In terms of negotiation of the treaty, no, not to my knowledge. However, certainly in the very large amount of programming that has been allocated since the treaty came into effect in 1997, a large percentage of that is considered development assistance. It has been by other countries as well. For instance, under the most recent round of the OECD definitions, they've included land mine clearance as an ODA activity. Certainly, right from the beginning, land mine victim rehabilitation was considered ODA activity. So, yes, we've spent development assistance.
An important point that I should bring out applies to quite a bit of the peace and security programming. The calculation of how much of that we report as ODA often happens at the end of the fiscal year, after you've undertaken a project. You start from what the needs are and, in a particular situation, what your capability to respond is. You provide the kind of assistance that's required, such as, let's say, police training. Then, at the end of the year or overall project, you go back and look through your expenditures and determine how much of them fall within the agreed upon criteria and can be reported to the development assistance committee. In that respect, that's why we end up with different percentages—and I can give you some of those percentages, depending on the activity.
The peace and security kinds of activities start off as having that as a goal. Some of those activities contribute to poverty alleviation directly and some of them fall outside the ODA definitions completely, and they're reported after the fact. That would be true of the land mine activities, although over time they have increasingly become considered to be ODA.