text: expressed its rejection of this kind of weapon. However, in spite of the efforts made by the Conference on Disarmament and the organs which preceded it, the international community today, 65 years later, remains without a convention totally prohibiting chemical weapons. Without wishing to make an exhaustive inventory of the deliberations on this subject, it is worth recalling that, at the end of the 1960s, hardly had the negotiations on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons been concluded than it was recognized that verification was one of the main obstacles to the conclusion of a convention totally prohibiting chemical and biological weapons. Despite this, it is being proposed that we draw a distinction between chemical and biological weapons and negotiate an agreement which would prohibit only the latter. In introducing this proposal, document ENDC/231 of 16 August 1968, the representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. Mulley, said: "I recognize that the greatest difficulty we have to face is that of verification, since understandably parties to any arms control or disarmament agreement are entitled to be reasonably satisfied to the greatest practicable extent that other parties are carrying out their obligations under the agreement. This principle is well illustrated by the safeguards requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (ENDC/226, article III). After much study, we have been obliged to conclude that no comparable system is possible for microbiological or chemical weapons. Any such system would be so intrusive as to be quite unacceptable, and even then could not be fully effective. The principal difficulty arises from the fact that almost all the material and equipment with which we are trying to deal have legitimate peaceful purposes; and it would be wrong to inhibit work of real value to humanity, in combating disease, for example, and impracticable to inspect every laboratory in every 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international relations and disarmament, specifically the efforts to prohibit chemical and biological weapons. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a focus on international agreements and negotiations. The text also touches on the challenges of verifying compliance with such agreements, which suggests a focus on the international community and its efforts to regulate weapons.