positions held by the parties. It is, probably, an axiom that each of us is almost always more pleased by his own initial position, than by the compromise that is reached when positions are merged. But, you know, the essence and the drama of negotiations both lie in the fact that reaching agreements inevitably entails sacrificing positions that seem to us beyond reproach. In any case, we are for the serious discussion of this proposal and its various aspects and the finding of a mutually acceptable solution. I do, however, feel that we would be avoiding unnecessary polemics if from the very outset there is eorre clarity: this proposal does not affect the obligation of complete destruction of chemical weapons set out, as you know, in article I of the draft convention. CD/PV.567 12 (Mr. Batsanov. USSR) The Soviet delegation would like to confirm its position in favour of an unconditional ban on the use of chemical weapons within the framework of the draft of the future convention. In conclusion, I think it necessary to emphasize that, as has already repeatedly been declared by the Soviet delegation, by the Soviet Union, including together with the United States, the best long-term solution to the problem of the spread of chemical weapons is, in our view, the conclusion of the convention that we are working on here, that is, a convention on the general and complete prohibition of chemical weapons. Mr. LEDOGAR (United States of America): I would just like to make a few brief remarks also directed to the statement we have just heard from the spokesman for the Group of 21. Like my Soviet colleague, the United States has very similar reactions to the comments by the Group of 21 on the bilateral agreement reached between the United States and the USSR in Washington on 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a diplomatic discussion about a proposal related to the prohibition of chemical weapons, specifically the destruction of chemical weapons and the conclusion of a convention on the general and complete prohibition of chemical weapons. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting a high-level international discussion or negotiation.

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