318 
port for their Asian power schemes. The Soviet Union has proposed 
an Asian collective security system, which would both weaken Amer- 
ican influence and secure a position for the Soviet Union in Asian 
affairs. This Soviet effort based upon strategic concerns has been 
countered by a clause in the proposed Sino-Japanese peace and friend- 
ship treaty. Condemned by the Soviet Union, this clause inserted 
by Peking is directed against “hegemony in Asia of a third power” 
in fairly obvious reference to the Soviet Union. In this aspect, China 
has gained a diplomatic advantage over the Soviet Union. Japan will 
not consider the possibility of a treaty with the Soviet Union until 
the territorial dispute is settled in its favor. The Soviet Union has 
warned Japan about the detrimental effect the proposed Sino-Japanese 
treaty would have upon Soviet-Japanese relations. However, Soviet 
concessions in the fisheries issue could serve as a means to gain 
Japanese support against Peking and perhaps deflect some attention 
away from the problematic territorial issue. 
PROSPECTS AND ISSUE 
This case study of the Soviet-Japanese fisheries issue has been 
presented in an attempt to show Soviet oceans policy in action. A 
movement toward cooperation is discernible in the development of 
bilateral fishing relations since 1956. The fisheries negotiations provide 
a bilateral forum for discussion of related activities and ocean policy. 
The stature of the Soviet Union and Japan as major fishing powers 
and their geographic proximity heightens the intensity of competition 
in their relationship. The expansion of fishing activities by both coun- 
tries and consequent depletion of resources necessitate some form 
of cooperation in order to avoid conflict. As one manifestation of 
oceans policy, fishery activities reflect the interplay of political and 
economic interests together with environmental concerns. 
However, certain fundamental problems continue to aggravate fish- 
ing relations and thus bilateral relations in general. The territorial 
dispute referred to by the Japanese as the ‘Northern Territories” 
issue, will remain unresolved for some time in view of its significance 
for both sides on many different levels. This lack of resolution 
precludes the conclusion of the elusive peace treaty, at least according 
to the Japanese. The Soviets, however, persist in their efforts to con- 
clude the treaty first. Disagreement on this level carries over into 
the realm of fishing activities. The return of the Japanese to their 
traditional fishing grounds has often resulted in encounters with Soviet 
authorities on charges of violating Soviet territory. Both at home 
and through diplomatic channels, the Japanese continue to protest 
vehemently the often harsh treatment of their fishermen. At the same 
time, Soviet occupation of the southern Kurile Islands permits their 
use for strategic and economic purposes, thereby gaining greater ac- 
cess to the sea. 
The issue of safe fishing operations has been raised by the Japanese 
in two different locations: the high seas near their coastline and the 
waters near the disputed islands. While the 1975 agreement pertains 
to the first area, Japanese fishing in the second is complicated by 
the sensitive territorial issue and therefore not subject to an easy 
solution. Japanese operations in this area and in crab fishing on the 
