text: the President of the Conference in March last year. The Conference had been prevented from substantial work on the agenda item since 1984 due to the deadlock caused by conflicting group positions on the question of the mandate. Therefore, Ambassador Yamada embarked upon a process of a series of CD/PV.565 5 (Mr, Donowaki, Japan) dialogues with each delegation on an informal and individual basis, in search of a way to disentangle ourselves from the impasse. Successive Presidents for the remaining months of last year encouraged Ambassador Yamada to continue his consultations. As early as at the end of last year's session of the Conference, Ambassador Yamada was convinced that the draft mandate contained in CD/863, which in turn was produced by Ambassador Vejvoda when he was the President of the Conference in 1987, could in fact be used as a basis to work out a consensus mandate, and this was stated in Ambassador Yamada's farewell speech before he left Geneva. At the beginning of this year's session of the Conference, as was stated by the President of the Conference at the time, Ambassador Wagenmakers of the Netherlands, I willingly agreed to continue the consultations Initiated by my predecessor. As a result of the continued consultations, I also could reconfirm for myself the conviction that the draft mandate in CD/863 could be used to disentangle ourselves from the impasse of conflicting group positions. By the end of February this year, all the groups, except for the Group of 21, expressed their readiness to take the draft mandate contained in CD/863 as a basis for negotiating a consensus mandate, without prejudice to their respective preferred mandates. However, due to the non-negotiating character of the Vejvoda draft mandate, the Group of 21 had to take a little longer time to consult within the Group. On 14 March, at the presidential 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing diplomatic efforts and negotiations within an international conference, focusing on finding a consensus on a specific issue (the mandate). The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a context related to international relations or diplomacy. The content does not seem to be related to specific sectors like industry, agriculture, or healthcare, but rather to the process of achieving a consensus among nations.