text: the Conference have been de facto enlarged, the interest in contributing to the outcome of the negotiations has stayed rather modest, the well-known outriders or foreriders excepted.' In the last non-members meeting of 1 August, just 12 out of 38 delegations showed up, particularly those which are attending the meetings anyway. The number of non-member States admitted to follow the negotiations as such is not yet a guarantee of their co-operation and even less of their readiness to sign the convention. Efforts from both sides are required to get more participation. Maybe the present non-member status will remain unsatisfactory as long as non-member countries have no access to the so-called regional groups and their opinions normally come to nothing, ending practically in smoke. Some consideration should be given to this point. It would be of particular interest to know the bureau's philosophy in this respect. I have taken up this problem in apprehension of a possible negative outcome of the whole exercise rather than because we were suffering from the low profile of our country as a non-member State. Mr. President, distinguished delegates, time flies, and quite a number of key problems are still unresolved. But universality must be secured as soon as possible. It might be of some help, under these circumstances, if all States of a certain strategic importance would show the flag, i.e. deliver a "declaration of intent" going beyond the Geneva Protocol already confirmed in January 1989 at the Paris Conference. The objection to such an enterprise, of course, will always be: What convention? But we think the work of the Committee has sufficiently progressed to identify the main obligations of the engagement to be entered into. Declared intentions - or obvious mental reservations - to make use of CWs must be denied at once - this is the minimum. What is the 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a conference or negotiation on a specific issue, likely related to weapons or disarmament, given the mention of chemical weapons (CWs) and the Geneva Protocol. The tone is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that the topic is of international significance. The language used is technical and specific, indicating that the issue is complex and requires careful consideration.