text: fields. Therefore, we see no reason why we should not start thinking about our agenda too, which can be done without having to question real priorities. I say "real" not because they are written out in our decalogue, or in the final document of SSOD I, but because in their greater part they are still topical. We would want, for example, conventional weapons and confidence-building measures to be given more attention in our future debate on the Conference's agenda. While not ignoring any problem on the agenda, our efforts, in the immediate work of our Conference, should continue to be focused on three priority questions, namely, items 1, 4 and 5. By treating these questions in a substantial way, and by making real progress, we can strengthen the role of the Conference. We support, of course, all the efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the Conference by improving its method of work and its organization. However, our credibility will depend, first of all, on how capable we are in solving problems which are ripe for it, in clarifying that which should be clarified as soon as possible and in defining that which should be defined. In doing so we must always keep in mind that our Conference is a negotiating body, the ultimate aim of which is the dialogue on all negotiating, pre-negotiating and deliberative levels, leading to the concluding of disarmament agreements. CD/PV.567 4 (Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia) Among these priorities come the negotiations on the convention on chemical weapons, as most promising in beinq resolved. We believe we are now in a truly critical phase, which cannot even stand slowing down without risking to fall back. We ask ourselves why, after obvious progress in 1987 and 1988, after repeated political impulses from numerous international gatherings in 1989 and 1990, the negotiating pace seems to have been more or 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international diplomacy and negotiations, specifically regarding disarmament agreements and the role of a conference. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a focus on international relations and politics. The mention of specific agreements, such as the convention on chemical weapons, and the emphasis on progress and dialogue also support this interpretation.