Japan's Rapprochement to Russia: Japan's Pragmatic Response to

the Dynamics of Contemporary International System

Yohanes Putra Suhito and Citra Hennida

Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Rapprochement, dispute, Russo-Japanese relations, Kuril Islands, international system.

Abstract: The relationship between Japan and Russia, rather than one that’s stable and based on harmony, is full of

issues and complexities that follow right after. One crucial issue that continues to overshadow the relation

between them is the issue regarding the seizure of property rights over the Kuril Islands, an area which plays

a big role in both countries’ geopolitics and geostrategy. Arising in the 18

century, this issue eventually

culminated at the end of World War II; and in the midst of instability and efforts made toward an agreement,

a deadlock situation has been seen often, resulting in both countries having yet to sign any peace pact to this

day. This is primarily due to the belief that if any of the two countries give up their rights of ownership over

Kuril Islands then there will be negative view from the international society toward them regarding their

existence and role in the international system itself. In mid-2016, however, Japan implemented a new foreign

policy which is a rapprochement toward Russia, and this policy is implemented through meetings resulting in

an agreement on comprehensive economic and energy cooperation as well as a final meeting to resolve said

issue. This paper argues that the dynamics of international system contributes to Japan’s decision in

conducting rapprochemen toward Russia in 2016.

1 INTRODUCTION

The relationship between Japan and Russia is an

unstable and conflict-filled relationship. Since the end

of the Second World War in 1945, for the past seven

decades, relations between Russia and Japan have not

shown a positive sign. The unfortunate relation is of

course somewhat indispensable from the territorial

dispute between the two in which Japan and Russia

strive to fight for the rightful ownership of the Kuril

Islands. In its journey, the issue of the Kuril Islands

dispute has become quite important for both Japan

and Russia as the Kuril Islands became an area of

geopolitical and geostrategic significance. Viewed

from a geopolitical and geostrategic perspective, the

Kuril Islands not only function as a border territory of

Russia-Japan but are also attractive due to the

richness of natural resources that can be useful for the

achievement of interests and the increasing role of the

two countries in the international system. Therefore,

the issue of disputes between these two countries has

succeeded in transforming and continuing into

contemporary era today.

However, amidst the deadlocks of negotiations

and settlements related to this issue, Japanese Prime

Minister Shinzo Abe subsequently made a

"breakthrough" by rapprochement policy towards

Russia where it was proven by Abe's meeting with

Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi and

Vladivostok, respectively in May and September

2016. These two meetings became an important

turning point for the Japan-Russia relations related to

the settlement of the Kuril Islands problem as well as

the opportunities for the establishment of economic

cooperation between the two countries. On this

occasion, the author tries to explain that the policy

adopted by Japan is a tangible manifestation of the

systemic impulse at international level which

continues to experience the dynamics of change since

the post-Cold War era until now.

2 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

AND FOREIGN POLICY

ANALYSIS

The international system has become one of the

variables considered to determine the formulation and

implementation of a country's foreign policy. One of

the figures who always stressed the importance of this

international variable is David Singer. He argues that

Suhito, Y. and Hennida, C.

Japan’s Rapprochement to Russia: Japan’s Pragmatic Response to the Dynamics of Contemporary International System.

DOI: 10.5220/0010281100002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 615-621

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

615

the international system as an external factor is

considered capable of influencing a country in

generating its foreign policy (Singer, 1961). In line

with David Singer's Laura Neack's The New Foreign

Policy: Power Seeking in a Globalized Era states that

as a level of foreign policy analysis, the international

system then focuses on studying state versus state,

geostrategy of regional forces, or action state against

international organizations (Neack, 2008). In

particular, Valerie Hudson states that as a variable,

the international system is a macro-level approach

that departs from system theory and consists of the

national attributes of a state as one of its components.

Therefore, the situation and condition of the

international system together with various attributes

such as military capability, economic power,

geography, population and so on later become the

benchmark of formulation and implementation of

foreign policy of a country (Hudson, 2007). In line

with Hudson's thinking, Breuning also stated that this

systemic variable is considered as one of the macro-

level variables which are then considered capable of

influencing variables at the micro level such as

behavior and output of a country's foreign policy.

Furthermore, Breuning also states that the

formulation of a country's foreign policy will always

depend on national capabilities and attributes owned

by the country in the context of its interaction with

other countries (Breuning, 2007). From the ideas of

these figures, it can be illustrated that in the level of

analysis of the international system, each country is

assumed as part of the system so that the interaction

that they do in the system will affect and impact the

other countries because of their nature as a systemic

unity . Therefore, based on this assumption, the

formulation and implementation of a country's

foreign policy can be understood as a response to the

dynamics occurring within the international system

itself.

In fact, this variable is greatly influenced by the

neorealists' notion that the international system is an

anarchy and the state actor remains the main actor in

international relations. One of the neorealist central

figures Kenneth Waltz stated in his book Theory of

International Politics emphasizes the importance of

the structure of the international system of each

country and then assumed to have the relative

capability or the difference of their respective powers

so that in the structure of the international system that

is anarchy, the state with a large relative capability

will largely determine the most important outcome of

international politics itself (Waltz, 1979 in Jackson &

Sorensen, 1999). Therefore, in the international

system then there is a 'division' of the state based on

the power capabilities they have because power

capability will usually determine how big the role of

a country to the system itself. Breuning shares the

power of the countries of the world into three

categories. First, great power or country with a

considerable power capability. Countries categorized

as great powers are countries that have a major

influence in the constellation of international systems

and have the capability to spread its influence on a

global scale (Breuning, 2007). The second category is

the middle powers or can also be referred to as

emerging country where the country included in this

category is a country whose economy is experiencing

significant development and has the capability to

influence within the regional scope. While the third

category is the small state powers included in this

group is a country that has limited ability to influence

other countries in the context of their systemic

environment both at regional and international level

(Breuning, 2007).

Furthermore, the division of the country based on

the capability of power at the international level is

able to create at least four patterns or patterns of

formulation and implementation of a country's

foreign policy. The first pattern is the consensus

pattern of countries with middle capability and small

powers will voluntarily follow the directions and

decisions of great powers countries. The second

pattern is compliant where countries with greater

power capability will repress to countries with

smaller power capabilities to be obedient to their

direction and decisions. Furthermore, there is also a

counter-dependent pattern in which this pattern can

occur when the repressive efforts of countries with

greater power capabilities get negative responses

from countries with smaller power capabilities. While

the last pattern that can be formed in this context is

the compensation pattern in which there is a leader of

a country that is committed to a policy of

counterdependent to countries with greater power

capabilities in the international system to achieve

their domestic interests (Breuning, 2007). However,

it should be noted that the international system based

on this state power capability does not always place

great powers as a determinant of the direction and

purpose of the system itself because ultimately, the

nature of the international system itself will determine

how the direction and performance of the system

affect the formulation and the implementation of a

country's foreign policy.

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

616

3 SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS

RELATED TO JAPAN AND

RUSSIA APPROACHMENT

EFFORT FROM 1956 TO 2006

As we have already known, the relationship between

Japan and Russia is not a stable and harmonious

relationship but a relationship of conflict and

contradictions. The conflict between Japan and

Russia began 'officially' when both countries vis a vis

in the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905 in which

the war was surprisingly won by the Japanese

(Crompton, 1997). Not stopping there, the two

returned to conflict in the Second World War. After

the end of the Second World War, the two countries'

conflictual relations did not necessarily end but

moved to the complexity of the new issue of disputes

over the legal ownership of the Kuril Islands. This

territorial dispute ultimately transforms into one of

the major determinants of the long history of

conflictual relations between Russia and Japan in

which both countries today claim that they have

legitimate ownership rights over the Kuril Islands.

The Kuril Islands is an archipelago that stretches

from the Kamchatka Peninsula to the northeast of

Hokkaido and separates the Okhotsk Sea to the

northern Pacific Ocean. The dispute between Russia

and Japan concerning the Kuril Islands then focuses

on the seizure of Etorofu Island, Kunashir, Shikotan,

and Khabomai (Gorenburg, 2012). So far,

negotiations and diplomacy related to the settlement

of the Kuril Islands disputes have been deadlocked

for about seven decades because neither Japan nor

Russia either wanted to recognize or bring these

negotiations farther because if one of them handed

over the legal title to the islands then the party will be

regarded as a weak country by the international world

(Gorenburg, 2012).

However, during those seven decades, both Japan

and Russia, still Soviet-era, were not only silent in the

face of the complexity of the territorial problems.

There are several policy approaches that are then

implemented by both leaders of the country

concerned. The negotiations began after the death of

Josef Stalin, who always regarded Japan as a

subordinate country at the international level, thus

closing all possible negotiations related to the legal

ownership of the Kuril Islands with the Japanese

(Miller, 2004). However, after Stalin's death and the

election of Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Union then

began to open negotiations related to the settlement

of the Kuril Islands dispute with the Japanese.

In 1956, the Soviets offered a conflict resolution

option through a concession in which Russia would

provide the two smallest islands Shikotan and

Habomai to Japan as a condition of peace as well as

the settlement of disputes between the two countries.

Japan under Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama was

later 'tempted' to accept this offer but the United

States Government as Japan's closest alliance

expressed their objection to the Soviet offer that the

Soviets eventually withdrew the offer in 1960 (Miller

2004). It affected the stagnation of relations between

the Soviet-Japan and into the 1980s where the

governments of both countries were controlled by

conservative figures and then continued to rule out

the possibility of compromise of interests associated

with the Kuril Islands. On the one hand, the

Government of the Soviet Union still viewed the 'eye

of potential' and the development of Japan as one of

the new industrial country or NIC in East Asia. On

the other hand, the Government of Japan sees that the

full right of the Kuril Islands is a requirement that the

Soviets absolutely must fulfill if they wish to sign a

peace treaty with Japan (Miller, 2004).

The negotiations then entered a new phase when

Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet

Union where Gorbachev views Japan as one of the

most potent economic partners in economic

development projects in the Far East of the Soviets.

But the settlement of the dispute through economic

cooperation returned to a dead end as the conservative

Soviet political elite felt that the surrender of the Kuril

Islands to Japan was a shame. On the one hand, the

Cold War bipolarity conditions placed Japan in a

position where the transfer of possession of the Kuril

Islands could only be done by the Soviet Union as a

superpower (Miller, 2004). This policy continued

until the early days of the founding of the Russian

Republic under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, where

domestic pressure related to Russia's position related

to the settlement of the Kuril Islands dispute made

Yeltsin subsequently shifted the focus of cooperation

to China (Miller, 2004). In 1997 it began a new round

of negotiations between Russia and Japan where

President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Ryutaro

Hashimoto declared their commitment to placing a

new premise in Japanese-Russian relations. The two

met in an informal meeting in Krasnoyarsk in

November 1997 in which both Yeltsin and Hashimoto

later declared that they would do their utmost to reach

an agreement on a peace deal in 2000.

However, negotiations returned to a deadlock

when Russia unilaterally refused to discuss any

something related to the Kuril Islands dispute in

negotiations with the Japanese (Akaha, 1998).

Japan’s Rapprochement to Russia: Japan’s Pragmatic Response to the Dynamics of Contemporary International System

617

Entering the era of Vladimir Putin, Russia reapplied

what is called 'Formula 1956' namely the settlement

of the Kuril Islands dispute through the concession of

two smallest islands Shikotan and Habomai to Japan.

This policy was responded negatively by the two

Prime Ministers of Japan at the time of Prime

Minister Mori and Koizumi stating that negotiations

will only continue when Russia includes two other

islands into the negotiation clause. However, in

Koizumi's time, Japan took two measures at once,

firmly and flexibly in which the talk of the dispute of

the Kuril Islands must consist of the four disputed

islands but on the other hand, Koizumi held a fairly

comprehensive economic and energy cooperation

with Russia (Miller, 2004 ).

Tsuneo Akaha in his work A Paradigm Shift in

Russo-Japanese Relations states that the main

determinant of sufficient determination of a paradigm

shift toward a more positive direction in the policy

approach of the two countries related to the dispute of

Kuril Islands is the dynamics that occur in the postwar

international system Cold (Akaha, 1998). The end of

the Cold War marked the beginning of the world as

ideologically divided, as if united under the umbrella

of liberal-capitalism. This brings the consequence

that the international world is then more hirau to the

global aspect of cooperation in the economic field so

as to create a world that is economically unlimited.

The situation at the international level is then also

becoming more complex when the phenomenon of

rise and fall of supremacy occurs. This is

demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and

followed by the fact that the hegemonicity of the

United States continues to experience a declining

phase. On the other hand, emerging powers such as

China and Japan are attempting to show their role and

influence in the international system (Agnew, 2001).

This situation can not be separated from the shift of

focus within the international system itself after the

end of the Cold War.

The country's focus on the international system of

the Cold War era emphasizes the accumulation of

hard power especially in the military as part of efforts

to achieve state survival. While in the post-Cold War

era, economic strength and expansion of aspects of

cooperation became a very important thing. Russia's

position with its geo-strategic advantages and

military strength then seemed to be of little

significance as the Cold War ended, affecting

Russia's influence both regionally and globally.

While Japan played a less significant role in the Cold

War era, it succeeded in transforming itself into one

of the countries with significant influence both

regionally and globally as a result of their rapidly

growing economic capabilities (Akaha, 1998).

Therefore, the dynamics of the international system

then slightly compel Japan and Russia to contribute

significantly in the effort to create a stable

international system post Cold War which one of

them is through the policy of the approach of the two

countries related to the dispute of Kuril Islands.

Although still experiencing various impasse, the

paradigm shift between the two countries related to

the establishment of better relations has entered a new

level which of course this will have a positive impact

for the increasing role of Japan and Russia at regional

and international level.

4 SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF

JAPANESE RAPPROCHEMENT

TO RUSSIA IN THE YEAR 2016

Entering the year 2016, Shinzo Abe as Japan's Prime

Minister then made a move called by many people

quite risky but very spectacular. How not, Abe

decided to implement a new visionary foreign policy

of starting a rapprochement with the Russian side

through President Putin in connection with the

settlement of the Kuril Islands territorial dispute. The

rapprochement policy began when Abe and Putin met

in Sochi, the venue for the opening of the 2016 Winter

Olympics in Russia where the event was boycotted by

the United States and many Western European

countries as a response to the inauguration of the anti-

gay laws in Russia. The Sochi meeting, which

became known by the Japanese public as the "Russian

Initiative", resulted in a new breakthrough for the

settlement of the Kuril Islands disputes where both

leaders agreed that they would use a new approach to

it (Akaha, 2016).

After the meeting in Sochi, Abe and Putin met

again in Vladivostok in a series of Eastern Economic

Forum events in September 2016. At the meeting,

there was at least agreement on three important things

namely the existence of Japan-Russia cooperation

related to the development and exploration in the far

east Russia, inaugurated the cooperation effort at the

ministry level, as well as the official state invitation

to President Putin to Japan in December 2016 (Akaha,

2016). Especially in the economic field, the

Vladivostok meeting also produced eight aspects

which later became the focus of economic

cooperation between the two countries namely

technology and information in the fields of medicine,

renewable energy, environmentally friendly energy,

petroleum, natural gas, advanced technology, and

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

618

industrialization in the Russian Far East. Russia's Far

East region became one of the focal points on which

the Japanese-Russian rapprochement policy is based.

Japan then agreed to become a partner of Russia's

cooperation in economic development efforts in the

region. Russia's Far East is strategically the main

'gateway' for Russian interaction with countries in the

Asia Pacific region including Japan. The situation and

conditions of the Far East Russia experiencing

various obstacles in the field of development regarded

Japan as one of the opportunities to increase

cooperation with Russia. The enhancement of the

cooperation not only benefits Russia but also Japan

because the Far East region of Russia is renowned for

its wealth of energy resources that could be one of the

strategic solutions for Japan to respond to the energy

crisis they are experiencing (Arai, 2016).

It is worth noting that by 2015, energy has

occupied three quarters of Japan's total imports from

Russia with details of crude oil imports of 43%,

refined oil products by 6%, and natural gas reaching

23% (Arai, 2016). Therefore, cooperation in the

energy field then became one of the important

determinants of the Japan-Russia cooperation

framework in the Russian Far East region. Finally,

strengthening cooperation in the economic and

energy sector is expected to be a strategic move

between the two countries to re-seek a settlement

related to the issue of the Kuril Islands where it is

planned to be the main agenda of Putin's state visit to

Japan in December 2016. Many parties later is

optimistic about Japan's rapprochement efforts in

which they argue that Putin and Abe's meeting in

Yamaguchi Prefecture in December will result in an

important agreement for both parties in connection

with the resolution of the Kuril Islands disputes that

have continued to experience deadlock over the past

seven decades.

From a systemic point of view, the movement

initiated by the Japanese against Russia can be

understood as a response to what then occurs at the

international system level. As the previous authors

point out, this policy is a form of sustainability of the

paradigm shift of both countries in establishing a

better rationale in the real contribution of both

countries to support the creation of a stable

international system post Cold War (Akaha, 1998).

Russia and Japan in today's relationship are

influenced by US and Chinese factors which are the

main forces of the international system in the post-

Cold War era. From a Japanese point of view, the

Chinese factor has become one of the main reasons

behind Russia's rapprochement policy because

China's emergence as one regional and even global

power has threatened Japan, both directly and

indirectly (Izumikawa, 2016). The Chinese threat

ultimately has implications for Japan's foreign policy

to draw closer to Russia. There are at least two main

reasons behind Japan's foreign policy to Russia in

response to the development of Chinese forces at both

regional and international levels. Firstly, with Japan

and Russia approaching, there is an effort to perform

a potential counterweight to the existence of China

which from time to time shows quite aggressive

behavior. Through this effort Japan does not expect to

form an anti-Chinese coalition with Russia but at least

Japan hopes that an intensity increase in its relations

with Russia could provide a restraining effect on

China's aggressive behavior while preventing Russia

from becoming too close to China (Izumikawa,

2016). The second reason is that the increasingly

aggressive behavior of China in the South China Sea

has put Japan's security focus on the southern region,

which has led Japan to push for security stabilization

in their northern regions. The stabilization effort in

question is to normalize relations with Russia,

especially those related to the dispute of Kuril Islands

(Izumikawa, 2016). Whereas from the Russian point

of view, the Chinese factor is not a crucial

determinant because in reality, Russia's interest in

China is only a pragmatic interest. Therefore, the

Chinese factor then makes Russian policy to answer

the Japanese rapprochement is also part of Russia's

pragmatic attitude to prevent political attachment

with China because in some cases like Crimean and

Ukrainian Crisis, China shows opposing attitude

toward Russia (Streltsov, 2016).

On the other hand, there are also United States

factors in the midst of Japanese and Russian relations

instability. From a Japanese perspective, the

existence of the United States as one of Japan's major

alliances subsequently impeded efforts to normalize

relations with Russia. However, the United States

factor for Japan is highly dependent on the nature of

relations between the United States and Russia

(Izumikawa, 2016). This is evidenced in the Cold

War era where the United States blocked efforts to

resolve the dispute of the Kuril Islands between Japan

and Russia which was still a Soviet Union that in fact

is the opposite of the United States in a bipolar

international system. However, the end of the Cold

War made the nature of relations between the United

States and Russia better so that it had a direct impact

on Japan's efforts to normalize its relations with

Russia where the United States saw that the

settlement of the Kuril Islands dispute was a positive

and must-do thing. This is the basis for Abe to run a

rapprochement policy against Russia despite its

Japan’s Rapprochement to Russia: Japan’s Pragmatic Response to the Dynamics of Contemporary International System

619

efforts, the tension of relations between the United

States and Russia again increased after the Crimean

case (Izumikawa, 2016).

The United States factor is also becoming

increasingly complex as US and Russian relations

deteriorate where China becomes the third party to

become Russia's main alliance to counterbalancing

the interests of the United States where Chinese

involvement will ultimately complicate Japan's

position towards Russia (Izumikawa, 2016).

However, after the US presidential election in

December, many people are then optimistic about the

smoothness of Japan's rapprochement policy towards

Russia because the elected American President

Donald Trump is known to have a good relationship

with President Putin. Meanwhile, from the Russian

point of view, the existence of the United States amid

efforts to normalize relations with Japan to make

Russia has always been a dead end. This is because

the binding position of the United States-Japan

alliance makes the Russian Government a bit

skeptical of the normalization of relations with Japan

(Streltsov, 2016). However, with the declining

hegemony of the United States, Russia then exploits

Japanese pragmatism to get closer to them where

Russia shows Japan that the cooperation between

them will result in both economic profit and the

neutrality of Russia's position related to competition

between Japan and China (Streltsov, 2016).

Furthermore, Chen Yo-Jung sees this Russian-

Japanese rapprochement policy as a strategic move

that exploits systemic environmental situations and

conditions at the international level in a broader

perspective. The systemic environment referred to by

Yo-Jung here is the situation and condition occurring

in the G-7 forum which is known as the forum for the

gathering of the developed countries which is

considered the 'main force' of the world especially in

the economic field where this is proven by a total of

64% global net worth is represented by the G-7

countries. Initially, the G-7 member states constituted

one of Japan's 'major obstacles' in rapprochement

against Russia where the United States became one of

the major 'obstacles' in which it was influenced by

Russia's aggressive policy in the Crimea. The

Crimean case puts the G-7 countries on top of

economic sanctions against Russia and Japan,

including one of the countries that approved the

sanctions (Yo-Jung, 2016). However, the systemic

dynamics that occurred in the body of the G-7 then

made Japan seem to regain its chances of

rapprochement to Russia where it is actually one of

the 'violations' of the G-7's decision to sanction

Russia.

The systemic dynamics referred to by the authors

here refers to the domestic dynamics of each of the G-

7 member states, especially the United States, Britain,

France and Germany (Yo-Jung, 2016). As mentioned

earlier, the United States as one of the most influential

parties in the G-7 and the international world is

focusing on the most 'shocking' presidential elections

throughout the nation-state's history where Japan saw

that Donald Trump, presidential candidate is a close

ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. After

Trump's victory in the US presidential election will

make Japan's rapprochement policy smoother as the

United States in the Obama era is one of Japan's main

obstacles to return to Russia (Yo-Jung, 2016).

Western European countries are also inseparable

from their domestic problems. Britain is experiencing

a fairly serious identity crisis after the Brexit incident

where Britain surprisingly decided to quit the EU

membership after conducting a referendum. France is

facing terrorism problems as well as preparing for

elections in 2017. While Germany is facing an

unresolved refugee crisis from the Middle East (Yo-

Jung, 2016). This systemic condition at the

international level is ultimately able to encourage

Japan to smooth its rapprochement plan against

Russia where talks on signing a peace agreement

through the settlement of Kuril Islands disputes will

be the main agenda of Japan and Russia in the effort

of the rapprochement.economy. In addition, the

strong influence of China in the Asian continent also

made the United States paranoid to lose the area since

the end of the Second World War has been close and

dependent on the role model of the United States.

Through the theory of Long Cycles proposed by

George Modelski, the pattern of US movements in the

implementation of Pivot to Asia foreign policy is not

only the writer wants to balance the situation at the

global level as the official statement from the United

States government. There is another interest in

stifling China's increasingly aggressive growth and

challenging the position of the United States as a

world power.

5 CONCLUSION

From the above explanations, the authors can draw

two simple conclusions which show that the policy

adopted by Japan and Russia related to the signing of

a peace agreement based on the settlement of the

Kuril Islands dispute is the response of the two

countries to the systemic dynamics occurring at the

international level. First, after the end of the Cold War

there was a paradigm shift between Japan and Russia

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

620

in the settlement of the territorial dispute of the Kuril

Islands where it was marked by the increasingly

improved Tokyo-Moscow relations in Yeltsin and

Hashimoto era. Although still ending in a deadlock

situation, the existence of an intention to contribute

significantly to the establishment of a more stable

international system post Cold War has encouraged

Japan and Russia to engage in economic and energy

cooperation in the Russian Far East where it is

manifested in order reaching a new stage of

establishing better relations between the two

countries.

Secondly, the dynamics of the contemporary

international system then again succeeded in pushing

Japan to a step further in normalizing its relationship

with Russia, especially with regard to issues of

territorial disputes. The progress is realized through

the formulation and implementation of a fairly

visionary and pragmatic Japanese policy of

rapprochement to Russia in 2016. The policy includes

more comprehensive economic and energy

cooperation with Russia in the Russian Far East focal

point where the policy is perceived by many parties

as one of the crucial stepping stone to bridge the

settlement of the Kuril Islands disputes as well as the

achievement of a peace agreement between the two

parties. The author then saw the event as a response

of Japan and Russia to the dynamics of the

international system in the contemporary era that was

marked by the declining hegemonitas of the United

States, the increasing role and influence of China at

regional and international levels, and uncertain

conditions at level G-7 which in fact is countries that

have a major influence in the systemic environment

at the international level. Finally, at this point the

authors see that the various attempts to solve the

problems between Japan and Russia that began from

1956 to 2016 are inseparable from both the

dilemmatic and pragmatic attitude of both countries

in the face of the dynamics occurring within the scope

of the international system of the War era Cold, post

Cold War, until the contemporary era today.

REFERENCES

Agnew, John, 2001.”The New Global Economy: Time-

Space Compression, Geopolitics and Global Uneven

Development” In Journal of World-Systems Research.

Los Angeles: University of California.

Akaha, Tsuneo. 1998. “A Paradigm Shift in Russo-

Japanese Relations”, In Demokratizatsiya: The

Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, No. 2, pp.

347-362.

Akaha, Tsuneo. 2016. “Russia and Japan: from Distant

Neighbors to Future Partners”, In Russia

and Japan Looking Together into the Future.

Vladivostok: Far East Federal University.

Arai, Hirofumi. 2016. “Prospect for Japan-Russia

Cooperation in the Far East Russia”, In

Russia and Japan Looking Together into the

Future. Vladivostok: Far East Federal University.

Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A

Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Crompton, Samuel Willard. 1997. 100 Wars That Shaped

World History. California : Bluewoods Books.

Gorenburg, Dmitry. 2012. “The Southern Kuril Islands

Dispute”, In PONARS Eurasia: New Approacges to

Research and Security in EURASIA, No. 226. New

York: IERES. pp. 1-7.

Hudson, Valerie M. 2007. “The Levels of National

Attributes and International System: Effects on Foreign

Policy” In Foreign Policy Analysis, Classic, and

Contemporary Theory. Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Izumikawa, Yasuhiro. 2016. “Japan’s Approach toward

Russia under Shinzo Abe: A Strategic View”, In

Japan-Russia Relations: Implications for the U.S-

Japan Alliances. Washington D.C: Sasakawa

Peace Foundation USA.

Jackson, R. dan Sorensen, G., 1999. Introduction to

International Relations. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Meyer, Peggy Falkenheim. 1998. “Russo-Japanese

Relations: Opportunity for a Rapprochement?”,

In Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet

Democratization, No. 2, pp. 363-379.

Miller, John H. 2004. Japan and Russia: Prisoners of

History?. Hawaii: Asia-Pacific Center for Security

Studies.

Neack, Laura, 2008. The New Foreign Policy: Power

Seeking in a Globalized Era. Maryland:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Singer, David J. 1961. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in

International Relations”, In World Politics, 14 (1) :

77-92.

Streltsov, Dmitry. 2016. “Russia’s Approach to Japan under

Vladimir Putin: A Strategic View”, In Japan-

Russia Relations: Implications for the U.S- Japan

Alliances. WashingtonD.C: Sasakawa Peace

Foundation USA.

Yo-Jung, Chen. 2016. What Japan-Russia Rapprochement

Means for the World [online] In

http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/what-japan-russia-

rapprochement-means-for-the-world/ (Accessed

31 Desember 2016).

Japan’s Rapprochement to Russia: Japan’s Pragmatic Response to the Dynamics of Contemporary International System

621