All of this is also being reflected in this forum. The division of Conference members into political and regional groupings is losing its previous significance, for it does not symbolize necessarily conflicting views but, rather, different circles of consultations. In fact, existing divisions must not reflect real differences in approaches to disarmament and international security. Nor is there any justification for attempts to replace the East-West division with the North-South dichotomy. In the field of international security, that is artificial and dangerous. There are, of course, differences in approaches to disarmament and there are different areas of special interests. These differences, however, are not necessarily related to membership or non-membership of military alliances. The Conference has ceased to be a tripartite body. Multilateralism in our negotiations is acquiring a new meaning. Mr. President, new conditions also demand new thinking about national and international security. It is probably true that in the years to come "mutual deterrence" or "minimal deterrence" will still be considered as an indispensable part of international stability. If we want, however, to look into the future, we must think beyond "deterrence" and conceive another basis of international security. Under the circumstances which are now emerging, the concept of collective security embodied in the United Nations Charter is becoming more important than ever before in the post-war period. If our intention is to create new guarantees of global security shared by all nations, the present historic transition in international relations must be a transition from bloc security to the effective United Nations system of collective security. Practical implementation of this system and its efficient functioning could be of extreme value for disarmament efforts. It would help negotiate disarmament treaties; it would contribute to compliance with such treaties; it would create important guarantees of security for States in case of violation of disarmament obligations.
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing international relations, disarmament, and security, with a focus on the United Nations and the transition from a bloc-based security system to a collective security system. It does not mention specific economic or industrial policies, nor does it discuss natural resources, agriculture, or environmental issues. The text is more concerned with the theoretical and practical aspects of international security and disarmament, and its implications for global stability.

**Category**
International relations, Security