text: meetings, the sides reached general agreement that the START treaty will remain in force for 15 years unless superseded by a subsequent agreement or extended by mutual agreement. We are working out the remaining details now here in Geneva . The delegations in Geneva are also working on a host of other important, more technical issues. For example, we are engaged in active discussions concerning verification of mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles, phasing of our reductions, and attribution of warheads to future types of ballistic missiles. Since round XIII began in late January, Ambassador Nazarkin and I, and our respective delegations, have been working hard to fill in the gaps in the treaty text and develop constructive ideas that will meet both countries' desires to resolve all the major issues by the June summit. At the Washington ministerial last week. Secretary Baker and Minister Shevardnadze agreed on a list of issues which they instructed the Geneva delegations to attempt to resolve by the summit. Arguably two of the most important such topics are non-circumvention of the treaty and the details of a solid verification régime - at the core of which is on-site inspection. On the subject of non-circumvention, Ambassador Nazarkin and I are currently continuing the discussions that we addressed with our Ministers in Washington last week. I can report that the sides have made substantial progress on this issue, and that both sides have shown flexibility. A second issue is a verification régime that, both sides agree, will include a unique and unprecedented inspection régime. When historians look back at this treaty, it may well be that the single most important aspect of START was the remarkable inspection procedures that were put into place. Inspectors will visit almost every important strategic military installation of the other 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international diplomacy and negotiations, specifically regarding the START treaty and its implications for strategic military installations. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on detail-oriented and complex issues. The context suggests that the treaty is related to national security and defense, rather than economic development or humanitarian aid.