gradually receded tothebackground whilehistory !:anitsdisastrous course. This Organization isbetterequipped tosolvemanyofthemajorproblems besetting the worldthantheLeagueofNations everwas.Surely, thecrisisintheJllJltilateral approach tointernational relations isnotsomuchoneofmethodasofwill,the willtoresorttothemethodsatourdisposal andtousethemproperly.NP/at A/110/pv.9 101 I(Mr.vandenBroek,Netherlands) IsubaitthatIamnottheonlyonewhowouldwishthenumberofGene~al A~sembly resolutions toberadically reduced, ifonlybecause theircurrency is heavily devaluated byinflation. Secondly, thereisaclearneedforrestoring the process ofrealnegotiations beforedrafttesolutions areputtoavote.What· matters isobviously nottowinamajority somehow, inmanycasesalltooeasily, buttogatherthesupport ofthoseMemberStatesthatiftpractice bearthe responsibility inacertain situation orhavethemeanstocarryoutGeneral Aese~ly reco_endations. Thirdly, andinthesamevein,weshouldnotseek short-term advantages forpolitical expediency but,onthecontrary, wesh~~ldaim atlong-term progress increating amorehumaneandpeaceful world.Finally, once atrulynegotiated decision hasbeentaken, weshouldnotstepasideasifthe sUbject matterweresettled bytheadoption ofaresolutionJinstead weshould reali~ethatwordsholdtrueonlyiftranslated intoaction. Adisturbing gapbetween oratory andpractical resultsistobefoundinthe fieldofarmscontrol anddisarmamentJ for,whatever successes theUnitedNations mayclaimtohaveachieved inits40yearsofexistence, itisasaddening truth thatwe,itsMembers, havefailedsofartobuildacollective framework forthe maintenance ofinternational peaceandsecurity. Ifthepresentstateoftheworld showssignsofincoherence anddisintegration, thisiscertainly oneofitsroot causes. ThedreamofpeaceisasvividaswhentheunitedNations wasfounded, but ourpeoples areatthesametimeanxiously awarethatthelevelofarmaments has reached apointhigherthaneverbefore. Easysolutions arenotathand,but a~leastweshouldavoiddevelopments running outofcontrol andtrytoabidebytheagreements reached sofar.TheNR/at A/40/PV.9· 102 (Mr.vandenBroek,Netherlands) TreatyontheNon-Proliferation ofNuclear Weaponsiscertainly nottheendofthe debateonnuclear disarmament butitisanessential instrument inthesecurity interest ofallofus.Theobjective ofnuclear disarmament, already IIOst difficult toachieve, wouldberatherbeyondreachifthenumberofnuclear Powers \ weretoincrease. Itwas,therefore, encouraging thattheparties totheTreatyon theNon-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons demonstrated, attheirrecently concluded ReviewConference inGeneva,theircontinuing support fortheTreaty. Byadopting afinaldeclaration byconsensus, despite awiderangeofdiffering viewson disarmament, theyhavestrengthened thatTreaty's credibility andvitality. Itgoeswithout sayingthattheSovietUnionandtheUnitedStatescarry primary responsibility forcurtailing thenuclear armsrace..Equallyitgoes without sayingthatthepeoplesoftheworldlookforward withexpecta.tion tothe forthcoming meeting between theleadersofthosetwoPowers. OUrhopeisthatit mayproduce anewstimulus tothearmscontrol negotiations atpresent underwayin Genevaandthatitwillleadtoanintensified dialogue oneffective agreements aimedatpreventing anarllSraceinspaceandterminating itonearth,atliaiting andreducing nuclear armsandatstrengthening strategic stability. Substantial reductions andpreferably complete elimination ofland-based intermediate-range missiles areofspecific relevance totheNetherlands. onthis matter myGovernment hastakenaposition ofutmostrestraint. InJune1984we madeastrongappealtotheSovietUniontoreverse thetrendofthe ever-increasing build-up ofSS-20missiles, inwhichcasewewouldbeprepared to forgodeployment ofintermediate-range nuclear missiles onourterritory. Unfortunately, ourparticipation indeployment ofintermediate-range nuclear missiles nowseemstohavebecomeinevitable, sincethatappealtotheSovietUnion·mvat A/40/PV.9 103 (Mr.vandenBroek,Netherlands) hareaained unheeded. Nevertheless, forourpart,together withourallies, we shallnotceasetocontribute toconstructive andiJlaginative thinking onhowan equitable, balanced andverifiable agreeaent canbeattained inGeneva onthis category ofweapons. 1'01'yearsnow.theprohibition ofche.tcal weapons hasheadedtheagendaofthe GenevaConference onDisaraa.ent. Inanunprecedented gesture theCOnference has decided toextenditsinformal consultations onthesubject whilethisAssembly is insession. Theurgency ofacomprehensive agreement isallthemoreapparent in viewofrecentviolations oftheGenevaProtocol banning theuseofsuchweapons andtheproBP,eCt thatagr~ing nusberofcountries mightconsider acquisition of chealcal aeansofwarfare.
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a speech or statement by a representative of the Netherlands at the United Nations General Assembly. The speaker discusses various topics related to international relations, disarmament, and arms control, with a focus on the role of the United Nations and the importance of collective action. The text does not mention economic development, natural resources, or environmental issues, nor does it discuss health, education, employment, or humanitarian aid. It also does not fall under the categories of agriculture, forestry, fishing, industry, transport, or communication. The topic of science and technology is indirectly mentioned in the context of nuclear disarmament, but it is not the primary focus of the text. Therefore, it seems that the most fitting category for this text is International Relations and Security.

**Category**
International Relations, Security