text: A slight apprehension has, however, emerged recently concerning the pace of progress in the negotiations. For a country like my own which has never produced or possessed chemical weapons - nor will it ever - the idea of linking the destruction of all chemical weapons to the adherence of certain categories of States has caused uncertainty concerning the desired universal adherence to the Convention. Such a linkage could, I believe, lead to the continuing existence of such weapons by, inter alia, inducing States which have not possessed chemical weapons to acquire them prior to the entry into force of the convention. Such an approach also implies legitimizing acts of coercion of a weaker State or States by a stronger State, thence endangering the goal of universal adherence. There is a shared conviction that one of the CD/PV.568 13 (Mc.-Wayarabi, Indonesia) most feasible ways to attract the adherence of States which as a result of particular circumstances possess - or will possess - chemical weapons lies in the need to set up an appropriate approach to discourage such States from choosing the chemical weapons option. There is also widespread belief that, as we wish to conclude a convention with universal adherence, then we should, indeed, consider the interests of the majority of States which do not possess, or intend to possess, chemical weapons. This implies that the convention should provide a guarantee for the unimpeded right of every State party to develop, produce, use, exchange and transfer chemicals and chemical technology for peaceful purposes. The convention should not hinder international co-operation, nor trade in chemicals for peaceful purposes. As a non-chemical-weapon State, my country has always stood - and will continue to do so - for the total prohibition and destruction of all existing chemical weapons. Although we do not possess such weapons, there is a 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic statement discussing the negotiations for a treaty related to chemical weapons. It raises concerns about the pace of progress, the linking of chemical weapons destruction to certain states' adherence, and the need to ensure universal adherence to the convention. The text also highlights the importance of considering the interests of states that do not possess or intend to possess chemical weapons.