A Quote by Vladimir Putin

At the request of my Japanese colleagues, in 2000 we revisited the possibility of signing a peace treaty based on the 1956 agreement. — © Vladimir Putin
At the request of my Japanese colleagues, in 2000 we revisited the possibility of signing a peace treaty based on the 1956 agreement.
The peace process we all aim for will not necessarily be a result of the mere signing of a treaty or agreement. It must become a matter of our everyday lives, so that peace settles and lasts and becomes supported by everybody. We therefore have to give peace all the required care and preserve it and promote it.
This is the large range of issues we have to discuss [with Shinz? Abe] and make a decision on each one of them. Look, after the resumption of the negotiating process in 2000, we did not refuse to consistently work toward signing this peace treaty.
Back in 1956, we signed a treaty and surprisingly it was ratified both by the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union and the Japanese Parliament. But then Japan refused to implement it and after that the Soviet Union also, so to say, nullified all the agreements reached within the framework of the treaty.
In 2000 the then Prime Minister of Japan [Yoshir? Mori] asked me to return to this process, this conversation, these talks, and to do so, incidentally, on the basis of the 1956 declaration. I agreed. Since then we have conducted dialogue in this regard but I cannot say that our Japanese partners and friends have remained within the limits of the 1956 declaration.
If we act together along these lines, we will create conditions, the conditions for trust that Shinz? Abe speaks about, so as to take another step and conclude a peace treaty on certain terms. However, first, it is essential to cover this part of the way and then agree on the terms for signing a peace treaty. Both are challenging tasks but they are feasible.
You recalled the 1956 declaration, and this declaration established the rules that should be followed by both sides and that should be put into the foundation of a peace treaty. If you carefully read the text of this document, you will see that the declaration will take effect after we sign a peace treaty and the two islands [Kunashir and Shikotan] are transferred to Japan. It does not say on what terms they should be transferred and what side will exercise sovereignty over them.
There is still work to be done, but that remains a crucial lesson, you cannot bring peace and security to people just by signing an agreement. In fact, most peace agreements don't last.
The framework for peace signed by Egypt and Israel is almost a peace treaty. We solved the problem for the peace treaty 98%.
To be treaty person means coexist in peace and with mutual respect. That's at the core of these treaties. They intended for us to mutually benefit from sharing the land and its resources. To us, this contract and agreement is a sacred covenant whose signing was witnessed by your God, we call him the Creator, and by your angels, we call them ancestors. You can't break that. We didn't just sign it one day. It took months to prepare, to plan, to seek guidance.
We do not trade territories although concluding a peace treaty with Japan is certainly a key issue and we would like to find a solution to this problem together with our Japanese friends.
We were in negotiations, but then the Japanese side suspended them unilaterally. Now, at the request of our Japanese partners, we have reopened these talks.
There are two major peace agreements. One is a comprehensive peace agreement that was consummated by the extremely beneficial intersession of the George Bush administration, who called on John Danforth, the former senator from Missouri, to negotiate a peace agreement after eight years during which President Clinton did not want to promote peace in the Mideast - I mean, in Sudan. And that's holding so far.
We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a mean, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement.
NAFTA, by itself, will not collapse. The possibility is that the United States leaves the treaty, but the treaty itself would keep regulating relations between Canada and Mexico.
The United States stands by its friends. Israel is one of its friends Peace can be based only on agreement between the parties and agreement can be achieved only through negotiations between them. The United States will not impose the terms of peace. The United States is prepared to supply military equipment necessary to support the efforts of friendly governments, like Israel's, to defend the safety of their people.
Forgiveness offers the possibility of two types of peace: peace of mind - the potential healing of old emotional wounds, and peace with others - the possibility of new, more gratifying relationships in the future.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!