Thank you very much, Chair, and to the witnesses.
In the early 2000s, it was common, not just in academic circles but in foreign policy circles, to champion the idea of democracy promotion. The concept basically said that if the world was to be stable and if we were to have peace as much as possible, then democracies should promote democracy as a concept in theory and practice at every opportunity because, among other things, no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other. Democracy is seen as exactly that—a stabilizing force.
It was built into the foreign policies of the United States and even Canada. Other democracies made it a real focal point as well.
After the Iraq war, for reasons that I think will be obvious, the idea fell out of favour entirely. Out of that, in turn, came a view that if democracy was to be lasting, if it was to be achieved in a way that was truly meaningful and if it was to be a stabilizing force on its own, it would have to be organic.
The question that I have builds upon what Mr. Oliphant was raising earlier: How can we, as a middle power here in Canada, best promote democracy in a way that does not impose, but allows for an organic movement towards it in authoritarian environments where obviously any democratic expression is extremely limited?
That's for all of you.