text: going far beyond imagination. To bring about a consensus of 40 States parties appears sometimes nearly impossible particularly if no deviation from the ordinary diplomatic rites, as for instance advance inquiries, is permitted. The situation becomes even more delicate if universality of the convention is envisaged, because this would actually require the approval of States non-members of the Conference, since complete adherence is one of the main concerns. Nevertheless, a certain number of topics could be brought ashore this year, and numerous subjects are in a high degree of maturity. But on the whole, despite intensive efforts, relatively little has been achieved. Ambassador Morel in his last week's brilliant analysis of the future path to take has rightly pointed out, in our view, that general hesitation has got hold of the Committee. Indeed, an atmosphere of confidence has not been established to a sufficient degree and the feeling that we are sitting in the same boat has up to now not seemed to prevail everywhere. A considerable amount of optimism is required to sustain the belief that the convention in its present contours could be finished by end of next year if the continuing slow chessplay is perpetuated. One of the root causes of our difficulties lies in the behaviour of States feeling themselves not in a situation permitting their renunciation of chemical weapons or, at least, of an option, and this must inevitably produce reactions of the great Powers - namely to maintain security stocks. The problem is how to bring about a change, how to get out of the vicious circle. Ambassador Morel's recommendation, based on similar ideas originated earlier, is to use the tool of a ministerial conference, a well-known political instrument to get the impetus for the final phase. In order to be precise, I quote in French: (translated from French)
analysis: The text discusses the challenges and difficulties in achieving a consensus among states regarding a chemical weapons convention. It highlights the importance of universality and the need to address the concerns of states that are hesitant to renounce chemical weapons or maintain security stocks. The text also mentions the proposal of a ministerial conference to accelerate the process. These issues seem to be related to international relations, security, and diplomacy rather than specific economic, social, or environmental issues.