been making. Our text of yesterday envisaged three steps. I Ihave already explained that first, in urging the parties to co-operate fully, we asked them in our original text as a first step to stop fighting for 72 hours in order to allow the Secretary-General to work out with them the details and other aspects of a lasting cease-fire. The revised text, which we are co- sponsoring with five members of the non-aligned group in the Council, has a very similar structure and it too urges the parties to the conflict to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission. It too goes on 1.0 ask him to work out with them mutually acceptable terms for a cease-fire, and it too envisages United Nations observers who might monitor that cease-fire. All this, of course, in both texts would be a preparation for the resumption on a more format basis of the negotiations which were derailed, shall we say, and which we want to get back on the rails. 41. The point of difference-and this is the only point that I want to make on this-is that our revised text does not explicitly ask the parties to agree to stop fighting for 72 hours. It does, however, just as our text of yesterday did, urge them to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission, and we would hope that, their having heard all that has been said here, that co-operation will in fact take the form of ensuring, in so far as the fighting is concerned, that the proper basis will be available for the Secretary- General t’o do what we are asking him to do in both versions of the proposal. In both versions we are asking him to do the same thing, namely, to enter into 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a diplomatic document, discussing a proposal for a cease-fire and negotiations between conflicting parties. It does not mention specific economic, environmental, or scientific topics, but rather focuses on political and humanitarian aspects.

**Category**
Humanitarian aid and relief, International relations