abe’s maximalist policy only undermines the
prospects that this development project could be revived, or that new ones
involving Japan might be struck.
The costs of Mr. Abe’s territorial revisionism are also strategic. Ryodo
implicitly dismisses as partial the terms of the 1951 San Francisco Peace
Treaty, which formally ended World War II between Japan and the Allies. The
agreement redrew Japan from the massive empire it had become during the war
— stretching from northern China to Guadalcanal — more or less into the
country familiar today. (Some islands, notably Okinawa, reverted to Japan in
the intervening years.) Many Japanese at the time, including Mr. Abe’s
grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi — who was accused of being a Class A war
criminal — were infuriated, claiming in particular that the Kurils were “
essential” to the Japanese.
In a separate agreement that went into force at the same time, the U.S.-
Japan Security Treaty of 1951, the United States would “maintain armed
forces of its own in and about Japan” in order “to deter armed attack upon
Japan.” By the time the treaty was revised in 1960, Japan had acquired
limited self-defense forces, and the two countries undertook various
commitments in case of “an armed attack against either Party in the
territories under the administration of Japan.” These still stand today,
hence the critical importance also for the U.S. government of properly
defining what Japan is.
Officials in Washington and Tokyo are currently reviewing each side’s
responsibilities in the event of a threat to the peace and security of Japan
. One fraught issue is the United States’ dual obligation, under separate
security arrangements, to defend both Japan and South Korea because one
could attack the other over territory they both claim. In other words, the
very notion of ryodo challenges the United States’ postwar security
commitments even as it risks triggering them.
Mr. Abe’s revanchist view of the past is central to his vision of a future
in which Japan “once again shines on the world’s center stage.” But it
distorts history in a way that undermines the country’s major interests and
, arguably, its identity. The constitutional changes advocated by Mr. Abe’s
party include an “obligation” for citizens of Japan to “defend the
nation’s inherent territory, inherent seas and inherent skies,” disputed
islands and all. The proposed draft adds that, “All citizens must honor the
Constitution,” suggesting that failure to do so could endanger their
rights, maybe their citizenship. In his bid to claim more for Japan, Mr. Abe
may reap less. |
|
