text: earnest an instrument of international law where this proves possible. If the Conference on Disarmament fails to fulfil this task entrusted to it even in fields where there is consensus, it is not only faced with a drastic loss of credibility. Permit me to say a few final words about a few slogans which seem to guide our work. How do we understand the notion of consensus which I have just cited? We work by consensus. Otherwise one cannot come to an agreement on negotiated material, of course. That again presupposes some flexibility by negotiators and their capacity to negotiate. Extreme positions by one side provoke extremes on another side. In some cases that leads to not having a negotiated mandate at all. In other cases we lack a work programme. But in our most advanced field of negotiations we might create a credibility problem for ourselves, as for the world outside this chamber, if we continue a negotiation "as if". I have often wondered how much we have been really looking for consensus in many fields, or whether positions are just there to fill empty spaces. Another guiding principle of our work is the security of the States we represent. Security is the most important single objective of any Government. The question is: If all other parameters change, can the perception of security remain unaffected? We ambassadors in this room are not here to make politics, we implement it. But if we cannot agree on almost anything, it is seeming proof that world and regional policies have not changed sufficiently to allow us to draw the consequences. Yet this is not true: world politics and regional politics have changed considerably. In this room - do we really 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international relations and diplomacy, specifically the challenges and principles guiding the work of ambassadors and negotiators in the field of disarmament and security. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that the text is related to international law, politics, and governance.