Archive for the President Medvedev Category

“The End of Reset” – Obama’s feint towards Russian rapprochement collapses [Strategic Culture Foundation]

Posted in Belarus, NATO, Pentagon, President Medvedev, Russia, Ukraine, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR on December 26, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Leonid IVASHOV | 27.11.2011

US Department of State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced on November 22 that the US stops [sic] supplying to Russia the data on conventional arms in Europe. Furthermore, Russian inspectors would not be admitted to US military bases in Europe. What could be the reasoning behind the radical US step which, it must be noted, fits with a wider trend in Washington’s decision-making?

First, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which was pompously penned in 1990 and imposed constraints on the deployment of non-nuclear arms on the continent, was supposed to be a deal between two blocs – NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Secondly, its underlying compromise was political rather than military in nature as naval weapons, cruise missiles, air defense, etc. remained outside of the CFE Treaty’s scope.

Thirdly, the world’s configuration changed since the time the CFE Treaty was formulated, with new independent states coming into being and some of the former Eastern bloc countries joining NATO. Automatically, the Treaty’s provisions did not account for their existence.

An amended version of the CFE Treaty signed in Istanbul in 1999 similarly reflected a compromise of a political character. It grew out of negotiations which, even though champaign [sic] was occasionally served in the process, dragged on with great difficulty. On top of that, the subsequent ratification took ages – the refreshed CFE treaty was ratified by Russia only in 2004, with Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine following the lead shortly. NATO countries showed even less enthusiasm to ratify it. Russia eventually suspended the CFE Treaty in 2007.

As it follows from the above, this November Washington scrapped a de facto meaningless agreement. Back in 2007, Russia’s foreign ministry bluntly confirmed that the CFE Treaty was dead when it released a comment explaining that the agreement signed in the Cold War era was long out of sync with the realities of the transformed Europe and could not contribute to the international security. Gen. Yu. Baluyevsky who was the Russian army’s chief of general staff at the time even charged NATO with exceeding the ceilings set by the Treaty by thousands of units.

Mrs. Nuland of the US Department of State did say that the doors were open for further talks, but the remark read as a mere tribute to the norms of diplomatic politeness. If, as US officials assert, Washington is interested in reanimating the Treaty or attracting Moscow to new negotiations over its subject, the natural first step for the US would be to take the locks off the doors. For example, NATO could express readiness to keep sticking to the Treaty quotas, to account for the Baltic republics’ military potentials in the overall balance, etc. It is clear, though, that the US is not going to do anything of the kind, as otherwise it would have to pull some of its forces – tanks, armored vehicles, canons, and copters – out of Europe and thus weaken its grip on the continent.

Moscow responded to Washington’s move within hours: President Medvedev made a statement pertinent to the key element of the reset policy framework – namely, the recent New START Treaty. Upon mentioning that the treaty confirmed the linkage between the offensive and defensive strategic armaments and allowed Russia to withdraw from it under appropriate conditions, the Russian leader made it clear that Russia “reserves the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control measures”. The statement could impress the media but not the Pentagon where, no doubt, the present-day modest capabilities of the Russian army and military-industrial complex are assessed with full realism.

Washington’s heavily advertised reset in the relations with Moscow ended with a fabulous failure, and no other outcome could be realistically expected from the outset. The reason is that over roughly the last 150 years the US was building a vision of the world such that Russia – Soviet, post-Soviet or sustaining any other social and political system – was a priori regarded as an enemy. From A. Mahan to Z. Brzezinski, US geostrategies were centered around crushing Russia as a prologue to the US global primacy. A couple of illustrative examples are given below.

A. Mahan wrote that the US should gain control over the entire part of South Asia stretching from the 30 to the 40 parallel and start pushing the Russian nation to the north. His plan was that – as, by the laws of nature, the termination of growth necessarily leads to decline – the Russians would be doomed if locked up in their northern territories. Z. Brzezinski, in his turn, coined the thesis that the new world order would be built on the wreckage of Russia, at the expense of Russia, and would be used against Russia.

It is not surprising, therefore, that US President W. Wilson suggested partitioning Russia in 1918 or that US President R. Reagan used to condemn the Soviet Union as the “evil empire”.

A credible reset in the US-Russian relations would take a reset in the minds of the US politicians and financial players who would have to embrace a completely new geopolitical vision and delete irreversibly their absurd dream of world dominance…

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:


“Russian voters punish Putin; observers cite irregularities” – Communists make substantial gains []

Posted in Hillary Clinton, President Medvedev, Russia, State Department, USSR on December 9, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

I’m not sure what to make of Russian Communist allegations of electoral fraud, a charge currently echoed by the infamous Hillary Clinton and US State Department. I would hate to find out that there is any kind of alliance there. At any rate, US politicians are hardly qualified to judge political malfeasance or “democracy” with the sick joke of USA democracy being what it is. As if anyone elected Clinton to her current post. – Zuo Shou

By staff and wire services

Reuters reports that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s ruling party lost 77 seats in parliament in an election held on Sunday, according to projections made by the Central Election Commission based on preliminary results. Putin’s United Russia is expected to end up with 238 seats, a slim majority in the 450-member lower house. The party previously held a two-thirds majority allowing it to change the constitution without opposition support.

The Communist Party made substantial gains…

…Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov dismissed the official results as “theft on an especially grand scale.” His party made big gains in Sunday’s election….

…Zyuganov told Reuters that police had barred Communist monitors from several polling stations and “some ended up in hospital with broken bones”.

….Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganovm, whose party was on target to increase its representation from 57 to 92 in the Duma, alleged that some ballot boxes were stuffed before voting began.

“The country has never seen such a dirty election,” he added.

…Russia’s communists, which seemed to have no future when the Soviet Union disintegrated 20 years ago, drew students, intellectuals, even some businessmen in forging an opposition to Putin’s United Russia party, Reuters reported.

The party was running second to United Russia as counting continued on Monday, according to the Moscow Times. While the final results have yet to be determined, initial counting indicates that the party, which the Moscow Times said “crushingly dominated” Russia’s politics for years, was set to lose its decisive majority the Duma.

United Russia was set to win about 50 percent of the vote over the weekend, down from 64 percent in the 2007 elections, the newspaper reported.

The results will mean that United Russia will most likely be forced to work with the communists and two other parties that made gains in the elections — the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party and Just Russia, a social democratic party, The New York Times reported. Over 90 percent of the votes had been counted by Monday morning, the newspaper reported.

“We have received thousands of calls from regional offices, confirming massive violations and fraud,” Communist Party deputy head Ivan Melnikov said on the party website, according to the BBC. “Throughout the day, it was like receiving reports from a war zone.”

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

China calls for Libyan political solution [People’s Daily]

Posted in Africa, China, Libya, President Medvedev, Russia, UNSC on June 24, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

June 8, 2011

China urged all parties in Libya to reach an immediate cease-fire and resolve the crisis through political means, adding that it was willing to work with the international community to seek a political solution.

“Libya’s future should be decided by its own people, and China respects the Libyan people’s choice,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a regular news conference on Tuesday.

He called on all parties to “fully consider the mediation proposals put forward by the international community to defuse tensions as soon as possible”.

Asked if China was hoping to act as mediator between the Libyan government and the rebels, Hong sidestepped the question. “China is working along with the international community to resolve the Libyan crisis politically,” he replied…

…China has so far stuck to its public position of not taking sides in the fighting in Libya.

Chinese analysts said that talks over a political solution are the only effective means to end the crisis.

He Wenping, chief of African studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the main reason for the Libyan foreign minister’s visit is to “seek China’s support”.

China also wants to take the opportunity to learn more about the situation in Libya, including the possibility of a political resolution to the crisis, she said….

…NATO officials have warned for days that they were seeking to increase the scope and intensity of their two-month old campaign to oust Gadhafi.

Yin Gang, a research fellow at the West Asian and African Studies Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said China has been consistently calling for a political solution in Libya.

“[Libyan Foreign Minister] Obeidi’s visit suggests the Libyan government shares the same view,” Yin said.

On China’s first confirmed contact with the Libyan rebel leader, Yin told China Daily that it “complies with the consistent stance of China’s diplomacy”.

“China is the last permanent member of the UN Security Council to meet with the rebels. More importantly, among the major powers, only Russia and China have kept communication with both sides in Libya. China hopefully will play a more important role,” Yin added.

China and Russia abstained when the UN Security Council voted to authorize a no-fly zone in Libya in March, but quickly condemned the subsequent expansion of air strikes….

Hua Liming, a former ambassador to the Middle East, said China’s recent diplomatic moves suggested that it wanted both sides in the Libyan conflict to be involved in negotiations.

Contact will “facilitate the peace process”, Hua said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Source: China Daily

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

“LIBYA: All about Oil, or all about Banking?” by Ellen Brown [Web of Debt blog]

Posted in Africa, Cameron, Canada, DPR Korea, EU, European Union, France, IMF - International Monetary Fund, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, NATO, Obama, President Medvedev, Russia, Sarkozy, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, U.K., UNSC, USA, Venezuela, Western nations' human rights distortions on May 1, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

If the Gaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors, and whether education and health care continue to be free.

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank – this before they even had a government.  Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.  This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

Alex Newman wrote in the New American:

In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya.  Supposedly it’s about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory.  According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:

As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body’s Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya’s human rights record.

Continue reading

Russian warplanes interrupted US-Japan drill [People’s Daily]

Posted in Encirclement of China, Japan, Naoto Kan, President Medvedev, Russia, Tokyo, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR on December 9, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

December 9, 2010

Russian airplanes flew in the region of a joint US-Japanese military drill, a naval spokesman said on Wednesday, heightening tensions in a territorial dispute between Tokyo and Moscow.

“The area is our zone of responsibility. The airplanes carried out a planned flight in an area of the Russian Pacific Fleet’s regular activity,” said Roman Markov, a spokesman for the fleet.

“Our pilots did not violate any rules of international air space,” he said.

Japan’s Sankei newspaper had earlier reported that Russian patrol planes had interrupted joint US and Japanese military drills this week when they entered airspace above where the exercises were being conducted in the Sea of Japan.

Markov said that two Ilyushin-38 airplanes — a maritime patrol and an anti-submarine aircraft — had made the flights.

Ties between Japan and Russia have been strained since Russian President Dmitry Medvedev infuriated Tokyo last month by becoming the first Russian leader to visit one of a string of islands claimed by both countries.

His trip to the islands — called the Southern Kuriles in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan — caused Tokyo to recall its ambassador for consultations.

The Soviet Union occupied the four islands at the end of the war and the territorial row has weighed on ties between Tokyo and Moscow ever since, precluding a formal peace treaty.

Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara viewed the islands from a plane on Saturday, and media reports speculated that the Russian action could have been in response to the move.

Russia responded on Saturday by saying any country was free to view “Russia’s natural beauty”.

Politicians in both Japan and Russia have used tough talk on the dispute to bolster their credentials as patriots, but a Russian military source on Wednesday said the flights were not meant as a provocation.

“Similar flights of the Pacific Ocean Fleet occur regularly in the region and flights on Tuesday were carried out in the framework of military training,” state-news agency Interfax quoted the high-ranking military source as saying.

Military exercises between the United States and Japan are taking place from December 3-10, with the participation of some 44,500 personnel.

The exercises are a regular occurrence, but this year come amid heightened tensions in the region after [a North Korea / South Korean artillery skirmish].

The row between Russia and Japan has spelled more bad news for Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, whose support ratings sank this year, partly due to his handling of a spat with China over another set of islands that both nations claim.

Article link:

Fidel Castro on NATO’s fascistization in Lisbon: “NATO, world gendarme “

Posted in Afghan quagmire, Afghanistan, Australia, Capitalism crisis early 21st century, China, Corporate Media Critique, Cuba, Economic crisis & decline, Fascism, Fidel Castro, G20, Hiroshima, NATO, NATO invasion, Nazism, Neo-colonialism, Obama, Pakistan, Portugal, President Medvedev, Russia, USSR, World War II, Yugoslavia - former FRY on November 30, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

This is the definitive article on NATO’s patently evil mid-November 2010 “re-branding” in Lisbon, Portugal – Zuo Shou 左手

Havana. November 22, 2010

[NATO] — Many people feel sickened on hearing the name of that organization.

On Friday, November 19, 2010 in Lisbon, Portugal, the 28 members of that bellicose institution engendered by the United States, decided to create what they cynically describe as “the new NATO.”

The institution emerged after World War II as an instrument of the Cold War unleashed by imperialism on the Soviet Union, the country which paid for the victory over Nazism with tens of millions of lives and colossal destruction.

The United States mobilized against the USSR, together with a healthy part of the European population, the extreme right and the Nazi-fascist scum of Europe, full of hatred and prepared to squeeze every advantage out of the errors committed by the very leaders of the USSR after the death of Lenin.

The Soviet people, with great sacrifice, were able to maintain nuclear parity and support the national liberation struggles of many peoples against the efforts of European states to maintain the colonial system imposed by force throughout the centuries; states that were postwar allies of the yankee empire, which assumed command of the counterrevolution worldwide.

In just 10 days – less than two weeks – world opinion has received three great and unforgettable lessons: the G20, APEC and NATO in Seoul, Yokohama and Lisbon, in such a way that all upstanding people who can read and write, and whose minds have not been mutilated by the conditioned reflexes of imperialism’s media apparatus, can have a real idea of the problems currently affecting humanity.

In Lisbon, not one word was uttered that could convey hope to the billions of people enduring poverty, underdevelopment, insufficient food, housing, health, education and employment.

On the contrary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the vain character who figures as secretary general of the NATO military mafia, declared in the tone of a little Nazi fuehrer, that the “new strategic concept” was in order “to act in any part of the world.”

It was not for nothing that the government of Turkey was at the point of vetoing his appointment when, in April 2009, Fogh Rasmussen – a neoliberal Dane – in his position as prime minister of Denmark, and using the pretext of freedom of the press, defended the authors of serious offenses to the Prophet Mahoma, a figure respected by all Muslim believers.

More than a few people in the world can recall the close relations of cooperation between the Danish government and the Nazi “invaders” during World War II.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a bird of prey hatched in the skirts of yankee imperialism, and moreover equipped with tactical nuclear weapons many times more destructive than the atom bomb that erased the city of Hiroshima, has been committed by the United States to the genocidal Afghanistan war, even more complex than the Kosovo adventure and the war on Serbia, where its forces massacred the city of Belgrade and were at the point of suffering a disaster if the government of that country had remained firm, instead of trusting in the institutions of European justice in the Hague.

In one of its points, the inglorious Lisbon Declaration affirms in a vague and abstract manner:

“In the strategically important Western Balkans region, democratic values, regional cooperation and good neighborly relations are important for lasting peace and stability.”

“KFOR is moving towards a smaller, more flexible, deterrent presence.”


Nor will Russia be able to forget it so easily: the real fact is that when Yeltsin dismembered the USSR, the United States advanced NATO’s borders and its nuclear attack bases to the heart of Russia from Europe and Asia.

Those new military installations also threatened the People’s Republic of China and other Asian countries.

When that took place in 1991, hundreds of SS-19s, SS-20s and other powerful Soviet weapons could reach U.S. and NATO bases in Europe in a matter of seconds. No NATO secretary general would have dared to talk with the arrogance of Rasmussen.

The first agreement on limiting nuclear weapons was signed as early as May 26, 1972, between President Richard Nixon of the United States and Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the aim of limiting the number of anti-ballistic missiles (the ABM Treaty) and to defend certain points against nuclear missiles.

In Vienna in 1979, Brezhnev and Carter signed new agreements known as SALT II, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify those agreements.

The new rearmament promoted by Reagan with the Strategic Defense Initiative put en end to the SALT agreements.

The Siberian gas pipeline had already been blown up by the CIA.

Instead, a new agreement was signed in 1991 between Bush Sr. and Gorbachev, five months before the collapse of the USSR. When that event took place, the socialist bloc no longer existed. The countries that the Red Army had liberated from Nazi occupation were not even capable of maintaining their independence. Right-wing governments that came to power moved into NATO with their arms and equipment and fell into the hands of the United States. The German Democratic Republic, which had made a great effort under the leadership of Erich Honecker, could not overcome the ideological and consumerist offensive launched from the capital itself, occupied by Western troops.

As the virtual master of the world, the United States increased its adventurist and warmongering policy.

Due to a well manipulated process, the USSR disintegrated. The coup de grace was dealt it by Boris Yeltsin on December 8, 1991 when, as president of the Russian Federation, he declared that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. On the 25th of that month, the red hammer and sickle flag flying over the Kremlin was lowered.

A third agreement on strategic weapons was subsequently signed between George W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993, prohibiting the use of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) with multiple warheads. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate on January 26, 1993, by a margin of 87 votes to 4.

Russia inherited the science and technology of the USSR – which in spite of the war and enormous sacrifice was capable of creating a military power on a level with that of the immense and rich yankee empire – the victory over fascism, the traditions, the culture and the glories of the Russian people.

The war on Serbia, a Slavic nation, sunk its teeth hard into the security of the Russian people, something that no government could afford itself the luxury of ignoring.

The Russian Duma – angered by the first Iraq war and that of Kosovo in which NATO massacred the Serb people – refused to ratify START II and did not sign that agreement until the year 2000 and, in that case, in an attempt to save the ABM treaty which, by that date, the yankees weren’t interested in maintaining.

The United States is trying to use its enormous media resources to maintain, deceive and confuse world public opinion.

The government of that country is going through a difficult stage as a consequence of its military adventures. All the NATO countries without exception are committed to the Afghanistan war, as are various others in the world, whose peoples find odious and repugnant the butchery in which rich and industrialized countries such as Japan and Australia, and other Third World nations are involved in to a greater or lesser degree.

What is the essence of the agreement approved in April of this year by the United States and Russia? Both parties have committed themselves to reducing the number of the strategic nuclear missiles to 1,550. Not one word is being said about the nuclear missiles of France, the United Kingdom and Israel, all of them capable of striking Russia. Not one word has been said either about tactical nuclear weapons, some of them with far more power than that which erased the city of Hiroshima. There is no mention of the destructive and lethal capacity of numerous conventional weapons, the radio-electric and other weapons systems into which the United States is channeling its growing military budget, superior to that of all the other nations of the world put together. Both governments know, as many others meeting there do, that a third world war would be the last.

What kind of illusions can the NATO members create? What is the peace for humanity derived from that meeting? What benefit can possibly be expected for the peoples of the Third World, and even for the international economy?

They cannot even offer the hope that the world economic crisis can be overcome, or how much longer any improvement would last. The total public debt of the United States, not only that of central government, but the rest of the country’s public and private institutions, has already risen to a figure that is equal to the world GDP of 2009, which amounted to $58 trillion. Did those meeting in Lisbon maybe think to ask themselves where those fabulous resources came from? Simply, from the economy of all the other nations in the world, to which the United States handed over pieces of paper converted into dollar bills which, for 40 years now, unilaterally ceased having their backing in gold, and now that the value of that metal is 40 times superior. That country still possesses its veto within the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Why wasn’t that discussed in Portugal?

The hope of extracting U.S. troops, those of NATO and their allies from Afghanistan, is an idyllic one. They will have to abandon that country before the defeated hand over power to the Afghan resistance. The United States’ own allies are beginning to acknowledge that dozens of years could go by before that war is over; is NATO prepared to remain there for all that time? Would the very citizens of each one of the governments meeting there allow that? Not to forget that a country with a very large population, Pakistan, shares a border of colonial origin with Afghanistan and a none-too insignificant percentage of its inhabitants.

I am not criticizing Medvedev, he is acting very well in trying to limit the number of nuclear missiles pointing at his country. Barack Obama cannot invent any justification whatsoever for that. It would be laughable to imagine that that colossal and costly deployment of the anti-missile nuclear shield is to protect Europe and Russia from Iranian missiles proceeding from a country which does not even possess a tactical nuclear weapon. Not even a children’s story book could affirm that.

Obama has already admitted that his promise to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan could be delayed and that taxes from the wealthiest contributors are to be immediately suspended. After the Nobel Prize one would have to grant him the prize for the “greatest snake charmer “ever to have existed.

Taking into account the W. Bush autobiography, which has already become a bestseller, and which some intelligent editor drafted for him, why didn’t they do him the honor of inviting him to Lisbon? The extreme right, the “Tea Party” of Europe, would doubtless have been happy.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 21, 2010

8:36 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

U.S. backs Japan on islands dispute with Russia: State Department [People’s Daily]

Posted in Japan, President Medvedev, Russia, State Department, US foreign occupation, USA on November 16, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Because the US is so objective about international situations involving countries they militarily occupy in other hemispheres. – Zuo Shou 左手

November 2, 2010

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said on Monday that the United States backs Japan on its islands dispute with Russian [sic].

“We do back Japan regarding the northern territories,” Crowley told reporters when asked to comment on the issue.

He said the United States has encouraged Japan and Russia to negotiate an actual peace treaty regarding the dispute and other issues.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday morning visited Kunashiri Island, one of the Russian-held islands also claimed by Japan.

Medvedev becomes the first leader from Russia or the former Soviet Union to travel to any of the disputed islands, which are called the Northern Territories in Japan and the Southern Kurils in Russia.

The visit has sparked strong reaction from Japan. Upon Medvedev ‘s arrival on the island, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara summoned Russian ambassador to lodge a protest against the visit.

The Russian envoy, however, insisted that the president’s visit is Russia’s domestic issue.

In return, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavor said on Monday that Japanese ambassador will be summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry over Tokyo’s reaction to Medvedev’s visit to Kuril Islands.

The minister told a press conference that Japanese reaction to Medvedev’s visit was “unacceptable”, adding that “this is our land and the Russian president visited Russian land.”

The four disputed Pacific islands were occupied by the Soviet troops in 1945 and are currently under Russian control.

Russia and Japan have long been at odds due to the territorial dispute over these islands, which has blocked a peace treaty between the two countries since the end of World War II.

Source: Xinhua

Article link: