text: Negotiations on the reduction of short-range nuclear forces are expected shortly after an agreement on conventional forces is signed. And once those negotiations are under way, NATO will propose the mutual elimination of all nuclear artillery shells from Europe. So there is an air of optimism in Europe and an expectation of rapid progress in both conventional and nuclear arms control. The recent United States/Soviet bilateral agreement on chemical weapons is a significant and welcome advance. It should give a new impetus to the multilateral negotiations here in the Conference on Disarmament. But most would say that, in contrast to the other arms control negotiations I have mentioned, the search for a multilateral global chemical weapons ban has already taken too long. We have to look back to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the last multilateral agreement on chemical weapons. That treaty governed use in war only, not production or possession. Recent years have seen a spread of chemical weapons. More countries now possess these weapons than since 1945. There was one major conflict in the 1980s (the Gulf War) in which chemical weapons were used on a greater scale than in any conflict since the First World War. The leader of one country recently boasted of his possession of new binary weapons. Has the genie escaped the bottle? Can we still achieve a global chemical weapons ban? Do enough countries actually want a convention? Or are we engaged here in an elaborate charade, going through the motions without affecting the main issues? A process which produces an ever longer and more complex "rolling text", but which leaves the key problems unsolved? Talks have been going on in Geneva about a chemical weapons ban since the 1960s. First in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference, then in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, and since 1979 in this body. The 
analysis: The text discusses the topic of arms control and disarmament, specifically focusing on the negotiations and agreements related to chemical weapons. It highlights the importance of achieving a global chemical weapons ban, but also expresses concerns about the slow progress and potential lack of commitment from some countries. The text does not touch on economic development, natural resources, industry, transport, communication, health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, or culture. The discussion is centered around the international relations and security aspects of the issue.