text: comprehensive and global convention effectively banning chemical weapons exist. I cannot help but observe that we are in many instances discussing CD/PV.554 5 (Mr, von Stülpnagel. Federal Republic of Germany ) the same issues time and again, looking at them from various angles, trying to elaborate certain parts further. I have had an impression of déjà vu many times. Belabouring problems is not necessarily the best recipe for arriving at better solutions. Rather, the risk is real that we will get bogged down in unnecessary details and lose sight of the imperatives of our task. We have lately started an extensive drafting exercise which in my view is - before we have come to the necessary principal conclusions - a rather lofty undertaking. A question still persists: How can we make the sense of urgency and resolve prevailing in Vienna and in the bilateral Geneva negotiations contagious so that we too can achieve something concrete? If we cannot come to grips with the early conclusion of a global CW convention, we will no longer be able to demonstrate that multilateral disarmament can keep abreast of international developments and disarmament and arms control efforts on other levels. Having said this, I have wondered a number of times about the protracted and vigorous yet futile debates on other items on the agenda of our Conference. Knowing full well that at this juncture we are not able to bridge existing differences and that these items are not ripe for serious negotiations, we continue to dwell on them with relentless joy. For chemical weapons at least we had the Paris consensus of 149 States. For the other subjects on our agenda there is certainly much less consensus, much less chance to get anywhere. The Conference on Disarmament is a negotiating forum, indeed the only international negotiating forum, and should negotiate in 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic speech or statement discussing the progress of a conference on disarmament, specifically focusing on the negotiation of a global convention to ban chemical weapons. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating that it is likely a official document or statement. The content of the speech suggests that it is related to international relations, diplomacy, and disarmament, which are all closely tied to the field of international relations.