Thank you, monsieur le président. Thank you, Colonel Irwin.
I am going to take a few moments to ask some questions about parts of your presentation. I assure you that my questions on the matter demonstrate my deep respect for the work of the armed forces.
While some of the things that Mr. Norlock said sound very nice, I do not believe in the slightest that your work should come down to handing out sandwiches somewhere in the middle of Africa. But I do think that sending young people into the line of fire and into minefields is a very weighty decision. That is exactly what we have to do as part of NATO. I believe that we have the right to humbly ask a few questions. I have never been in a combat zone myself. I have never had to provide that kind of service to the country.
Since article 5 was written—and I refer to page 6 of your report—times have changed. Some of the problems we face are not clearly defined and that was not the case at the time. It was clear then that we could talk about one nation being another's aggressor. In your report, we read a lot about piracy, terrorism and cyberspace. These are all realities that have no national roots. Countries are not necessarily involved.
In cyberspace, for example, the threat can be from a group that is not national. It may originate somewhere in Asia but may use cyberspace to attack facilities in South Africa, for example. This is a completely different reality from the one that prevailed when article 5 was written. My question comes from those observations.
In terms of the upcoming negotiations and discussions, is there a desire to establish parameters so that a simple man in the street like me can understand under which criteria and under which circumstances NATO will or will not become involved? Do you follow the drift of my question?