I would hope my colleagues could chip in here, because you're asking for a personal reflection of what we can do.
I had a very good colleague, who was the Norwegian ambassador from Sri Lanka, and he did take me through this process. But it was at a different time, in the sense that there was a stalemate in the fighting—neither side had the upper hand and neither side was under threat of imminent demise—so it was possible to get them talking in third countries. They weren't going to talk in Colombo or in Sri Lanka, and they had a lot of that early discussion in Norway. Norway and the Norwegian foreign service officers who brokered that are to be commended. So for a number of years, Norway kind of focused their aid, development, and political efforts on it and kept both sides talking.
The longevity of the accord was due to there being a stalemate. There were suicide bombings, and there was military, but no one had the upper hand. That all fell apart, of course, when the Sri Lankan military found that the Tigers were now at risk and they were able to smash them fairly quickly.
That's the historical side.
The way forward is clearly around the question of how you get representatives--and that's a good example. I know there are many people around this table who in the last few weeks have met with different groups from Sri Lanka, whether Tamils or Sinhalese. There have been discussions. Our efforts on the ground in Sri Lanka and our efforts here.... Someone made the comment that we have the single largest diaspora in the world. If you can get the moderates talking together about the betterment of their homelands, whether it's from here or there.... Can Canada do that? I think there has to be receptivity on the other side--which is what happened the first time--and right now it's not there. Hopefully it will be in two weeks' time.