Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to both of our guests. You really complement each other with your presentations.
I'm going to start with you, Mr. Grinius. There is an interesting report coming out of China just today. One of the comments is that the relationship between North Korea and China is more about handshakes, not hugs. I think that's an interesting metaphor for how things have changed. The article is just talking about how right now China has sent a stern letter to Kim and it is a matter of looking at what approaches they can take so they can actually get him to listen. So clearly there is frustration, which we all know, from Beijing.
But your comments are well received, I think, on the idea that we have to have engagement. I remember a couple of years ago I was at a conference. It was actually in the Middle East. There were North Korean representatives there—this is highly unusual—and South Korean representatives. I was talking to one of the former foreign affairs ministers of South Korea, and I said, “What do you think Canada should be doing?” He said, “Stay engaged. We need you to stay engaged.” So I take your point about our needing to present credentials and to stay engaged.
There is concern, though, that the model we were all hoping to see, the six-party model, might not work. I'm just curious as to what the thinking is. If not the six party, are there other models people are talking about in terms of engagement? To just build on that, what is our responsibility? Clearly it's not about Canada acting alone; we all know that. What are your thoughts on that?