aimed at achieving a draft agreement for the summit meeting between two leaders. His questions, in fact, can be summarized as these: “Do you trust me? Do you give me, as a person who knows everything about Cy- 7 prus, the mandate to listen to you, to put the minimum requirements on the table for you to agree upon, and then to conclude them at a summit meeting?” It was to those questions that we said, “Yes.” 64. We attended all three stages with good will and with an ardent desire to see the end of the artificially created Cyprus problem, which has threatened my peo- ple for two decades and which continues to threaten them. We helped the Secretary-General at all stages and accepted his draft agreement for a comprehensive settlement of the problem, 65. The stage of negotiations has ended with this third round of proximity talks, and the draft agreement pre- pared and presented by the Secretary-General must be submitted as it is, for conclusion, for the official approval of the two leaders at the next summit meeting. No rewriting, no modification, no addition can be made on the text of this draft agreement. The only point, as far as we are concerned, that remains to be discussed pertains to certaindates that it was agreed to fill in at the high-level meeting. As the Secretary-General under- lined on many occasions and as has also been explicitly and clearly specified and stipulated in the text itself, the draft agreement constitutes, with all its components, an integrated whole. By its nature, this draft agreement is not open and does not allow for the introduction of reservations of any kind. With good will, I am sure the draft agreement can be concluded and sent to the 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a diplomatic document discussing a peace agreement between two leaders, specifically addressing the Cyprus problem, which has been ongoing for two decades. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a focus on international relations and politics.

**Category**
International Relations, Politics