text: less slowed down. Having in mind that the complexity of problems requires workable and durable solutions, we are finding it more and more difficult to see where we now stand. Political consensus is constantly being renewed, commitment of intentions reaffirmed, convergence of views is permanently evolving, the position of main possessors and producers of chemical weapons are practically identical, and still we have the impression we are turnina in circles and, at times, even that which seemed agreed upon is questioned. We do not vet have answers to these questions and they might even be too criticallv intoned. We have to start, however, asking them instead of being satisfied with marginal advances. This has to be done the more as we believe that the participation of a greater number of non-member States in negotiations, an improved mandate of the Committee itself, the submission of important bilateral documents on the destruction of chemical weapons and production capacities, the generalization of efforts in carrving out trial inspection, the convening of fruitful meetings with chemical industrial representatives - create a realistic basis for speedier work. We see the two big Powers' agreement on the gradual elimination of chemical weapons and the halting of their production as a confirmation of their orientation towards concluding the multilateral convention we are negotiating in the Conference on Disarmament. The ambiguity on retaining the last stage of destruction of all arsenals poses, however, a number of questions related to the conceptual basis and security purpose of the convention. With no aim of questioninq the proclaimed intention wherebv such ambiguitv serves as an incentive to achieve the convention's universality, we are inclined to believe that in practice it will serve as an incentive to the production and even proliferation of chemical weapons. It is needless to 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international relations, specifically the negotiations and agreements regarding the elimination and destruction of chemical weapons. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a high-level discussion or declaration. The text also touches on the concept of security and the potential consequences of certain agreements. Given these factors, it is likely that the text is related to international affairs and disarmament.