p To lay down well-defined and clear-cut standards of reference to identify aggression was a matter of great importance. Therefore, on February 6, 1933, the Soviet government 33 brought before the Geneva Disarmament Conference a draft declaration to identify the attacking side. To work out generally acceptable principles to define aggression was of great importance, above all, to the nations facing an immediate threat of attack. The aggressor countries were seeking all kinds of excuses to justify their attack on other states. To have accepted the Soviet-proposed definition of aggression would have made it impossible for an attack on other nations to be justified by any excuse and easier to identify the guilty party promptly and properly in the event of an armed conflict, and, thereby, to apply the necessary joint measures against the aggression. The Soviet draft was examined by the Security Committee of the Disarmament Conference and approved by it with some amendments.^^69^^

p However, when the Soviet draft declaration was referred to the General Commission of the Conference, it became obvious that its passage was being dragged out. Some imperialist powers did not conceal that they found this definition of aggression “inconvenient” and “embarrassing”. Reporting to Moscow on March 11, 1933, on the consideration of the Soviet proposal, the Soviet representative at the Conference V. S. Dovgalevsky wrote that it had been supported by the delegates of France, of the Little Entente, Scandinavian and some other states. But other imperialist powers —Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S. and Britain took up a different stance.^^70^^ Britain’s position, which was presented by Anthony Eden, was particularly negative.

p Under the circumstances, the Soviet government decided to press for the acceptance of its proposal in a different way. On April 19, Litvinov, on instructions from the Soviet government, handed to the Polish Minister in Moscow Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the proposal to call a conference so as to sign the protocol on the definition of aggression between the USSR and the nations of the Eastern Europe which had concluded non-aggression pacts with the Soviet Union. The People’s Commissar said that such a protocol would strengthen mutual confidence between the nations of Eastern Europe. It would be a reassuring factor in the "troubled international situation" and would likewise stimulate the acceptance of the definition of aggression by other states.^^71^^ The Polish government, however, took a negative line on this question, thus frustrating the proposed conference.

p Taking advantage of the arrival of representatives of all 34 neighbouring states in London in June 1933 (for the economic conference which was meeting there) Litvinov called on them to sign a convention about the definition of aggression right there, in London. The People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs cabled to the People’s Commissar to say that "we are most of all interested in a pact with adjacent countries, including Poland and Finland".^^72^^ However, Poland continued to stick to her earlier negative position at these negotiations. Poland’s representatives were trying in every way to play down the importance of such an agreement and, among other things, to limit the range of its signatories. The Polish envoy in Britain E. Raczynski declared, on behalf of his government that Poland agreed to sign only such a convention about the definition of aggression as would include only the neighbours of the USSR, without any other nations having the right to accede to it. That meant ruling out the possibility of Lithuania, Czechoslovakia and other countries ever joining the convention although they had already declared themselves willing to sign it. As a result, the talks to sign the convention were dragged out.

p The Polish government also objected to the convention remaining open to China and Japan, although they were the neighbours of the USSR. Even the Romanian representative at the talks N. Titulescu stated that "Poland is telling by her behaviour to the whole world that she does not want any peace between the USSR and Japan".^^73^^

p The government of Finland was also dragging its feet in defining its attitude to the Soviet proposal, producing all kinds of reservations, including the one about its right to withdraw from the convention at any moment. Germany and Britain were also opposing the signing of the convention.

p Yet the Soviet government’s efforts had their effect. On July 3, 1933, the convention on the definition of aggression was signed by the USSR, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. A similar convention, comprising the USSR, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Turkey and Yugoslavia, and open to any other nation, was signed on July 4, and a convention between the USSR and Lithuania was signed on July 5; Finland subscribed to the convention on July 22.

p The conclusion of that convention was a tangible contribution towards opposing aggression and working out international legal principles designed to help prevent 35 aggression. The definition of aggression contained in the convention has since been widely used in international law. At the same time, that convention, signed by a number of countries of Eastern Europe, was a kind of counterweight of the Four Power Pact which the ruling quarters of the Western powers had at one time tried to set up.

p Litvinov told the World Economic Conference in London that the USSR, consistently abiding by the principle of peaceful coexistence, was willing to develop its relations with all nations, guided by this principle.^^74^^ The British Spectator stated with full reason on July 14, 1933, that the creation of a system of treaties about the definition of aggression was a great success for Soviet diplomacy and a logical upshot of the Soviet Union’s policy of peaceful coexistence.

The Soviet government brought before the World Economic Conference a thoroughly drafted proposal to sign a protocol on economic non-aggression. Under the Soviet draft, all the parties to the protocol were to abide in their policies by the principle of peaceful coexistence of nations irrespective of their social and political systems. They were to renounce discrimination of every shape or form in their economic relations with each other.^^75^^ However, representatives of a number of powers, opposed to the Soviet proposal regarding the definition of aggression, did not want to accept the proposal about economic non-aggression either.